Total posts: 8,861
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOUR QUOTE WHERE YOU STOLE MY CONCEPT AND OTHERS OF JESUS BEING ALLAH GOD!: “ I have even evolved the theory far more, understanding that Lucifer/Jesus is also Allah, …….. “How dare you take my proposition, and many others upon this topic as well, where we have biblically proposed and proven that Jesus is also Allah! You therefore are inspired by my biblical knowledge, and by many others in this respect, where obviously you can’t be inspired by your own in making this conclusion yourself, but to only copy mine, and the many others, that have come to this conclusion that Jesus is Allah before you did!For the sake of your further embarrassment, and the least of which, I want you to apologize to me in front of the membership for being inspired by me and others in our conclusions that Jesus, is in fact, the Islamic God named Allah that you obviously stole from us in our many posts over the years upon this topic!BEGIN:
O dreary, deary DEARY, me! So the claim made by the great wordsmith Rational Madman in this link below are not original either then Brother?
I explain: #1
Topic's author"The following works are not open source, they are property of Rational Madman and posted here copying from his Google Docs. If you copy paste this as your own work, you are using original ideas that time-stamps WILL disprove in the long-run as you won't have the Google doc created before RM.Through his connections, the ghost of Jesus got hold of a guy/girl warlock/witch-type spirit who could enable him to project his voice and even to completely possess, at times, the man named Muhammad (selected carefully as he was already prone by brain chemistry to instability, which like Jedi Mind Trick makes him a very easy target as he's weak-minded in the first place). This led to what we now know as Islam.
O deary, deary O DEARY ME!
Created:
The absolute lying backpedaling Coward That is Fauxlaw Trying Desperately To Be Cleaver
You forum title:Stephen has stolen my idea that Lucifer is Jesus. I am here to reclaim it.You #1 postLucifer is Jesus, if you go back to my threads such as this:
(1) I have "stolen" nothing .
(2) Here is my thread titled simply Jesus & Lucifer. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4216-lucifer-and-jesus?page=1 (thank you for plugging it)
(3) I put two biblical verses side by side like this>
"How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! "Isaiah 14:12 <<, this is Lucifer by all accounts.
Jesus said >>>"I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.” (Revelation 22:16)…
...... and the I asked " Could it really be that Lucifer is just another name for Jesus of which he had many.? We are never allowed to forget that Jesus was with god from the beginning, as was Lucifer Satan /devil serpent, where he was also known as the Word. John 1"
(4) Nowhere have I claimed Jesus is Lucifer
(5) My thread only asked "" Could it really be that Lucifer is just another name for Jesus of which he had many.? <<<<<< .
(6) The ages old theory of Jesus being Lucifer is not new or the exclusive the brainchild of Rational Madman.
(7) If you fauxlaw, believe that the "Lucifer is Jesus" theory is the first and the sole and exclusive theory of Rational Madman then you are as unbalanced as the person who also wrote this theory>>>>
Added03.01.19
THIS , >>>>> “the fact God rapes Mary to create Jesus and she issupposed to feel blessed for it”
“If you fuck with God's way, you're just burnt to crisp andnever heard of again (even your soul).”
“ So Satan called on a human version of Judea (Judas)that he'd implanted into Jesus' life ready to deploy if shit hit the fan andJudas, being loyal to the 'real god' did as he was told.”
led to this>>>>>> “This led to what we now know as Islam.”, according to Rational Madman
And once again, I thank you for plugging my thread .
Author:Stephen,8 days ago
Added05.18.20 11:38AM
Jesus & Lucifer. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4216-lucifer-and-jesus?page=1 (thank you for plugging it)
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
you might steal it.
And are you suggesting that I have stolen something from yourself or RationalMadman? If so , what was it that I stole from you or s/he?
And for the life of me I just don't see how you manage to keep missing this princess.>>>>
" Could it really be that Lucifer is just another name for Jesus of which he had many.? We are never allowed to forget that Jesus was with god from the beginning, as was Lucifer Satan /devil serpent, where he was also known as the Word. John 1"
Here is the link to the thread in question, https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4216-lucifer-and-jesus?page=1 go read the question I posed
Created:
Posted in:
@ Melcharaz,
Can God make something he cant lift?
That'll be #4 on this list.https://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/questions.html
4. Can god make a rock so big that he can’t lift it?
God is omnipotent. But omnipotence does not mean that God can do literally everything.
As the shorter catechism says "God can do all His holy will."
God cannot sin...God cannot lie...God cannot change His nature.
God cannot deny the demands of His holy character.
God cannot make a square circle, for the notion of a square circle is self–contradictory.
God cannot cease to be God. But all that God wills and promises He can and will do.
Created:
There is also another woman who goes by the name of Salome who was another of Jesus' female "followers".
Mark 15:40-41
40 " Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome. 41 In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there" .
Matthew 27:56 does not name her directly, but adds that the mother of Zebedee's children was in attendance.
56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.
Some scholars deduct from comparing these two verses side by side that "the mother of Zebedee's son's" is Salome.
The other mention of the mother of Zebedee's children occurs in Matthew 20:20 when she asks Jesus to have one of her sons sit at his right hand and the other at his left in paradise.
Whatever the opinions of theist and scholars, the point remains that she was among Jesus' movement.
But was she also the unnamed dancing woman who demanded the "head of John the Baptist"?
Mark 6:25 " “I want you to give me right now the head of John the Baptist on a platter. "
This is a little more than simple conjecture when we consider the important connections that Jesus clearly had in high places; the Sanhedrin Council, Chuza in King Herod's court and high ranking Pharisee of the Priesthood who would visit him only in secret and only after dark,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
OK. Was baptism around before John the Baptist? I will settle for a yes or no.
Created:
Posted in:
I have contributed way more to this site than you
That depends on how one defines contribute. By your definition I have to agree. But when valid or informative content is thrown into the mix, well, that leaves you straggling way behind.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Lucifer is the MORNING STAR, JESUS is the LIGHT OF THE WORLD,SOL,SUN,GODS SUNThe Bible illustrates God is many ways, as above in heavens and so below
Well put doc. I'm impressed. You have gone up in my estimations. keep it up. 10/10
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Did I prove God hates homos?
The bible does that for you my friend.
Leviticus 20: 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
So there is it. An "abomination" to god and worthy of death.
Islam online appears to agree with Leviticus.
Death Fall as Punishment for Homosexuality
Of course Israelis don't sling homosexuals off of buildings as they do on the orders of their god in other parts of the world. No. the Jews have dragged themselves and their ideology into the 21st century and reformed. This is not to say that Homosexuality is not abhorrent to god any more in that part of the world and to Jews in general, but it is simply not punishable by death and is tolerated.
tolerate
/ˈtɒləreɪt/
Learn to pronounce
verb
- 1.allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
but the FBI works at the pleasure of the President.
Except when they work against him.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump has the ultimate power to enforce the laws and has ultimate discretion.
I see.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
You missed this princess.>>>>
Here is the link to the thread in question, https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4216-lucifer-and-jesus?page=1 go read the question I posed
" Could it really be that Lucifer is just another name for Jesus of which he had many.? We are never allowed to forget that Jesus was with god from the beginning, as was Lucifer Satan /devil serpent, where he was also known as the Word. John 1"
If I say something interesting, .
There's little chance of that though is there? What you have to offer this or any forum is not worth knowing in my opinion unless the reader is a complete dullard and susceptible to any old bullshite written by a complete and utter boring nause
Off you go princess, there's a whole world out there for you to put to sleep. Unless you want to try that question written in bold just for you.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's much more important than getting a personal pound of flesh.
I am not talking " personal pound of flesh" though. I am simply asking why shouldn't he be prosecuted IF he has committed a crime and broken the law. I would have thought that If it is indeed the case, then this would be out of Trumps hands anyway. And Biden isn't a president.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Are you actually telling us that something that appears similar may just be coincidental?
What makes you believe that is what I am suggesting or "telling you all"?
You are avoiding the question by posing one of your own. You are out of your depth AGAIN. Here is the link to the thread in question, https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4216-lucifer-and-jesus?page=1 go read the question I posed or simply go back to sleep.
You are boring the shite out of me already.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
gotta push those numbers up son
That's easy to do when your sentences consist of only one or two words. As yours continually do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soul_Doubt
So, which version of the crucifixion of Christ is right, the Bible or the Quran?
Neither.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soul_Doubt
Of course Israelis don't sling homosexuals off of buildings as they do on the orders of their god in other parts of the world.Not mentioning any one particular faith or alluding to hatred against others here, now are we?
If you are suggesting that I am talking about the ISLAMIC punishment for homosexuals and act of homosexuality, then just spit it out sunshine, don't be shy.
Islam does show HATE against " those others" that you mentioned _ homosexuals , unless you know different. And as part of that extended HATE the punishment in ISLAM for homosexual acts is death. yes pretty boy, the don't fuck about over in the middle east in ISLAMIC countries when it comes to homosexuals. No ! They have various forms of execution too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soul_Doubt
If you believe that then why have you only seen it as promoting hatred against Islam? Why haven't you also suggested that "that individual may well be bent on promoting hatred against" Christianity, after all, the thread is questioning and bringing into doubt the crucifixion of the Christ , a Christian icon ?However, the title of the thread is "Islam, Christianity and the Crucifixion" and you are making comparisons between the validity of one religion versus another throughout the thread.
Yes that is the title. What would you have titled this subject of two religious events with differing version from two different belief systems of the same event ?
validity of one religion
"Making comparisons"? Am I? I though I was showing comparisons; two versions of the same story. It is up to the reader to make any comparisons or not see any comparisons at all.
It appears the Christian fraternity don't seem interested or concerned either way and the same goes for the Islamic fraternity.
So that only leave you thus far. Are you then are making case one way or the other. If you are, lets here it.
I have agreed that the Islamic version of the Christs crucifixion has some merit and as I have shown, there seems to be also Christian evidence that agrees with their version.
Which to my mind throws doubt of the Christian version of events.
Early Christians writers, it appears from the scant evidence, appear to have lifted the Crucifixion of Christ event from the personal experience of a pharisee general turned Roman, Flavius Josephus.
So, if you are only going to repeat yourself again, causing me to repeat myself AGAIN then this circular discussion may as well end here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soul_Doubt
Perhaps Islam got it right
Indeed. they may well have. There are some Christian extra biblical works that suggest just that. As I have clearly shown above. Did you miss those?
For example, if one were to be of a biased disposition that everything in the New Testament is true and that all other beliefs are fake and inferior, that individual may well be bent on promoting hatred against Islam.
Possible, but highlighting two different opinions or versions of an event is not promoting hatred against one side or the other. Unless one is looking for an excuse to accuse one side of promoting hatred and division. Is that what you are doing?
You also say :
that individual may well be bent on promoting hatred against Islam.
If you believe that then why have you only seen it as promoting hatred against Islam? Why haven't you also suggested that "that individual may well be bent on promoting hatred against" Christianity, after all, the thread is questioning and bringing into doubt the crucifixion of the Christ , a Christian icon ?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I was inspired to consider that Lucifer was Jesus all on my own
Then good for you.
I haven't needed "inspiring" by anyone or thing. Is all I did was read the bible FOR MYSELF . Revelation itself makes the first FKN claim the Jesus is Lucifer. Or should that be that it is Jesus himself and NOT YOU! who makes the first claim the he is Lucifer. Make your own mind up, I don't care either way.. So stop acting like a clown and get on with your life.
The title of my thread that you say was "inspired" by YOU was NOT titled Jesus IS Lucifer was it. It was simply Jesus & Lucifer and then I simple wrote what the bible itself says. No inspiration needed and especially from you I simply wrote verses from the bible and made no claims one way or the other. AND ENDED WITH A QUESTION .
See for yourself>>>>>>>
" Could it really be that Lucifer is just another name for Jesus of which he had many.? We are never allowed to forget that Jesus was with god from the beginning, as was Lucifer Satan /devil serpent, where he was also known as the Word. John 1"
ASKING A QUESTION IS NOT MAKING A CLAIM.
But thanks for plugging MY thread.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Stephen has stolen my idea that Lucifer is Jesus. I am here to reclaim it.Author:Step up to the plate.
I don't recall reading those threads or seeing those threads. But if you made your claim before all of those that came before you with this theory then good for you. I have simply highlighted what the bible actually stated and made no claims at all.
I haven't claimed I was the first. This was picked upon over a hundred years ago.
All the same. Could you give me a quick synopsis of each one of your links, simply to save us all time, especial mine.
I will read them when I get around to finishing my own.
SCRUB THAT REQUEST above . I HAVE JUST READ THOSE LINKS, and there is nothing there that would have convinced me to " admit" that YOU "inspire" me in my thoughts , opinions any theories.. Now, if you came to the conclusion that Jesus is Lucifer all on your own , then fkn good for you sunshine, I applaud you.. But your links don't actually prove that you did, do they?
-->@RationalMadman wrote: "At least admit I inspired you on that theory".#26
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Greeting Brother. I hope you enjoyed your respite.
Your timing on this topic is faultless. I have just finished watching a U.S. documentary called The Witness put out by Oxygen TV.
"A two-night investigative special follows the stories of four former Jehovah’s Witnesses, as they recount details of the sexual abuse they endured during their time within the organization". One was only 7 years old when the nightmare began for her.
"Former Witnesses Debbie McDaniel, Deloris Lyles, Sarah Brooks and Chessa Manion share deeply-emotional stories depicting a broken system that has failed to protect some members of the organization. Their testimonies, along with the work of attorney Irwin Zalkin who provides legal services to victims of abuse, provide a detailed look at the flawed inner-workings of the organization’s guiding practices. “The Witnesses” highlights their search for justice, along with the growing number of former members who are speaking out to change the institution".
These stories of child sexual abuse are harrowing, to put it mildly.
" Ever heard of “clergy-penitent privilege?” You probably haven’t, but the Center for Investigative Reporting’s Trey Bundy wants to change that, because, he says, it is creating a “public safety” issue by making it possible for child sexual abuse to go un-reported to law enforcement"
"Recently, Montana’s Supreme Court ruled that even if a victim, not a penitent, goes to a clergy member with a story of abuse, the privilege means the clergy member doesn’t have to tell secular authorities.
Bundy wrote about that and is continuing to work on reporting about the Witnesses that will continue long after the documentary premieres Saturday."
Interesting that among the first things to come up when doing a quick google search on this outfit is that Jehovah's Witnesses teach that they are convinced that the present world order under the control of Satan. You couldn't make it up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
false.
What is false about this, doc?
@zedvictor4 Wrote: Therefore I conclude that Stephen and I are correct and you are incorrect.
Indeed , Vic.
And the term "knew" or knowing" is used when there wasn't any "knowing" going on too. Look at these verses concerning Mary and Joseph and the infant Jesus seeded by a god doing a bit more "knowing".
Matthew 1:20-25. because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit , [the lord] 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
And if this isn't enough to convince the Doc then is all he has to do is compare those exact verses Matthew 1:24-25 with any other bible.
Ex: New Living Translation Matthew 1:24-25
25. But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.
So old Joe didn't or couldn't "know " his wife until after the Lord ( again) had somehow "knew" her first.
Now I don't know what you think, Vic, but this is so, so reminiscent of the very first instance about "knowing" where a Lord " knew" a human female and she begat a child from him. " I have gotten a man from the Lord. " said Eve. #14
Now I can tell you without doubt that the garden of Eden story is all about sexual intercourse and the seduction of Eve by the serpent Lord himself who was a "son of the god". And these sons of god didn't stop there, they kept "knowing" daughters of men which was taboo, yet it was the earthly man (not the woman it seems) who was evicted from his home.
4 when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.Genesis 6:4
Interesting how it appears that only the man was driven out and no mention of the woman - his wife having been expelled along with him.
“The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword . Genesis 3:21-24. ( Nothing seems to have changed there to this day, does it.)
Indeed, and so against all the laws of their own fathers, the son's of the gods did all the "knowing" , and mankind has paid for their crimes ever since.
You just couldn't make it up could you , Vic?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am still amazed why it is that he is not being criminals investigated?That would make Trump just as bad as Obama for using the FBI to destroy his opposition.
So if the D o J decide Biden has broken one law or another and decide to prosecute him, this is somehow Trumps fault? How?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Why?You are drawing conclusions which are inconsistent with my premises.
I didn't draw any. I asked you a question. I would have drawn a conclusion depending on your reply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I know it a lot but not entirely, don't want to waste my life on a fictional tale.
I can't say I blame you. It is a long slog (years in fact) and it will engulf you if you let it because it has so many strands and stories withing stories. I'm lucky, I happen to love the subject and wallow in it. But I am not in the slightest a religious person, which helps.
Mind how you go.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Your arrogance is an issue for you more than me.
Not for me.
You have claimed to have "inspired me". You haven't. You haven't influenced my thinking or inspired my ideas or theories in the slightest in any way, at all, ever. So by you claiming that you had inspired me, in any way, is more than assuming arrogance on your own part in trying to claim credit where non is due, especially to you.
Jesus was clearly depicted as a first born, so your 'second born male' theory doesn't work, but Lucifer was indeed depicted as the second son, with Michael as his older brother and Gabriel as his younger.
But you don't know the whole story as I believe I do. But at least I can count you out as being one of my inspirations for MY theory on that score.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
So are you telling him that baptism predates Christian baptism by thousands of years?Non sequitur.
Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I inspired you
Not to my know;ledge you didn't.
AND it isn't a theory. These biblical stories are repeated over and over and are re-enacted over and over time and time again intentionally and PURPOSEFULLY at certain places in time. There is always another wife or concubine who has a son . To begin with she is either a "virgin" or "barren", she then "miraculously" falls pregnant and the first born usually is sent into exile and returns from exile to save someone or redeem his rightful position as head of a nation. Read the bible. The pattern is clear as day.
This pattern has been repeated throughout the millennia right up to this present day. Her Majesty Elizabeth's second son Andrew has now been publicly exiled and struck off all royal duties. The next in line to the throne is the Queen's first son Prince Charles', who's second son has also gone into exile in America with an American actress.
The Queens father took up the throne after his brother went into self imposed exile in France preferring to screw an American actress Mrs Simpson and give up the throne to the second son.
This pattern can be chased back to Mesopotamia where the legitimate first born son was classed as the second son IF he was born of the "gods" or Kings concubine or second wife.
Simply put, controversy has ALWAYS surrounded the second son.
I am far too idle to list them all.
Don't not be fooled into thinking that these "barren" women are "barren" because of old age and that it necessarily mean that these women were unable to have children, period. It also meant that they were far too young to have children and this is why they were "barren".
So as much as you would like to claim credit for all my years of dogged research into matter biblical and have "inspiring me" . I can tell you, you didn't and you haven't, at all, one bit.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Underneath one's skin, there's a human being.
With skin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Therefore I conclude that Stephen and I are correct and you are incorrect.
Indeed , Vic.
And the term "knew" or knowing" is used when there wasn't any "knowing" going on too. Look at these verses concerning Mary and Joseph and the infant Jesus seeded by a god doing a bit more "knowing".
Matthew 1:20-25. because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit , [the lord] 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
And if this isn't enough to convince the Doc then is all he has to do is compare those exact verses Matthew 1:24-25 with any other bible.
Ex: New Living Translation Matthew 1:24-25
25. But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.
So old Joe didn't or couldn't "know " his wife until after the Lord ( again) had somehow "knew" her first.
Now I don't know what you think, Vic, but this is so, so reminiscent of the very first instance about "knowing" where a Lord " knew" a human female and she begat a child from him. " I have gotten a man from the Lord. " said Eve. #14
Now I can tell you without doubt that the garden of Eden story is all about sexual intercourse and the seduction of Eve by the serpent Lord himself who was a "son of the god". And these sons of god didn't stop there, they kept "knowing" daughters of men which was taboo, yet it was the earthly man (not the woman it seems) who was evicted from his home.
4 when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.Genesis 6:4
Interesting how it appears that only the man was driven out and no mention of the woman - his wife having been expelled along with him.
“The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword . Genesis 3:21-24. ( Nothing seems to have changed there to this day, does it.)
Indeed, and so against all the laws of their own fathers, the son's of the gods did all the "knowing" , and mankind has paid for their crimes ever since.
You just couldn't make it up could you , Vic?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Only a blind man buried six foot under could miss that this was clearly intended as a parting joke.No it wasn't Biden wasn't laughing at all, nor smiling. He actually got combative with the host right after he said that. Biden was clearly offended by the suggestion that he should be questioned on whether he had policies to help the black community.Yelling at the host saying "take a look at MY record Come on!.." that's not comedy, that's frustration, anger, and patronizing. Like how dare the media question him.
I see. The interview may have been testy ( I didn't see it all), but these kinds of interviews are sometimes testy and frustrating for both interviewee and interviewer. And usually end up with joke or veiled slight from one or the other and usually said with the smile of a church going crocodile.
Listen. I am no fan of Biden. If I was American I would hunted down by the libtards as a Maga man. I still think the Donald has this in the bag even with all the shite they have thrown at him during his first term and with this "pandemic".
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I'm not going to defend joe biden. He is a bad candidate and he would be a bad president.
Well if anything shows your intelligence quota, that done it for me.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
He doesn't see them as individuals who might vote for a candidate who will fight for their interests.
Like they see that Trump does. I love the Donald. And so does Candice Owens, I love her too.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Bernie sanders criticized millionaires until he became one where he targeted billionaires, it really shows socialism
But Biden won't become black will he doc. ffs keep up
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
a failed attempt at pandering, lack of respect for that demographic, racially insensitive, but yeah not really overt racism
I agree. It will interesting to see how the leftards defend this , racist or not.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
If Biden says this on live television at a debate, it’s over for him. Trump will destroy him at the debates.
And with his memory problems he just may forget that he has already said this. I hope you right. I am still amazed why it is that he is not being criminals investigated?
Created:
-->
@Vader
I am not a fan of Biden.
But this wasn't racist at all. This was Sleepy - where am I Jill? - Joe believing he could get on down and speak the speak of the black man. It was banter. Only a blind man buried six foot under could miss that this was clearly intended as a parting joke.
You won't see the witches coven that make up ABC daytime talk show The View covering this unless it is to defend Sleepy. I do wonder what this witches bitches show would have made of this if the great Donald - Orange Man Bad - Trump had said it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Athias to RoderickSpode #17So when asked, "Water Baptism: What's the Big Deal?" I'm stating that the big deal with Water Baptism is that it's not Hebraic, Abrahamic, Judaic, or even Christian.I'm stating that the submergence and reemergence from bodies of water, as is typical with Water Baptism, is Luciferian symbolism. It represents the reincarnation of Asar as his son Heru. Asar is submerged into the water after his death, and reemerges as Heru. Heru is also known by the monikers "Oannes" and "Dagon" the fish god. Thus the conclusion I extend from my premises is that Water Baptism is a veiled Luciferian ritual.
So are you telling him that baptism predates Christian baptism by thousands of years?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeusVult
[a] But is all it basically saying is that one will see god, be with god and spend eternity fawning like a sycophant.So the answer to my question of what will one be doing in heaven for the rest of eternity is [a] above.A rather pejorative way of saying it. However, what I said earlier in the thread is a simple version of what the CCC says.
So, the answer is - nothing. Get to heaven and do nothing but fawn, and coo like a sycophant while on one's knees.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
If you found Jesus to be a living God,[..............................................] that would be a miracle right there.[................................................ ] .
You are somehow of the belief that by posting your thoughts and pointless hypothesis somehow answers the question. It doesn't. I asked you " start by proving the immaculate conception Jesus"#56 And that question was raise by your own comments.
RoderickSpode, Wrote: Sometimes these fishers of a gullible audience write books and claim to be scholars.
I responded >> "Then is all you have to do is debunk them and their claims don't you. But before you do that of course, you have to prove your own claims first!!!
Can I suggest that you start by proving the immaculate conception Jesus, and we'll take it from their".#56
So far you have neither bothered to debunk those you have called " fishers of a gullible audience" and their audiences " gullible" and have avoided altogether the questions.
Can you show us how you know that your god - man Jesus was the first and only god - man to have been "conceived immaculately" and "raised from the dead" ?
That's how silly the game is for those who insist on Christians proving that Jesus is God.
But I don't believe that I even asked that anywhere on this thread. I doubt if I have asked that question on the entire forum. So now you are creating a straw man and attempting to build an argument around something I haven't even asked or said on this thread.
You've been trying to scrutinize, and interpret various scriptures, how do you interpret this one?Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you".Do you read this as directed towards you, or do you read this as a believer to do it for you?
Irrelevant to this thread.
Created:
Then there is another enigmatic women we meet only fleetingly in the Gospels. Her name is Joanna, who it turns out, is the wife of one of Herod Antipas' most important officials whose name is Chuza. Luke 8:1-3
Why would this enigmatic female be traveling with the Jesus party? How did she even become a member of the Jesus movement? Did her husband know? Did he approve? What was her role in the following? Was she one the women of substance who Jesus and the boys sponged and mooched off ? Was she from Galilee? Had her husband Chuza infiltrated Herod's court? Was he passing inside information to his wife to pass onto Jesus? Such as where John the baptist was located ? We know Jesus had men on the inside of the Sanhedrin council and some of his "secret disciples" were Pharisee who would only risk meeting Jesus after dark, so non of this can be put down to speculation alone?
Joanna is mentioned as being among other women in Jesus' movement which coincidentally also included a woman named Salome Mark 15:40-41
I think it is beyond doubt that these women were important figures with important roles to play in Jesus' movement. Yet the Christian church has down-played their obvious importance to the Jesus story.
Created:
This was known to DaVinci's good friend, Fra Luca de Pacioli, who declared that the language of the universe; the language of God was mathematics.
OH well, it just has be true then doesn't it? I mean, if DaVinci's good friend, Fra Luca de Pacioli said so, there is nothing to question then is there?
I read about Galileo Galilei 's claim concerning the movement of the earth around the sun. He was tried by the Catholic Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", by Catholics and forced to recant. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest.
"In 1992. the Vatican formally and publicly cleared Galileo of any wrongdoing. The Church eventually lifted the ban on Galileo's Dialogue in 1822, when it was common knowledge that the Earth was not the center of the Universe".
That was benevolent of them, wasn't it. In 1992!! didn't hang about did they? They was so quick to clear this mans name that they forgot an apology I notice.
I wonder, did "DaVinci's good friend, Fra Luca de Pacioli" - without relying on the supernatural, ever prove that a god created the universe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Then is all you have to do is debunk them and their claims don't you. But before you do that of course, you have to prove your own fkn claims first!!!Can I suggest that you start by proving the immaculate conception Jesus, and we'll take it from their.Matthew 7:7"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.This is a bold claim from the Bible. This tells us that if you seek Him, you will find him. The question is, do you want to find Him?
But goes nowhere in proving that Jesus was "immaculately conceived"not to mention the only one said to be "immaculately conceived" and we haven't even got to "walking on water", yet.
The question is, do you want to find Him?
See, your doing it again. That isn't the question I asked at all, is it? This is what I asked >>>>>" Can I suggest that you start by proving the immaculate conception Jesus"#56
Created:
@ THE ABSOLUTE COWARDLY FAUXLAW WHO JUST CANNOT KEEP AWAY FROM MY THREADS BUT HAS ME ON BLOCK!
This is more stalking and harassment. And the second time I have warned you about it.
Why ask if you don't listen or read replies.
I am glad that you can at least distinguish between what is only a reply and what is a actual answer.
complaining about your lack of finding relevance
How many languages is it that you proclaim to have mastered?
I haven't complained about MY lack of finding relevance have I? Stop putting words into my mouth. I have asked why so many half stories , silence and evasiveness.
I say I have read the Bible, I have read it cover t cover several times. In four languages. That means nothing to you because you read from the Bible. In singular verses.'
How would you know that I have read the bible that way? You haven't a clue what I have read and how I have read it . And for all your alleged knowledge in languages, you still cannot explain what happened to Lazarus after he was "risen". Did they catch up with him? Was he crucified? Did he go into a self imposed exile?
'
You answer happens to be in the very next verse 11: "Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus." In other words, the chief priests were angry that on account of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, the priests were losing congregants to Jesus, along with their monetary contributions, of course. Therefore, the chief priests sought to take Lazarus' life; to put him back dead. Get t?I didn't think so.
I do " GET IT".
I get that this was a ritualistic symbolic "raising" from the realms of the metaphorical "dead". And the reason they wanted to kill Lazarus was because Jesus had no authority to perform this symbolic ritual of raising Lazarus to the priesthood. I have made this clear on many of my threads. "raising the dead" is simply the ritualistic ceremony of being raised to another degree in the Jesus movement/ cult. This is besides the fact that there is another extra biblical gospel that tell us Lazarus was clearly alive when Jesus approached the tomb.
Put simply, and for the brain dead, anyone outside of the circle was called "the dead" AND to be among the "living" / the Jesus moment, one had to be "raised from among the dead" in degrees, i.e from water to wine. This is the real reason why they wanted Jesus and Lazarus dead. And yes, many did go over to Jesus as you say, but it wasn't because of the "raising", they did so because John the Baptist was gotten out of the way and probably by the Jesus movement?
Strange how Jesus didn't rush to "raise" his own blood and " the greatest prophet of all " from the dead , isn't it? he , didn't shed a fkn tear over him , did he?
So don't tell me I don't understand or cannot read . The problem with haughty sycophants like you, is that you cannot accept that others read these scriptures for what they really are; that is, once the true meanings behind these so called "miracles" are revealed , we are simply left with a power struggle. A power struggle for the kingship and the priesthood. The Jews had a history of this in -fighting going back thousands of years and it went on right up until the Romans had had enough of it and the problems with the Galilean Zealots in particular, so they destroyed the one thing all these factions were fighting over and had in common: the temple, flattening Jerusalem in the process. IN FACT! the destruction of the temple had stared with with zealots who had taken it over by force and had barricaded themselves in. So do not suggest I am uneducated and ignorant, you haughty - born out of wedlock - person
I don't think so.
You really are a haughty bellend aren't you.
and you missed this>> "There was a certain man casting out demons". Who was this other miracle worker that didn’t belong to the Jesus movement directly? Where did he get his power to drive out demons? What was his name? Why are we not allowed to know his name? Why was he working freelance? Mark 9 ;38
AND ALL of THIS>>>
We are (eventually)allowed to know the name of a non-entity servant named Malchus who had his ear sliced off by ‘I forget to turn the other cheek’ Simon, John 18:10 ,yet not allowed to know what should be two of the most important names In all of the New Testament when it came to Jesus’ trial.
“At the last came two false witnesses,And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days”. Matthew 26:59-63. Just who were these two dirty scoundrels who were more than prepared to bare false witness about gods only son? Why are they not named by the gospel writers? Why the silence? They give every other detail but the names of these two perjurers? .
Then there was a unnamed “certain Pharisee” Luke 7:36
Why the secrecy? Why not name him? What was the meeting about? Was this yet another Pharisee priest or member of the Sanhedrin council who couldn’t be named or even seen with Jesus? If so, why?
And at the same house there was a unnamed woman. She was crying and washing the feet of Jesus and drying away her tears with her hair. Why? What was she crying about? Jesus didn’t even ask her why she was crying and just laid back in a chair and let her get on with it without a care in the world about this woman’s sadness.
No one asked ; `why are you doing that woman'? This unnamed women just turned up, with a jar of expensive oil on hearing that Jesus would be present at a meal.
There are neither reasons given nor explanations for this odd behaviour. Jesus seems to have expected it,there were no protestations from him about this crying woman in distress and obvious sorrow..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
disgusting and vile
Maybe a little crudely put, Doc, but they are facts from the bible.
"Knowing" a woman or a man meant sexual intercourse. So you deny away till you see your next unicorn, but the biblical facts speak for themselves. The fabled tree of know-ledge was all about sex. To this very day when a man or women cheats on a spouse it is said to be "stolen fruit".
And this is fact too, Doc; as I stated above; " this then is probably why the Christian church has almost obliterated the role of women from the NT and cannot even entertain the idea that Jesus the Rabbi / Teacher may had sex with Mary Magdalene, his wife.
If Jesus was really a Rabbi - and the scriptures appear to attest that he was, then he would have at least had to have been married. If he was a high priest then he would have had to have been married with children.
You need to grow up Doc,
Compare all of these same bible verses doc, tell me what you see Genesis 4:1
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeusVult
So is all you are saying is that the bible told you - and you simply believe what the bible says? That is a yes or no question.No. I believe what the Church proclaims to be true - the Bible is part of that. I say what my best understanding of this is.
Is not the church built around, if not on, the words of god from the bible?
This is a good start:http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
And this sub-link is better from your link http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2M.HTM
[a] But is all it basically saying is that one will see god, be with god and spend eternity fawning like a sycophant.
So the answer to my question of what will one be doing in heaven for the rest of eternity is [a] above.
Created:
Just a few examples of the many evasive, silent, and secretive half stories from the gospelers.
"But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;". John 12:10 But it is never explained why? What had Lazarus done for those Priests to want to kill him? We are never told, why?
Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, Why? What happened to Lazarus after his once dead, rotting and stinking corpse had been made alive again? He just disappears from the Jesus story altogether.John 11:38-44 Why? where did he go?
We are (eventually)allowed to know the name of a non-entity servant named Malchus who had his ear sliced off by ‘I forget to turn the other cheek’ Simon, John 18:10 ,yet not allowed to know what should be two of the most important names In all of the New Testament when it came to Jesus’ trial.
“At the last came two false witnesses,And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days”. Matthew 26:59-63. Just who were these two dirty scoundrels who were more than prepared to bare false witness about gods only son? Why are they not named by the gospel writers? Why the silence? They give every other detail but the names of these two perjurers? .
"There was a certain man casting out demons". Who was this other miracle worker that didn’t belong to the Jesus movement directly? Where did he get his power to drive out demons? What was his name? Why are we not allowed to know his name? Why was he working freelance? Mark 9 ;38
Then there was a unnamed “certain Pharisee” Luke 7:36
Why the secrecy? Why not name him? What was the meeting about? Was this yet another Pharisee priest or member of the Sanhedrin council who couldn’t be named or even seen with Jesus? If so, why?
And at the same house there was a unnamed woman. She was crying and washing the feet of Jesus and drying away her tears with her hair. Why? What was she crying about? Jesus didn’t even ask her why she was crying and just laid back in a chair and let her get on with it without a care in the world about this woman’s sadness.
No one asked ; `why are you doing that woman'? This unnamed women just turned up, with a jar of expensive oil on hearing that Jesus would be present at a meal.
There are neither reasons given nor explanations for this odd behaviour. Jesus seems to have expected it,there were no protestations from him about this crying woman in distress and obvious sorrow..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Since all my posts are pro- Christian it shouldn't be too hard to figure out what I consider to be myths and the one I don't.
Well now good for you. Now tell me, can you figure out if your god-man myth came before or after all those other god-man myths. Take your time
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well, tongue in cheek for the benefit of our more devout debaters.....Though the sentiment was serious enough.And Adam and Eve knew because they were instilled with awareness.It's a pseudo erotic human tale that turned the act of human reproduction into an act of human pleasure and therefore into an act of assumed human sin against an assumed god....No god actually required....We actually made all this up for ourselves.
Top marks again vic.
Now when we consider the points I made at post #7 above: i.e. " that Jesus as Lucifer the serpent appeared to a woman before the man. We do have to wonder now what know- ledge he actually imparted to her in the absence of the man Adam".
But there is more. The first female and male couple created it seems were " not compatible". I have to wonder if this means that "the serpent Lord Jesus", who was there from the beginning" had to endow or physically show the Adam how to "know" his wife, or did he just slip her some "knowing" while Adam wasn't looking? The scripture does say that all the "knowing" and knowledge was done in the absence of the man. Or in today speak , behind his back. This then is probably why the Christian church has almost obliterated the role of women from the NT and cannot even entertain the idea that Jesus the Rabbi and Teacher may had sex with Mary Magdalene, his wife.
Created: