Total posts: 8,861
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
How can there be NO MENTION from historians relating to the only one God Jesus that created the universe, mankind, the animals, and all living things, and where Jesus as God restructured the void earth for His HEBREW Creation only, but only 60 YEARS LATER TO START mentioning His alleged presence?! WTF!
The question of the ages, Brother D. Odd though, that Jewish historian and military leader Flavius Josephus, a general that fought against Rome only affords Jesus "son of God" creator of the universe and everything in it, barley enough words to make a sentence in the whole of his extensive works concerning the history of the Jews.
Created:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Does Miss Tradesecret want to call the Apostle Paul a LIAR
Brother D. The Reverend Tradesecret denies often that which is written in the bible. I mean lets not forget, that we are talking about a Pastor and a Chaplain that even denies being a Reverend. How dumb is that!?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
OK. Lets not glog up ponikshiy 's interesting thread with pointless unnecessary posts. It doesn't make for good reading and puts the reader off learning anything. And I am quite looking forward to her next instalment.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Every group has a radical minority.
You make it a speciality off missing the whole point.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Its really only the radical muslims you have to fear.
Yes this will be that "tiny minority" the apologist keep reminding us of. The majority are irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ponikshiy
As I clearly explain to you here>>>>>
Most of the theist here rely strictly on the scriptures for their faith and beliefs and will reject anything extra biblical. -With the attitude - if it ain't in the bible it ain't true. The Reverend Tradesecret is such a stickler. Although they will allow themselves speculations and assertions ( and present them as biblical fact) they will not afford the opposition the same privilege.
This is why I always endeavour to keep my threads strictly to the biblical "evidence".
Created:
Posted in:
Insurrection? .
Yes, insurrection against Rome. What bible evidence is there?
The major clue comes from the Mark 15:7 KJV, where biblically the New Testament introduces briefly a rebel by the name of Barabbas - Son of the father. This name could also indicate that Barabbas was the son of a Jewish leader. More interesting is the NIV biblical fact that this rebel's first name we are told is also - Jesus.
Matthew 27:17 New International Version
17 So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”
As do the GNT, CEV, NAB, NET, NRSV versions.
Matthew 27:17 Contemporary English Version
17 So when the crowd came together, Pilate asked them, “Which prisoner do you want me to set free? Do you want Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”
What has to be asked here is what is the link between this rebel "murderer of Romans", Jesus and "the turn the other cheek, love thy enemies", Jesus?
Could it be insurrection?
We are told in the bible that for some unexplainable reason that on "festival" days of the year that Rome would offer a dispensation , that is to say exemption from a rule or usual requirement.
Matthew 27:15-17 New International Version
15 Now it was the governor’s custom at the festival to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd. 16 At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was Jesus Barabbas. 17 So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”
The bible says that this festival was the Jewish Passover. Really? Why would a Roman Procurator be interested, indeed feel obliged to partake in such festivals never mind release a murderer on the say so of the Jews? There is no evidence that this custom of dispensation of releasing enemies of Rome was ever practiced.
Looking at various versions of Mark 15:7 it is notable that the word - insurrection goes through a change and is altered to - revolt, uprising, sedition or rebellion which all happen to be crimes against the state of Rome with the only punishment being - crucifixion.
Are we to believe that Pilate a Governor of Rome would release a "murderer" and enemy of Rome rather than a passive sandal wearing preacher?
The answer can only come in Mark 15:7 where we can clearly read the biblical evidence:
Mark 15:7 King James Version " And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection". /revolt, uprising, sedition or rebellion.
Problem here though is that the only time any of these preferred terms are used is in that one single verse. Which can only lead to another question:
What rebellion!?
The only time we here of Jesus committing anything even near "rebellious" is when he is said to have overturned the tables of the money changes and driven them out with a piece of cord which amounts to nothing more than a hissy-fit and nothing at all even resembling a "revolutionary uprising" where Jesus Barabbas committed murder/s.
Or are the gospel writers simply playing down the role that Jesus the Christ played in what was in reality a full blown assault on the state of Rome and its puppet representatives?
It may well be the case when we look at just one of Jesus the Christ's disciples in particular: Thaddaeus......
.......TBC
Created:
Another example of the "evidence" leading to hypotheticals via speculations and assertions and plausible possibility, is the very good possibility that Jesus may well have survived the crucifixion.
Died quick.
Didn't have his legs broken as did the other "robbers".
Offered vinegar.
The rapid removal from the cross.
It wasn't a family member that asked for the body.
Entombed in a private newly etched out tomb.
A tomb in private surrounding.
Expensive spices and potions carried to the tomb.
people seeing him alive after his execution.
And much more. And all evidence pointing to him surviving.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I'd argue though, that Mein Kampf is a more 'recent document than the Quran,[,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]But I 'do think it is fair to argue against too strong a negative view taken against Islam and the Quran,
And you are being extremely naïve. To Muslims world wide, the Quran is a live living book as if it was written up just yesterday. They are the unchanged un-alterable words of Allah's prophet Muhammad. They mean exactly the same today as they did in the 7th century.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
[Islam] And don't have strong opinions on the subject.
You will. When the full force of Islam comes to a town near you.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
This also explains why Islamic extremists kill Muslims as often if not more so than Jews.
I have often said, that Muslims are the biggest victims of Islam.
I k ow the law of abrogation, but I was going to wait to get into apologetics.
Interesting. I will leave you to it.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
I read the entire Bible many times over but have only read 33% of th Quran so far and can tell a lot of differences.
There are. Like I have written above -- regardless of the atrocious actions of Christians in the past [in the name of Jesus], it too has dragged itself into the 21st century and preaches "love thy neighbour, love your enemy, give your shoes way, feed the hungry and turn the other cheek"... (on the surface at least) and Jesus is their god.#4
The Jews were commanded to attack their enemies a lot in the early parts of the old testament..... Your typical nation state thing,
After the creation story the bloodshed doesn't stop. This is a BIBLICAL fact.
Muhammed preaches for a never ending war against all non Muslims.
Indeed perpetual jihad: holy war.
8:39 And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.
Also jews and christians are taught to love their neighbor. You can pick apart things in the Bible that make modern sensibilities uncomfortable but I think the general message is going to be one of peace and love.
Well again, I have already mentioned that regardless of past atrocities the fact is that the Israel/Israelites and Christians have dragged their respective religious ideologies into the 21st century. AS mentioned here above>> #4,
Muslims believe that the Quran "is the perfect unalterable word of Allah and his prophet". With the Muslim attitude being why alter something that is said and believed to be "perfect"? If it is "perfect" it needs no altering.
Islam is quite openly about hate.
Well you see in the early part of the Quran there are some very nice fluffy verses reminiscent of the New Testamant passages. Then suddenly - as you will find- its tone completely changes. I know why this happened , but as to the fluffy verses Muhammad says he wrote them after Satan visited him in a dream and made him write them. When you have finished your thread and reached your own conclusions, you may want to read up on Law Of Abrogation In Islam.
Interesting thread, by the way.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
The Biden sand shuffle
The Donald Boogie
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I have been saying it for decades- coming to a town near you.
'Entire Planet Will Be Under Our Law': Hamas Commander's Old Video Goes Viral Amid Israel War
"Israel is only the first target" , warns Hamas commanderMahmoud al-Zahar: "The entire planet will be under our law; there will be no more Jews or Christian traitors.".
“We believe in what our Prophet Muhammad said: “Allah drew the ends of the world near one another for my sake, and I have seen its eastern and western ends. The dominion of my nation would reach those ends that have been drawn near me," Zahar said in the video that was published on MEMRI TV in December 2022,
“The entire 510 million square kilometers of Planet Earth will come under [a system] where there is no injustice, no oppression, no Zionism, no treacherous Christianity and no killings and crimes like those being committed against the Palestinians, and against the Arabs in all the Arab countries, in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and other countries," he said.Meanwhile, the West continues to flood our countries with terrorists and their supporters!
Western Government ignored the warning shot across our bows when Rushdie wrote a novel in 1988.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
The Old Testament .
The Old Testament is a horrible book of war and conquest that is only interested in the welfare and prosperity of one bloodline. With that said, Israel has dragged itself into the 21st century, as has the West which is something Islam cannot do and refuses to do. Christianity also, regardless of the atrocious actions of Christians in the past, it too has dragged itself into the 21st century and preaches "love thy neighbour, love your enemy, give your shoes way, feed the hungry and turn the other cheek"... (on the surface at least) and Jesus is their god.
The reason for this is that Muslims believe that the Quran is "the perfect unalterable word of Allah".
Every single achievement (or victory over the unbeliever ) that Muslims achieve they believe that it comes directly from Allah.
To name a few;
The discovery (by an American) and extraction of oil in the 30's. This caused Arab/Muslim countries to move from tents and mud hut into palaces almost over night.
The overthrow in the 70's of the historical monarchy, the Shah of Iran to be replaced by the Islamic State of Iran.
The victory over a super power; Russia in the late 80's.
The attack on the twin towers New York 2001 by just 19 Muslims <<<< that will be "the tiny few" the apologist like to keep reminding us of.
And more recent "victory over the invaders, the great Satan" ; the withdraw of West from the Taliban in Afghanistan.
All the above believed to have been through the blessing and direct intervention of Allah. The Taliban’s victory is [the west was told] “a fruit of long and arduous struggle and God’s big gift to Muslims worldwide”.
And all the above has inspired Muslims world wide to "jihad" - Holy War.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
You are not differentiating between theist and Christian here.
Yes, I realised.
But considering that I mention the four gospels, Jesus, the cross, John the Baptist, Herod, wise men, king of the Jews, Pilate, Christians world wide, life and times of Christ and his very short ministry and disciples- all in the op, I took it for granted that the reader would know I wasn't addressing or speaking of Muslim, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists or Jews.
All very presumptuous of me., I know. I will try better next time.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
To have a better idea of what happened at that time I think you should read more than the gospels, maybe the apocryphal books.
I couldn't agree more. But most of the theist here rely strictly on the scriptures for their faith and beliefs and will reject anything extra biblical. -With the attitude - if it ain't in the bible it ain't true. The Reverend Tradesecret is such a stickler. Although they will allow themselves speculations and assertions ( and present them as biblical fact) they will not afford the opposition the same privilege.
This is why I always endeavour to keep my threads strictly to the biblical "evidence".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If Jesus comes again, we will fuck him in the ass.
Who is "we"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
How you doing Stephen?
All good here Vic. Thank you
I will make it to Bromsgrove one day.
I would really like that. I was out yesterday - Red Lion - and stayed a little longer than I should have.
All the best to you and yours, mate.
Created:
I am told often enough times by the clergy and religious laymen and other theist here that it is a fact that there is difference between evidence and proof and that evidence and proof are not the same thing, which is true of course.
Speaking for myself, I have never claimed to have been able to "prove" a single one of my "assertions" or any conclusions that I may have reached with only the scant "evidence" available to me from the four Gospels, which ultimately ends with an hypothetical, an idea or simply an educated guess when it comes to the four gospels and the life and times of Christ and his very short ministry.
It appears at times that the theist will throw out the accusation of "you are unable to prove anything that you have concluded". To which my answer is, 'yes, you are correct. I can no more prove that Jesus even existed than you can'. So the question of proof here is beside the point.
Take for instance the claim that Jesus was king of the Jews, while all the time only assuming Jesus existed, the only available evidence from the four gospels points to the conclusion that he was but it is not proof. Jesus himself never claims to be king at all. All claims of kingship appear to come from elsewhere, including from his enemies: Pilate and the head board of the cross for instance, and Herod's "fear". The wise men in search of he that was "born King of the Jews" and their royal gifts. And from this scant evidence Christians world wide have themselves asserted that the title "King of the Jews" is an established fact.
So we see that is all the researcher has at his disposal is evidence and not proof and evidence can only suggest greater on less possibilities and plausibility.
One can only draw on, assess, survey, interpret it and draw a conclusion i.e. such as a sequence of events is more likely to have happened than others. And from there the matter should becomes one of commons sense.
That other accusation of "speculation", something I also admit to, goes towards creating the hypotheses. Indeed a hypothesis rest on speculation.
Did Jesus and or his disciples have a hand in John the Baptists death? Hypothetically it is a plausible possibility that they may have going by the evidence.
Of the 83,680 words that are in the four gospels Jesus is said to have spoken only less than a third which are not a lot considering those words can be read in a matter of hours. And neither is it a lot of evidence either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So, in the past few days I have taken time out to pay homage to the Sun and the Moon.
PAGAN!!!😁
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Why Doesnt Religion Prevent Crime?
Who said it does?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
From what I understand, Hinduism is kind of an acceptance of every pagan religion. As they were conquered by and/or traded with so many countries, they came to accept other religions into their pantheon.
Interesting.
As I have mentioned above, I have scant knowledge on or about Hinduism. But but I do of ancient Mesopotamia and I have never come across the slightest connection between the Sumerian epics of the Middle East with that of the Indian sub continent.
So where does Gilgamesh appear in the Hindu pantheon?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
You're right. I had a brain fart. The Epic of Gilgamesh is Sumerian. While Hindus accepted it
So explain . What do you mean by telling me that " Hindus accept the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh"?
And why would they when they have their own epics drawn from stories/myths about struggles for soverignty from around 500 BC?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Well, all religions have founding documents or teachers or collections of sayings. Islam has the Quran, buddhism as the sayings of Buddha, Christianity has the Bible, Hindu has the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.#5
Are you sure about the bold underlined above?😂
To my scant knowledge on Hinduism, Hindus follow the Bhagavad-Gita and the Rigveda a book of hymns.
What part of the Epic of Gilgamesh - a Mesopotamian story about a 2 thirds god in search of eternal life- do you believe is part of the Hindu religion and practiced by Indians?
Created:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Well Brother D. I can only say that had any other member here had put those BIBLICAL verses to the Reverend Tradesecret, that s/he would have been asking for the definitions of the words:
adultery
adulterer
adulteress
divorce
and
immorality, which is her/his default when confronted with BIBLICAL facts contrary to her/his own understanding of scripture.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
@n8nrgim
-->
@n8nrgim
n8nrgim Wrote: areyou saying there were reports from ancient historians of magicfrom nonchristians? #50IlDiavolo wrote: Theancient times is full of magic not necessarily coming fromchristians. There is even a register of magic in the gospels, youmigh have heard of Simon Magus, for example. #62n8nrgim Wrote: maybesimon the magician was a fraud. i am open to the possibility of darkmagic, but it's not covered in much detail in the bible and we dontsee it in every day modern life. #63
Simon Magus was a well respected Jewish holy man of the Samaritans and respected by other Jewish groups. The Samaritans were an Israelite tribe that appeared to have a love hate relationship with other Jewish tribes. He too performed “miracles” . Many Jews respected him believing him to be or have “the great power of god”. But of course, those of the Jesus movement simply said he was a sorcerer / magician. Not to be unexpected, with an imminent war looming you have to choose a side I suppose,.
It was the Samaritans that had rejected the offer to join the army of Jesus. One reason was simply because they believed/knew that Jesus only had his eye on the prize, to be “king of Jerusalem” and that he would soon forget them after the final battle was won. Another reason was that although Simon and the Samaritans fully understood that they didn’t have a cat I hell’s chance of beating the force of the mighty Roman Empire on their own, they wanted nothing do do with Jesus and his movement, because this Simon had his own ideas of who should be king. But as it turned out, just as the Jesus movement had failed with the death of their “messiah” the Samaritans too were decimated by the Romans anyway. Try reading Josephus and the Jewish Wars, FFS.
Also try reading the story of the good Samaritan. This was simply a story of Jesus trying to convince his own movement that not all Samaritans were bad and they were better united than divided.
After Simon/ Samaritans had rejected the offer to join the fight and didn’t want Jesus anywhere near them , Jesus’ disciples, that had been taught to “love thy enemy and your neighbour “ wanted to wipe them out!!! Luke9:51-56 .
IlDiavolo wrote: Jesus was not the only preacher and miracle performer at that time. I think there is a passage in the gospels where one of their followers tells Jesus about a guy that was doing similar things as him. Jesus, aka the christ, said it was ok.n8nrgim Wrote: I think the passage in the gospels u r referring to is where a man was performing miracles in Jesus's name but wasn't following the apostles. Jesus said who ain't against him is for him and not to worry about the guy. My guess is you r mistaken .
I don't believe for a second that this is a mistake. This was Simon The Magus imo. I did a thread on this particular mysterious individual Titled;
Who Was The Mysterious Exorcist? https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5800-who-was-the-mysterious-exorcist
Of course, you lot- theists- instantly started crying “CONTEXT”!
You may like to have a look at that thread and put it into "CONTEXT" for me, as when the same offer was put to my naysayers, they shut the fk up and ran away.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
it was just a figure of speech. jesus' point was that when someone dies, you have to move on with life, you can't dwell on the past. it's excellent wisdom.
No it wasn't "just a figure of speech". It was a clear reference to what I have explained to you above#45 . Anyone outside of Jesus circle of disciples were referred to as "DEAD". that being SPIRITUALY dead.
Hence the father that had literally died and expired clearly wasn't a member of the Jesus circle. And he had physically died among the spiritually DEAD.
Hence "let the dead bury the dead".
The Prodigal Son is another example of what I am telling to. he said his son "had died" but was now "alive again".
As was the tale of Ananias and Sapphira. They are said to have just dropped down dead for no other reason than holding back funds from a sale of some land. this was clearly an excommunication from the movement of the living and cast out to be among "THE DEAD".
It is as I have said above: is all one has to do is remove what are referred to as "miracles" and replace them with initiations, and a different story begins to appear almost immediately.
You are more than welcome to your beliefs and your somewhat wobbly faith. But unless you can give me another rational explanation as to how a dead, three or four days old rotten stinking corpse can come back to life then the word DEAD in the bible is no more than a insult of the time.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
it looks like a lot of what we think we know about jesus might not be reliable.Well is all one has to do is remove what are referred to as "miracles" and replace them with initiations, and a different story begins to appear almost immediately.Let me see if I can make this as simple as possible for you. Example:Raising the "dead".Anyone outside of the Jesus movement are referred to as ' The Dead' while those that have been initiated into the Jesus movement call themselves 'The Living'To belong to this movement one has be raised from among The Dead.The evidence for my claim comes from the bible its self.With this in mind, see if you can answer this question for yourself with no prompting from me or anyone else.One of Jesus' disciples asks him for the day off to "bury his father", what is Jesus' reply?I think Jesus replied let the dead bury the dead. What is your point?
Correct!
My point was for YOU to prove to me that I am correct. Which you have done superbly.
Tell me how can the dead bury the dead?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
it looks like a lot of what we think we know about jesus might not be reliable.
Well is all one has to do is remove what are referred to as "miracles" and replace them with initiations, and a different story begins to appear almost immediately.
Let me see if I can make this as simple as possible for you. Example:
Raising the "dead".
Anyone outside of the Jesus movement are referred to as ' The Dead' while those that have been initiated into the Jesus movement call themselves 'The Living'
To belong to this movement one has be raised from among The Dead.
The evidence for my claim comes from the bible its self.
With this in mind, see if you can answer this question for yourself with no prompting from me or anyone else.
One of Jesus' disciples asks him for the day off to "bury his father", what is Jesus' reply?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Christians have never been able to explain why their god demanded blood sacrifices in the first place. What is it about their god and blood and killing.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Tradesecret wrote @Best.Korea. Sceptics actually don't have much of a think about this at all.
Only a complete and utter dunce could make that kind of statement, Best.Korea
The very word "sceptic" indicates thinking much further and deeper than the indoctrinated shite that Pastors and Chaplains have been feeding the world over the last 2000 years.
The Reverend Tradesecret seems to be at quite a loss for anything resembling intelligent to say these days since his mighty fall from the imagined status he once believe he held, Best.Korea
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
it looks like there must be something to this Jesus story/
I have no reason to believe Jesus did not exist.
Jesus was a JEW . A man that believed or was led to believe that he was rightful king and heir to the throne of Jerusalem. Others though different so crucified him for crimes against Rome with the aid of Jewish hierarchy.
" better one man die than a whole nation".
There were no Christians in Jesus time. The word Christian/s doesn't even appear in any of the gospels and only three times in acts. In fact , as I have said here many times, Jesus the JEW would have been outraged and appalled that a whole new religion had sprang up in his name. And more appalled that alien Christians have wrapped him in a myth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
But I'm more interested in the old testament which is full of blatant incoherences. I'm going to open a thread about it since I've just come to watch an interview with the journalist and UFO investigator JJ Benitez who has published his new book "Las guerras de Yavé" (Yahve's wars). It's fucking interesting.
Well, the Old Testamant is nothing more that a book of war and conquest. Of wars fought by men on the behalf of so called "god/s". It only focuses in on the history one bloodline.
UFO investigator
Sounds interesting. I have looked at the possible connections quite a lot over the years. I have to admit, there are some weird and wonderful stories in that old dusty book. Ezekiel and his flying machine still has me captivated. The many references to " being taken up in a cloud, ascending on a cloud, descending on a cloud, " and Jacobs ladder, Every time I read such biblical references to gods coming and going on clouds of fire I cannot get images such as this out of my mind:
I have read quite a lot on the Mesopotamian Annunaki lords- referred to as the Anak in the OT.
I look forward with great interest to your thread, IlDiavolo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
So, Tradesecret was quite a character, wasn't s/he?
And still is. And considering this thread is concerned with "demonic possession" I am witness to the many personas that the Reverend has been possessed by.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Here is why I think that Lucifer is right
Who is Lucifer and from where did he originate?
And what was he right about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Christians are famous for lying.
Everyone tells lies. Including Jesus and St Paul admits to being a four faced liar.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
what do skeptics think really happened with Jesus and his followers?
Many deserted him- Jesus- well before the time of his arrest. Some deserted him at the time of his arrest and others were captured after his arrest and put to death.
If one believes the NT and accepts recoded history then there is no scepticism at play as the bible itself attest to this and history attest to the missing parts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
i think we should generally defer to it,[ the bible].
What do you mean- "defer to it"?
Created:
Posted in:
The discrepancies and contradictions in the New Testament are renown, I have covered a few myself so I won't cover them here.
So how did the New Testament , a book that is believed by devote Christians to be unimpugnable get so poorly slammed and glued together in the way it has come down to us? Keeping in mind that the gospel writers impugn each other?
Given these multiple discrepancies and contradictions the four gospels can only be accepted as highly questionable and in no way as definitive.
If they are the "words of god" they have been glossed, edited, revised, liberally censored and rewritten by human hand, just as many 21st century believers on this forum often attempt to do.
It has to be seriously remembered that that the Bible- Old and New Testaments are simply a collection of works and arbitrary ones at that. The bible could have included many more works than it has in the state it has come down to us. And it also has to be remembered that many of these missing works are considered to have been ' lost' , but it is more the case they were deliberately excluded and some destroyed.
It was in A.D. 367 that the Bishop of Alexandria was said to have compiled a list of works that were to be included in the New Testament. This list was then given formal consent by the Church Council of Hippo in 393 and was then again by the Council of Carthage 5 years later. It was at these councils a selection was agreed on. Certain works made it in while others didn't leavening us with what we now have what we today call the NT while other works were ignored or as mentioned, simply destroyed.
It has to be asked , how could such a selection process possibly be regarded as definitive let alone "divinely inspired"?
Who was to say and by what authority did a bunch of Pastors, Priests and other members of the clergy infallibly decide that only certain books " belonged" in the bible while others did not?
I do hope that someone here being more qualified than myself can answer these question considering they have had almost 2000 years to iron then out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
@Best.Korea
There are quite a few demons on these boards, and they'd know, why don't you just PM them.IlDiavolo wrote: Yes, I'm one of them. I am "Il Diavolo". Lol.
I'm not one of them but I have been called "the slime of Satan", something I consider to be much worse. And by none other than a meek, mild Christian man of god, love, peace and tolerance.
The Reverend Tradesecret wrote of me:
[Stephen] the serpent, satan, whatever - he is the accuser and you follow after him. you are his disciple. From my point of view - he is slime. You know like the stuff we find after a snail has passed by. creepy. disgusting. ugly.
Not to mention that I and other atheist he'd met were, in his opinion, mostly "drug addled kiddie fiddlers":
But he didn't stop there. The Reverend Tradesecret also told me that I was a "stupid man and dumb as fuck" too. All this and I had only been here a matter of moths.!
I can only suppose he was of the impression that he- being the most educated and of a higher status in the theological field than myself - believed that he ruled the roost on this public forum.
I can only assume that after these unwarranted insults about my person that he then went off to preach "the good news" of love, peace and tolerance to his "congregation of over 300" or maybe a regiment of ADF over which he is a Chaplain.
All very odd considering the Brother D. has just days ago had a warning for addressing another member here mildly as being "blithering idiot" and a "dumb ass" . which by all accounts are strictly against the CoC.?#32
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
And if they are real, they could help me in life.
Well they helped King David.... or was it Solomon?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
She said "Adam and Eve are not mentioned at all in chapter 1". And Dan McClellan appears to have agreed with her observation.
But they may not have been named in chapter 1 but Genesis Chapter 1 does attest;
Genesis1:26-27.KJV.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Dan McClellan says something interest to me at least here : "the God/s observes there is something not good about their creation". Which I believe he is referring to this:
" But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him" Genesis 2:20
So,
the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man”. Genesis 2:20-23. NKJV.
I believe I have covered this on this forum before some time ago.
To the 21st century mind this would seem nothing short of genetic engineering, with Adam being anaesthetised (put under, to sleep) and a body part taken (cartilage maybe) from him to create one (a female) of HIS OWN kind and not a kind in the image of the Gods. We read above that nothing could be found that was “comparable” to Adam, meaning nothing was similar or equivalent or not compatible, which interestingly has one definition that means capable of forming a chemically or biochemically stable system’ or in Adams case, not capable and unstable, he may have been firing blanks?. In other words, Adam of the bible Gen 2 was not able to reproduce with the female that had been created earlier in Genesis1:26-27.
So it could well be that the "god's" failed on the first go and it is as Dan McClellan states: " they realised something was not good...so through trial and error they had to try and improve their creation".
The Sumerians tell us that it took quite a few trials with many errors, and to me, interestingly, Dan McClellan's biblical idea supports perfectly what the much older Sumerian version of creation has to say. The Sumerians go further and actually tell us and why we were created in the first place:
So the decision to create a “primitive worker” was made because the Lords were not ‘miners’.
It appears that the ancient Mesopotamian lords needed someone to do their bidding and for no other reason than they didn't want to do it themselves. And included in this bidding, it is as the bible clearly states:
“There was not a man to till the ground”. So “God formed man of the dust of the ground” Genesis 2:5-7. KJV.
to "till" is to dig. And to dig was to "mine".
I made many of these comparisons years ago when I was reading on ancient Mesopotamia and other material. I believe that I may have also posted about them on this forum too?
So look at this and make up your own mind.
(1)The decision to create a “primitive worker” because the Gods were not ‘miners’ is reminiscent of;
“There was not a man to till the ground”. So “God formed man of the dust of the ground” Genesis 2:5-7. KJV.
(2)The taking of the “two strands essence” is reminiscent of the taking the “rib” of Adam. Genesis2:20-23. NKJV.
(3)the new name given to this geneticist Goddess is Lady of Life, is similar to the name given to Eve by Adam.
“And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living”. Genesis 3:20.
(4)The “Unapproved” adding of “essence” (there own genes) that caused the two hybrids to be “expelled” by the lord. i.e. the serpent lord had sex with the human female which made it possible for her to reproduce. Reminiscent of the exile of the Adam/a from the garden. Genesis 3:22-23.
It should also be remembered that that kissin' cousins do not make for good offspring.
The fact has to be faced, that if any of this is true, then humans were created for no other reason than as a slave race to the "god's" and nothing to do with "god's love" whatsoever.
Nice to see you back, by the way, Castin
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Demons are what is known as, mental disorders.
And many other things, vic.
One only had to have to had a runny nose and cough, limp, bruise, swelling, or hadn't coughed up enough to satisfy the pastors or priests, and you were said to have a "demon".
Jesus' own family believed him to be "possessed". John the Baptist was said to have a "demon" too.
Nope, if you went against or upset the status quo, were anti social, you were a the devil or demon possessed.
Silly I know, but one has to take into consideration the times. The uneducated and illiterate were deeply superstitious in those days after being mind fucked by the well educated elite. They can't get away with it so much these days. Particularly in the West . Thankfully those days are gone now.... in the west anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
God's existence is not worth debating.
I agree.
But the scriptures are worth debating imo.
Unfortunately, the Christian theist here are far too reluctant to even discuss them never mind debate or defend them.
Created:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Stephen,YOUR REVEALING QUOTE: "I could be wrong but from what I remember the Presbyterians condemned forcefully full and partial Preterism? "Like ALL divisions of specifically named Christian churches, some Satanic Presbyterian churches accept preterism, but the orthodox "Presby" church does not.
Well I knew I had read something along those lines sometime ago. I shall have to search the corners of my memory to find the quote to see if the Reverend told us that he was orthodox Presbyterian... or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I was trying to summon a demon.
Why?
Created:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
did you notice in said post that she admits to being a SATANIC Presbyterian whose church has its origin in the FALSE Doctrine of Calvinism?
Yes I did Brother D. S/he must be the only Presbyterian Preterist on the whole planet. A rare breed. I could be wrong but from what I remember the Presbyterians condemned forcefully full and partial Preterism?
Are not women allowed into heaven Brother D.?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Baphomet is not a bad demon.
Among many ridiculous charges levelled against the Order of the Knights Templar was the worship of a bearded head that they called Baphomet. There is nothing at all surrounding this head that suggest anything "Satanic" apart from what the Church has attached to it. Quite the contrary it suggests something Messianic with 'Grail' and Johannite connections.
The Mandaean sect of Southern Iraq are said to have forgiven John the Baptist for baptising Jesus believing that Jesus was the false Messiah, which I believe holds some water when the gospels are read with a keen eye. The Mandaeans were forced to convert to Islam... by the sword.
The Templars are a fascinating subject to study and research and probably worth a thread of its own.
Created: