100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: For JW Who Believe "Jesus Christ is not God" | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
As far as I can tell, the idea that "gods" are appeased by blood sacrifices is simply taken for granted that this is the way gods are. Back in the days when the Old Testament tales were written it was a common believe that gods need to be appeased by blood sacrifices, etc. This is interwoven into Greek Mythology and just about every other mythology ever written by human cultures. So this is a common thread in myths and superstitions. People "paid homage" to the gods because at that time they believed that the gods were responsible for natural disasters, disease, mental illness (which they saw as being possessed by a demon), etc.
So that's the origin of this whole idea of blood sacrifices to appease the gods. It was just a common human superstition common to just about every culture imaginable. The more I read the Old Testament, the more I'm convinced that it is just another mythology. It doesn't represent anything significantly different. It even has God turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, etc. It contains a lot of silly things no different from any other man-made myths. ~~~~~ But getting back to Jesus being the ultimate blood sacrifice made by God himself to "pay" for the sins of man,... well,... this becomes extremely problematic for me on many different levels. First off, what sense does it make for a God to make a blood sacrifice unto himself? How can a God appease himself in this way? It also makes no sense that his had to be "paid" to Satan to appease Satan. We can't very well have God offering up his son as an appeasement to Satan to pay for the sins of man. So the only way the appeasement can even work at all is if it is indeed made TO God. So that's highly problematic for me. An appeasement made TO God BY God makes no sense to me. ~~~~ It also makes no sense in terms of two wrongs somehow making a right. In other words, let's say that some guy raped and murdered someone's young daughter. Then after that he has a change of heart and asks Jesus to forgive his sins. So what does Jesus say to him, "No problem, I got you covered. I was brutally beaten and nailed to a pole to PAY for you having raped and murdered that nice little girl". What? How would that pay for having raped and murdered the little girl? So it makes things alright as long as some totally innocent perfect person is beaten and nailed to a pole? What sense does that even begin to make? This whole idea seems to be based on an idea that as long as someone "pay" via some sort of brutal painful beating, that's going to make everything just fine and dandy. This whole idea is extremely problematic for me. And to be perfectly honest with you, it's just totally unacceptable, as far as I'm concerned. There's got to be something wrong here. Well, just like the last time we talked about religion, I feel you make several very good points when you speak Abra.
I dont like the idea of bloody sacrifices for God either, nor do I think that you should be able to sin, and ask for forgiveness from God, and you are suddenly washed clean of sin, and brand new in Christ. I do understand that people change, yes, but if all I have to do is ask God to forgive me over and over, than what incentive does that give me to live a sinless life? And as before, I do think that the way you look at God is very beautiful. You see all of the good things that the bible says that God represented, minus the stories of cruelty and death, due to God, and thats not a bad way to believe. You made several other good points too, but I think we understand each other well enough, that I dont need to quote them all. And as far as being "scum" if you dont follow the word of Christ. Im not sure that all Christians feel that way, although im sure since they have their beliefs, and you have yours, it takes an open minded Christian, like myself, to be on friendly terms, with someone who believes different than me, and I belileve different from them. But ill say it again. Live and Let Live!! No one really needs be concerned about others sexual orientations, or religions, just because they are different. Do what you want, and let them do what they want. As long as no one is being harmed in the process, than keep to YOUR buisness. I think its going to be rather interesting to hear, what I have to say, after reading the entire bible. I am still standing on neutral ground, I believe in God, I feel his presence in my life, I worship him, I love him, and believe he loves and protects me, but as far as what my chosen religion will be, that remains to be seen. For now, im studying Christianity. And just like Abra, if I find too many disturbing things that I dont like, I wont support that religion, and will probably not even have a specific religion. But I will always, no matter what, have God!And I dont think it has to be all or nothing to do that, at this point in my thinking. I dont like the idea of bloody sacrifices for God either, nor do I think that you should be able to sin, and ask for forgiveness from God, and you are suddenly washed clean of sin, and brand new in Christ. I do understand that people change, yes, but if all I have to do is ask God to forgive me over and over, than what incentive does that give me to live a sinless life? Very true. It doesn't work that way though. You can not go steal something one day, ask for forgiveness, then steal something else shortly after that. That would then make your asking for forgiveness be in vein. With asking for forgiveness, comes repentance of which you're asking forgiveness of. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I can tell, the idea that "gods" are appeased by blood sacrifices is simply taken for granted that this is the way gods are. Back in the days when the Old Testament tales were written it was a common believe that gods need to be appeased by blood sacrifices, etc. This is interwoven into Greek Mythology and just about every other mythology ever written by human cultures. So this is a common thread in myths and superstitions. People "paid homage" to the gods because at that time they believed that the gods were responsible for natural disasters, disease, mental illness (which they saw as being possessed by a demon), etc.
So that's the origin of this whole idea of blood sacrifices to appease the gods. It was just a common human superstition common to just about every culture imaginable. The more I read the Old Testament, the more I'm convinced that it is just another mythology. It doesn't represent anything significantly different. It even has God turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, etc. It contains a lot of silly things no different from any other man-made myths. ~~~~~ But getting back to Jesus being the ultimate blood sacrifice made by God himself to "pay" for the sins of man,... well,... this becomes extremely problematic for me on many different levels. First off, what sense does it make for a God to make a blood sacrifice unto himself? How can a God appease himself in this way? It also makes no sense that his had to be "paid" to Satan to appease Satan. We can't very well have God offering up his son as an appeasement to Satan to pay for the sins of man. So the only way the appeasement can even work at all is if it is indeed made TO God. So that's highly problematic for me. An appeasement made TO God BY God makes no sense to me. ~~~~ It also makes no sense in terms of two wrongs somehow making a right. In other words, let's say that some guy raped and murdered someone's young daughter. Then after that he has a change of heart and asks Jesus to forgive his sins. So what does Jesus say to him, "No problem, I got you covered. I was brutally beaten and nailed to a pole to PAY for you having raped and murdered that nice little girl". What? How would that pay for having raped and murdered the little girl? So it makes things alright as long as some totally innocent perfect person is beaten and nailed to a pole? What sense does that even begin to make? This whole idea seems to be based on an idea that as long as someone "pay" via some sort of brutal painful beating, that's going to make everything just fine and dandy. This whole idea is extremely problematic for me. And to be perfectly honest with you, it's just totally unacceptable, as far as I'm concerned. There's got to be something wrong here. Well, just like the last time we talked about religion, I feel you make several very good points when you speak Abra.
I dont like the idea of bloody sacrifices for God either, nor do I think that you should be able to sin, and ask for forgiveness from God, and you are suddenly washed clean of sin, and brand new in Christ. I do understand that people change, yes, but if all I have to do is ask God to forgive me over and over, than what incentive does that give me to live a sinless life? And as before, I do think that the way you look at God is very beautiful. You see all of the good things that the bible says that God represented, minus the stories of cruelty and death, due to God, and thats not a bad way to believe. You made several other good points too, but I think we understand each other well enough, that I dont need to quote them all. And as far as being "scum" if you dont follow the word of Christ. Im not sure that all Christians feel that way, although im sure since they have their beliefs, and you have yours, it takes an open minded Christian, like myself, to be on friendly terms, with someone who believes different than me, and I belileve different from them. But ill say it again. Live and Let Live!! No one really needs be concerned about others sexual orientations, or religions, just because they are different. Do what you want, and let them do what they want. As long as no one is being harmed in the process, than keep to YOUR buisness. I think its going to be rather interesting to hear, what I have to say, after reading the entire bible. I am still standing on neutral ground, I believe in God, I feel his presence in my life, I worship him, I love him, and believe he loves and protects me, but as far as what my chosen religion will be, that remains to be seen. For now, im studying Christianity. And just like Abra, if I find too many disturbing things that I dont like, I wont support that religion, and will probably not even have a specific religion. But I will always, no matter what, have God!And I dont think it has to be all or nothing to do that, at this point in my thinking. I dont like the idea of bloody sacrifices for God either, nor do I think that you should be able to sin, and ask for forgiveness from God, and you are suddenly washed clean of sin, and brand new in Christ. I do understand that people change, yes, but if all I have to do is ask God to forgive me over and over, than what incentive does that give me to live a sinless life? Very true. It doesn't work that way though. You can not go steal something one day, ask for forgiveness, then steal something else shortly after that. That would then make your asking for forgiveness be in vein. With asking for forgiveness, comes repentance of which you're asking forgiveness of. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So your saying that God reads your heart when you ask for forgiveness from him, and he can tell if you are truely sincere in wanting his forgiveness, and dont intend to repeat the same or other sins? Yes. Words are easy to say, people say lie or insincere words all the time. Actions speak louder then words. If repentance is not done, it would be that same as beating the crap out of someone. Then asking their forgiveness and you saying "sorry bro, didn't mean it" Then turn around and beat the crap out of him again later on. Then asking for forgiveness again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So your saying that God reads your heart when you ask for forgiveness from him, and he can tell if you are truely sincere in wanting his forgiveness, and dont intend to repeat the same or other sins? Yes. Words are easy to say, people say lie or insincere words all the time. Actions speak louder then words. If repentance is not done, it would be that same as beating the crap out of someone. Then asking their forgiveness and you saying "sorry bro, didn't mean it" Then turn around and beat the crap out of him again later on. Then asking for forgiveness again. The following verses have one thing in common. They speak of repentance before they receive the forgiveness. 2 Chronicles 7:14 14If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. Jeremiah 36:3 3It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin. Acts 26:18 18To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
luv2roknroll
on
Fri 09/30/11 12:36 PM
|
|
14If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
So I was right then. "Then will I hear from heaven above, and forgive their sin", so God knows who is sincere and who is not sincere when hes is giving forgiveness.
So maybe they think they are covering their dirty tracks, by sinning, and then going to church, and appearing to be a believer in God, but if they are not sincere, they wont actually be forgiven, or go to heaven. According to Christianity. Right? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shalom Abra yes hedid not write anything personally.. it's all on faith. either u have it or not. The bible tells us of 2 witnesses. what is written in the Nt has to agree with the OT. that is how we can know if it is true or not. how many people do you know that fight constantly about what the OT says? not many. yet they throw out the old when it is our measuring stick of what the new says.. again 2 witnesses Blessings..Miles 1. The NT and the OT ARE NOT "WITNESSES" they are books. Books are not witnesses. Books are simply written material. That's reality. That one book might have the same thing in it that another book has is simply plagiarism. It was simply written later and it was taken from another source. I doubt if plagiarism was an issue with people 2000 years ago. the NT must aline up with the old. the new is the spirit of the OT. if it does not align up with it then you study to see if something is wrong.. thier are things that do not align up with the OT and 1 of them is the Trinity doctrine. Blessings..Miles |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 09/30/11 01:58 PM
|
|
I'm sure the people who wrote the NT tried their best to line it up with the OT so that they could connect their old Hebrew religion with the new one.
But none of that proves anything really. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
So I was right then. "Then will I hear from heaven above, and forgive their sin", so God knows who is sincere and who is not sincere when hes is giving forgiveness.
So maybe they think they are covering their dirty tracks, by sinning, and then going to church, and appearing to be a believer in God, but if they are not sincere, they wont actually be forgiven, or go to heaven. According to Christianity. Right? Correct, if they are not sincere but acting as such. They would actually even be lying on top of it all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure the people who wrote the NT tried their best to line it up with the OT so that they could connect their old Hebrew religion with the new one. But none of that proves anything really. no thier are so many things that happened in the OT that is so spiritual in the Nt thier is no way man came up with that on his own.. everyday things are being found out what happened in the OT is a picture of the NT that it is impossible for man to of came up with. thats why the bible is an ever learning book that noone has mastered..Blessings..Miles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Fri 09/30/11 02:28 PM
|
|
I'm sure the people who wrote the NT tried their best to line it up with the OT so that they could connect their old Hebrew religion with the new one. But none of that proves anything really. No one's trying to prove anything here, nor can anything be "proven" anyways less one is willing to give credibility to it. We can not prove to you Columbus discovered America, unless you put faith in the evidence I present as being true. We can not prove Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the moon, less you wish to put faith in the evidence as being true. We can not prove God is a true living God, less one has faith that the evidence presented is true. And on top of that, again no one's trying to prove anything, or disprove anything. We here for a DISCUSSION. Just enlightened discussion between two human beings, passing the time and getting to know one another on a deeper level then "Hi, my name is _____". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
So I was right then. "Then will I hear from heaven above, and forgive their sin", so God knows who is sincere and who is not sincere when hes is giving forgiveness.
So maybe they think they are covering their dirty tracks, by sinning, and then going to church, and appearing to be a believer in God, but if they are not sincere, they wont actually be forgiven, or go to heaven. According to Christianity. Right? Correct, if they are not sincere but acting as such. They would actually even be lying on top of it all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure the people who wrote the NT tried their best to line it up with the OT so that they could connect their old Hebrew religion with the new one. But none of that proves anything really. No one's trying to prove anything here, nor can anything be "proven" anyways less one is willing to give credibility to it. We can not prove to you Columbus discovered America, unless you put faith in the evidence I present as being true. We can not prove Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the moon, less you wish to put faith in the evidence as being true. We can not prove God is a true living God, less one has faith that the evidence presented is true. And on top of that, again no one's trying to prove anything, or disprove anything. We here for a DISCUSSION. Just enlightened discussion between two human beings, passing the time and getting to know one another on a deeper level then "Hi, my name is _____". Lucifer created Adam and Eve. That's the truth. Lucifer is the God of this world. That's the truth. Christians worship Lucifer and they just don't know it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure the people who wrote the NT tried their best to line it up with the OT so that they could connect their old Hebrew religion with the new one. But none of that proves anything really. No one's trying to prove anything here, nor can anything be "proven" anyways less one is willing to give credibility to it. We can not prove to you Columbus discovered America, unless you put faith in the evidence I present as being true. We can not prove Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the moon, less you wish to put faith in the evidence as being true. We can not prove God is a true living God, less one has faith that the evidence presented is true. And on top of that, again no one's trying to prove anything, or disprove anything. We here for a DISCUSSION. Just enlightened discussion between two human beings, passing the time and getting to know one another on a deeper level then "Hi, my name is _____". Lucifer created Adam and Eve. That's the truth. Lucifer is the God of this world. That's the truth. Christians worship Lucifer and they just don't know it. And can you prove it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lucifer created Adam and Eve. That's the truth. Lucifer is the God of this world. That's the truth. Christians worship Lucifer and they just don't know it. There are those who claim that we are the children of Satan until we become "saved" at which time we become the children of God. 
It's no wonder there are so many different denominations of Christianity. 
A lot of Christians to believe that Satan is the "ruler" of the physical world. It belongs to him, and this is why almost any physical pleasure is considered to be "sinful". But that actually flies in the face of the Biblical story that God created the Earth and "Saw that it was GOOD". How did it suddenly go from being "GOOD" to being the sinful? It's crazy. All these "sins of the flesh", and sexual hangups about God supposedly frowning upon any sensual pleasure that isn't specifically associated with a purposeful intent to procreate is truly sad. And this God supposedly even made childbirth a painful ordeal as a form of punishment. If people saw this in a horror movie instead of being taught these things in churches they'd think this God is truly creepy. Seriously. If you went to a movie and saw a plot where some God was doing all these terrible things to the objects of his creation you'd think you were watching a Frankenstein movie or something. 
They way they make out God to be so nasty sometimes it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were worshiping Satan. I read somewhere that the Cathers actually believed the Satan wrote (or inspired the Old Testament). They believed that the New Testament was a story inspired by God to renounce the Old Testament. They didn't believe that Jesus even existed. Instead they believed that Jesus was just a parable in this story by God. They didn't believe that God would truly lower himself to becoming incarnate in physical form, this is why they felt that it was just a parable. It doesn't really matter what the Cathers believed though because a Christian Pope gave the order to have all the Cathers murdered, and so it was written and so it was done. No more Cathers. At least that's ONE VERSION of the Cathers that I've read. I've read other versions that were quite different. So it's all rumors and who knows what really happened. There does seem to be a consensus that a Catholic Pope had his army kill the Cathers though. That seems to be a common thread in all the stories about the Cathers. Maybe the Pope at that time was Satan himself? Who knows? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 09/30/11 06:21 PM
|
|
I'm sure the people who wrote the NT tried their best to line it up with the OT so that they could connect their old Hebrew religion with the new one. But none of that proves anything really. No one's trying to prove anything here, nor can anything be "proven" anyways less one is willing to give credibility to it. We can not prove to you Columbus discovered America, unless you put faith in the evidence I present as being true. We can not prove Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the moon, less you wish to put faith in the evidence as being true. We can not prove God is a true living God, less one has faith that the evidence presented is true. And on top of that, again no one's trying to prove anything, or disprove anything. We here for a DISCUSSION. Just enlightened discussion between two human beings, passing the time and getting to know one another on a deeper level then "Hi, my name is _____". Lucifer created Adam and Eve. That's the truth. Lucifer is the God of this world. That's the truth. Christians worship Lucifer and they just don't know it. And can you prove it? Well of course not. But this is what Cowboy says: No one's trying to prove anything here, nor can anything be "proven" anyways less one is willing to give credibility to it.
We can not prove to you Columbus discovered America, unless you put faith in the evidence I present as being true. We can not prove Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the moon, less you wish to put faith in the evidence as being true. We can not prove God is a true living God, less one has faith that the evidence presented is true. And on top of that, again no one's trying to prove anything, or disprove anything. We here for a DISCUSSION. Just enlightened discussion between two human beings, passing the time and getting to know one another on a deeper level then "Hi, my name is _____". So my point is if that is what Cowboy believes then I can say anything I want without backing it up here in this religion forum. Right? Right Cowboy? Evidence and "proof" are completely meaningless. Cowboy says "We're just having a conversation. No one is trying to prove anything. " By the way, aliens want to take over the earth and kill most of the humans, making the rest their slaves. And I don't have to prove that either, according to Cowboy. (That idea, in my opinion, is RIDICULOUS.) But it could be fun. 
And I could back up everything I've said with books and websites too. But Hey, we don't have to do that here. We are just having a conversation, after all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And he's supposedly a God who is appeased by blood sacrifices. Like as if having his son (or himself) beaten and nailed to a pole is going to "pay" for something.
I will be honest Abra. As a Christian, I feel very uncomfortable about this too, and always have.
"He so loved the world that he gave his only son, to pay for our sins". Wouldnt he love his son MORE, than the world, and not make him pay, especially in such a barbaric way, for our sins? Ive never gotta a good answer for that yet. I'm coming late to this party, but.....let me add something to this whole sacrifice for sins thing for your consideration here. Let's say you have two kids, about 2 years apart. The oldest child does something really really bad, a year or so before the youngest child is born. Now, would you ever in your right mind make that child responsible when he/she is alive for what their older sibling did? The obvious answer would be have to be no right? The child did not yet exist, and as such could not have had anything to do with what the oldest child had done. Given that fact, to push the actions of it onto them simply would make no sense. Simple enough right? Yet, the entire story of Adam and Eve and original sin, is based upon the exact opposite. Adam and Eve fall from grace, and because of their mistake, the entirety of humankind is doomed if not for a blood sacrifice, which even then isn't enough to save everyone I might add, and we all inherit these sins by default even when we weren't even in existence to have committed them. Now, if WE know this is wrong and would not do it to our own kids, wouldn't it stand to reason any just and loving God would know it too? If he's on a whole other plane from us, he should be MORE loving than we are, not less right? If he's not, something is very wrong with that God then, because in effect it would be doing something here that even we would not. It doesn't speak well of a divine being does it? On top of that as I sort of hinted at above, even if this actually did happen this way, the blood sacrifice still doesn't save everyone as it is claimed to. If it was meant for the whole world, why is not everyone saved? You're gonna tell me God doesn't have enough power to wipe everyone clean even when this sacrifice was supposed to do that? You can't say it's for all but then put conditions on who receives it. That doesn't quite work you know? Especially not for a supposed God of love. Just some food for thought here, make of it what you will, but the entire thing really just doesn't pass the smell test to me for the reasons I have stated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont like the idea of bloody sacrifices for God either, nor do I think that you should be able to sin, and ask for forgiveness from God, and you are suddenly washed clean of sin, and brand new in Christ. I do understand that people change, yes, but if all I have to do is ask God to forgive me over and over, than what incentive does that give me to live a sinless life? And as before, I do think that the way you look at God is very beautiful. You see all of the good things that the bible says that God represented, minus the stories of cruelty and death, due to God, and thats not a bad way to believe. You made several other good points too, but I think we understand each other well enough, that I dont need to quote them all. And as far as being "scum" if you dont follow the word of Christ. Im not sure that all Christians feel that way, although im sure since they have their beliefs, and you have yours, it takes an open minded Christian, like myself, to be on friendly terms, with someone who believes different than me, and I belileve different from them. But ill say it again. Live and Let Live!! No one really needs be concerned about others sexual orientations, or religions, just because they are different. Do what you want, and let them do what they want. As long as no one is being harmed in the process, than keep to YOUR buisness. I think its going to be rather interesting to hear, what I have to say, after reading the entire bible. I am still standing on neutral ground, I believe in God, I feel his presence in my life, I worship him, I love him, and believe he loves and protects me, but as far as what my chosen religion will be, that remains to be seen. For now, im studying Christianity. And just like Abra, if I find too many disturbing things that I dont like, I wont support that religion, and will probably not even have a specific religion. But I will always, no matter what, have God!And I dont think it has to be all or nothing to do that, at this point in my thinking. I think you are on the right track Luv, never stop seeking or be afraid to ask questions. Whatever you believe it's important to know why. That's another issue I have with a lot of religions, and Christianity in particular for the purposes of this. They more or less teach that their beliefs, or their holy book be it the Bible, the Quran or any others, cannot be touched. That it is exactly what they say, and you must believe that lest you be damned if you think any different. Little bit limiting don't you think? Not to mention it basically absolves it of any wrongs that may be within it using that. After all, how can anyone argue when they are simply told: "It's just the truth, believe it or not"? It's not exactly very debate friendly is it? If any of these things were true, you'd think they could stand up to the questioning no? Yet they tend to discourage it. Think about that.....why would they have to do that for if they were telling the truth? They basically follow the same template model as government does, do as we say because we say so, and don't ask questions. And you see where that's got us.....there's very little difference between the two here. So I think you are going in the right direction, my advice to you would be to keep going and not look back. I'm always around if you wanna talk about things as well. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure the people who wrote the NT tried their best to line it up with the OT so that they could connect their old Hebrew religion with the new one. But none of that proves anything really. No one's trying to prove anything here, nor can anything be "proven" anyways less one is willing to give credibility to it. We can not prove to you Columbus discovered America, unless you put faith in the evidence I present as being true. We can not prove Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the moon, less you wish to put faith in the evidence as being true. We can not prove God is a true living God, less one has faith that the evidence presented is true. And on top of that, again no one's trying to prove anything, or disprove anything. We here for a DISCUSSION. Just enlightened discussion between two human beings, passing the time and getting to know one another on a deeper level then "Hi, my name is _____". Lucifer created Adam and Eve. That's the truth. Lucifer is the God of this world. That's the truth. Christians worship Lucifer and they just don't know it. And can you prove it? Well of course not. But this is what Cowboy says: No one's trying to prove anything here, nor can anything be "proven" anyways less one is willing to give credibility to it.
We can not prove to you Columbus discovered America, unless you put faith in the evidence I present as being true. We can not prove Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the moon, less you wish to put faith in the evidence as being true. We can not prove God is a true living God, less one has faith that the evidence presented is true. And on top of that, again no one's trying to prove anything, or disprove anything. We here for a DISCUSSION. Just enlightened discussion between two human beings, passing the time and getting to know one another on a deeper level then "Hi, my name is _____". So my point is if that is what Cowboy believes then I can say anything I want without backing it up here in this religion forum. Right? Right Cowboy? Evidence and "proof" are completely meaningless. Cowboy says "We're just having a conversation. No one is trying to prove anything. " By the way, aliens want to take over the earth and kill most of the humans, making the rest their slaves. And I don't have to prove that either, according to Cowboy. (That idea, in my opinion, is RIDICULOUS.) But it could be fun.
And I could back up everything I've said with books and websites too. But Hey, we don't have to do that here. We are just having a conversation, after all. That is absolutely not what I said. I never said there was no evidence. I said no one's trying to prove anything, we're just having a discussion. The bible is full of evidence, people just wish to dismiss the evidence as it wasn't there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure the people who wrote the NT tried their best to line it up with the OT so that they could connect their old Hebrew religion with the new one. But none of that proves anything really. No one's trying to prove anything here, nor can anything be "proven" anyways less one is willing to give credibility to it. We can not prove to you Columbus discovered America, unless you put faith in the evidence I present as being true. We can not prove Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the moon, less you wish to put faith in the evidence as being true. We can not prove God is a true living God, less one has faith that the evidence presented is true. And on top of that, again no one's trying to prove anything, or disprove anything. We here for a DISCUSSION. Just enlightened discussion between two human beings, passing the time and getting to know one another on a deeper level then "Hi, my name is _____". Lucifer created Adam and Eve. That's the truth. Lucifer is the God of this world. That's the truth. Christians worship Lucifer and they just don't know it. And can you prove it? Well of course not. But this is what Cowboy says: No one's trying to prove anything here, nor can anything be "proven" anyways less one is willing to give credibility to it.
We can not prove to you Columbus discovered America, unless you put faith in the evidence I present as being true. We can not prove Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the moon, less you wish to put faith in the evidence as being true. We can not prove God is a true living God, less one has faith that the evidence presented is true. And on top of that, again no one's trying to prove anything, or disprove anything. We here for a DISCUSSION. Just enlightened discussion between two human beings, passing the time and getting to know one another on a deeper level then "Hi, my name is _____". So my point is if that is what Cowboy believes then I can say anything I want without backing it up here in this religion forum. Right? Right Cowboy? Evidence and "proof" are completely meaningless. Cowboy says "We're just having a conversation. No one is trying to prove anything. " By the way, aliens want to take over the earth and kill most of the humans, making the rest their slaves. And I don't have to prove that either, according to Cowboy. (That idea, in my opinion, is RIDICULOUS.) But it could be fun.
And I could back up everything I've said with books and websites too. But Hey, we don't have to do that here. We are just having a conversation, after all. That is absolutely not what I said. I never said there was no evidence. I said no one's trying to prove anything, we're just having a discussion. The bible is full of evidence, people just wish to dismiss the evidence as it wasn't there. In Exodus 1:11, we are told that the children of Israel built the treasure cities of Pithom and Raamses for Pharaoh. In Exodus 5, we are informed that they made bricks first using straw, and then using stubble, because no straw was furnished them for that purpose. In 1883, Naville, and in 1908, Kyle, found at Pithom, one of the cities built by Israel, that the lower courses were built of bricks filled with good, chopped straw. The middle courses have less straw including stubble. The upper courses were made of pure clay, with no straw whatever. It is difficult to read the biblical account and not be astonished at the amazing confirmation which archaeology here has given to the Bible. ----------- In Isaiah 20:1, we read, "In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him)..." This is the only mention of King Sargon in the Bible, and the only one in ancient literature. His place in history was severely questioned on this account. But in the years, 1842-1845, P.E. Botta, uncovered the tremendous royal palace of Sargon. Among the other things discovered was an account of the siege of Ashdod mentioned in Isaiah. Once more the Bible was right, the critics wrong ----------- In Genesis 7 and 8 tell us of the destruction of the world by a great flood. To many, the story of the flood is actually a recording of ancient myths. However, we have much evidence outside the Bible to show that the flood was a reality and that the Bible is true. Notice the flood traditions of ancient peoples. One scholar lists 88 different traditional accounts. Almost all of these agree that there was a universal destruction of the human race and all living creatures by a flood. Almost all agree that an ark or a boat was the means of escape. Almost all are in accord in saying that a seed of mankind was left to perpetuate the race. Many add that wickedness of man brought about the flood. Some even mention Noe. Several speak of the dove and the raven, and some discuss a sacrifice offered by those who were saved. To anyone familiar with the biblical account, the similarity is astounding. The universality of this tradition is such as to establish that the biblical flood was not a figment of someone's imagination. ------------- Joshua 6, tells how Israel conquered the walled city of Jericho. For six day they marched once around the city. On the seventh day they went around it seven times. The priests blew their trumpets, the people shouted, and when they did, "The wall fell down flat" (Joshua 6:20). The people then rushed strait way into the city and burned it. They took none of it to themselves. They saved Rahab who lived in a house upon the wall and who had helped them previously. Starting in 1929, Dr. John Garstang, excavated the ruins of ancient Jericho. His discoveries corresponded remarkably with the Biblical account. Jericho, he found, had a double wall, with houses built across the two walls. This explains how Rahab's house could have been built upon a wall. He learned that the wall was destroyed by some kind of violent convulsion such as that described in the Bible, and that when the wall feel that it fell outward, down the hillside, or as the Bible says, it fell down flat. Had the wall been destroyed by the battering rams of an enemy army, the walls would have fallen inward instead of outward. Furthermore, the city had been burned. Once again, the spade of archaeology has established the accuracy of the Bible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure the people who wrote the NT tried their best to line it up with the OT so that they could connect their old Hebrew religion with the new one. But none of that proves anything really. No one's trying to prove anything here, nor can anything be "proven" anyways less one is willing to give credibility to it. We can not prove to you Columbus discovered America, unless you put faith in the evidence I present as being true. We can not prove Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the moon, less you wish to put faith in the evidence as being true. We can not prove God is a true living God, less one has faith that the evidence presented is true. And on top of that, again no one's trying to prove anything, or disprove anything. We here for a DISCUSSION. Just enlightened discussion between two human beings, passing the time and getting to know one another on a deeper level then "Hi, my name is _____". Lucifer created Adam and Eve. That's the truth. Lucifer is the God of this world. That's the truth. Christians worship Lucifer and they just don't know it. And can you prove it? Well of course not. But this is what Cowboy says: No one's trying to prove anything here, nor can anything be "proven" anyways less one is willing to give credibility to it.
We can not prove to you Columbus discovered America, unless you put faith in the evidence I present as being true. We can not prove Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the moon, less you wish to put faith in the evidence as being true. We can not prove God is a true living God, less one has faith that the evidence presented is true. And on top of that, again no one's trying to prove anything, or disprove anything. We here for a DISCUSSION. Just enlightened discussion between two human beings, passing the time and getting to know one another on a deeper level then "Hi, my name is _____". So my point is if that is what Cowboy believes then I can say anything I want without backing it up here in this religion forum. Right? Right Cowboy? Evidence and "proof" are completely meaningless. Cowboy says "We're just having a conversation. No one is trying to prove anything. " By the way, aliens want to take over the earth and kill most of the humans, making the rest their slaves. And I don't have to prove that either, according to Cowboy. (That idea, in my opinion, is RIDICULOUS.) But it could be fun.
And I could back up everything I've said with books and websites too. But Hey, we don't have to do that here. We are just having a conversation, after all. That is absolutely not what I said. I never said there was no evidence. I said no one's trying to prove anything, we're just having a discussion. The bible is full of evidence, people just wish to dismiss the evidence as it wasn't there. In Exodus 1:11, we are told that the children of Israel built the treasure cities of Pithom and Raamses for Pharaoh. In Exodus 5, we are informed that they made bricks first using straw, and then using stubble, because no straw was furnished them for that purpose. In 1883, Naville, and in 1908, Kyle, found at Pithom, one of the cities built by Israel, that the lower courses were built of bricks filled with good, chopped straw. The middle courses have less straw including stubble. The upper courses were made of pure clay, with no straw whatever. It is difficult to read the biblical account and not be astonished at the amazing confirmation which archaeology here has given to the Bible. ----------- In Isaiah 20:1, we read, "In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him)..." This is the only mention of King Sargon in the Bible, and the only one in ancient literature. His place in history was severely questioned on this account. But in the years, 1842-1845, P.E. Botta, uncovered the tremendous royal palace of Sargon. Among the other things discovered was an account of the siege of Ashdod mentioned in Isaiah. Once more the Bible was right, the critics wrong ----------- In Genesis 7 and 8 tell us of the destruction of the world by a great flood. To many, the story of the flood is actually a recording of ancient myths. However, we have much evidence outside the Bible to show that the flood was a reality and that the Bible is true. Notice the flood traditions of ancient peoples. One scholar lists 88 different traditional accounts. Almost all of these agree that there was a universal destruction of the human race and all living creatures by a flood. Almost all agree that an ark or a boat was the means of escape. Almost all are in accord in saying that a seed of mankind was left to perpetuate the race. Many add that wickedness of man brought about the flood. Some even mention Noe. Several speak of the dove and the raven, and some discuss a sacrifice offered by those who were saved. To anyone familiar with the biblical account, the similarity is astounding. The universality of this tradition is such as to establish that the biblical flood was not a figment of someone's imagination. ------------- Joshua 6, tells how Israel conquered the walled city of Jericho. For six day they marched once around the city. On the seventh day they went around it seven times. The priests blew their trumpets, the people shouted, and when they did, "The wall fell down flat" (Joshua 6:20). The people then rushed strait way into the city and burned it. They took none of it to themselves. They saved Rahab who lived in a house upon the wall and who had helped them previously. Starting in 1929, Dr. John Garstang, excavated the ruins of ancient Jericho. His discoveries corresponded remarkably with the Biblical account. Jericho, he found, had a double wall, with houses built across the two walls. This explains how Rahab's house could have been built upon a wall. He learned that the wall was destroyed by some kind of violent convulsion such as that described in the Bible, and that when the wall feel that it fell outward, down the hillside, or as the Bible says, it fell down flat. Had the wall been destroyed by the battering rams of an enemy army, the walls would have fallen inward instead of outward. Furthermore, the city had been burned. Once again, the spade of archaeology has established the accuracy of the Bible.   
|
|
|
|
|
