Stephen

-->

@Tradesecret

Adam did not have a biological father.

And neither did Jesus according to you and the bible. Go back and read what YOU wrote earlier in this thread.

Yet Luke 3:38 records that Adam was the son of God.

Yes it does, doesn't it. So your only son of god- begotten or otherwise doesn't really hold water does it..

Begotten - I suppose means sired. From the same substance.

Which indicates a male a reproductive male when speaking of birth.

It simply means bring into being or existence, cause to bring about,including sired: cause a pregnancy resulting in the birth.

I don't recall anywhere in the Bible that says Adam was "begotten".

There are a lot of things that the bible falls short on (those half stories I often mention) and you often object that atheist plea to silence..

Interestingly,....the Council of Nicaea, the discussions in relation to how to describe the birth of Jesus, was around whether to say he was made or begotten.

Maybe the didn't understand synonyms?

Arius wanted the word made. The Council ruled against him. Eternally begotten was the wording determined for the creed.

Arias had his reasons - and so did Athanasius, both were careful students of the Scriptures and came to different conclusions.

So even they couldn't make their minds up and simply came to a compromise then?

And using your own guesses and pleas to silence, someone had to have biologically fathered the child even if we are are talking test-tube babies or artificial insemination.

Point is your ONLY son of god is proven to be bullshite and you know it.

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@Tradesecret

Joseph was a carpenter,

So you keep saying, but can you define what 'carpenter' means in the ancient biblical sense?

Tradesecret wrote: God had one son.

Not according to the bible. You are simple plain lying.
Well I suppose I could have said only begotten son,

Who was Adam's father? And you need to define the word beget/begot before we can further this conversation. I wouldn't want you moving the goalposts further down the line.

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@Tradesecret

@GnosticChristianBishop

Tradesecret wrote: Joseph was not a deadbeat. He taught Jesus his trade. He was THE carpenter in town. Not just a carpenter.

Why would Joseph need to teach Jesus, a Royal in the line of David and Solomon, the craft of carpentry?

Tradesecret wrote: God had one son.

Not according to the bible. You are simple plain lying.

Created:

3 years ago

3

Posted in:

-->

@Dr.Franklin

It was the greatest, and it [Christianity] unfortunately is in decline. Truly a shame

And what is it that you believe has caused the decline, Doc?

subversion

By what or who?

Freemasons, jews, liberals, etc
And how did these mere mortals manged to cause such a massive decline in such a phenomenon as Christianity a religion that you say was created by god?

just told you, by subverting the church.

But you haven't explained how, have you? You haven't explained how the church was undermined (subverted) by these organisations. You have without any evidence to support your claim simply laid the blame for the decline of the Christian church at the feet of other organisations?

Is it not possible that with the human race being more educated and more informed today than those illiterate and superstitious people of 1st century Palestine that people today are able to work for themselves that the gospels as they have come down to us are a mess of of contradictory half stories that make no sense on the surface?

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Dr.Franklin

It was the greatest, and it [Christianity] unfortunately is in decline. Truly a shame

And what is it that you believe has caused the decline, Doc?

subversion

By what or who?

Freemasons, jews, liberals, etc

And how did these mere mortals manged to cause such a massive decline in such a phenomenon as Christianity a religion that you say was created by god?

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

VOTE the MEEP! CONSPIRACY THEORIES and/or HISTORY as NEW FORUM CATEGORIES?

-->

@oromagi

PROPOSITION1:

Shall we request the creation of a new FORUM CATEGORY titled CONSPIRACY THEORIES ?

YES

PROPOSITION2:

Shall we request the creation of a new FORUM CATEGORY titled HISTORY ?

YES

Created:

3 years ago

4

Posted in:

-->

@Dr.Franklin

It was the greatest, and it [Christianity] unfortunately is in decline. Truly a shame

And what is it that you believe has caused the decline, Doc?

subversion

By what or who?

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Dr.Franklin

It was the greatest, and it unfortunately in decline. Truly a shame

And what is it that you believe has caused the decline, Doc?

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

The Hagia Sophia Is Now a Mosque - Tales of Times Forgotten

-->

@Dr.Franklin

He created the most successful religion in the world

And it is in decline now. The age of the fish has gone sunshine and many churches are now mosques. Seems to me that Islam gained one of Christianity's greatest scalps when it converted this beautiful work of architecture.

Orthodox Christian cathedral, Hagia Sophia

There there , never mind it will all come off when it's dry.🤣

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Dr.Franklin

Christ is King

He probably was. He believed he was but unfortunately for him neither the Romans nor many Jews believed it. Dearie me, never mind, there there he may get another chance to prove his claim on his expected return.😂

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Dr.Franklin

You are full of shite, doc. go back and read your own claim.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?

-->

@sadolite

The term homophobe was created as a political weapon to marginalize and dehumanize anyone who would go against normalizing homosexuality and its political agenda. You are right on all counts. Don't cowtow to the homosexual agenda and see what happens. Homophobe will be the first word out of peoples mouths that do bow to the homosexual political agenda.

Yes indeed. The looney left have nothing in the way of responses but to create new words they believe will win them the argument. As I have explained many times on this forum, a phobic person is someone that suffers from an irrational fear or dread of something or someone and it appears to me that it is the Homo community that suffers the imagined and irrational fear of anyone that is not homosexual.

Islam on the other hand is rightfully something to be feared , simply ask the relatives of all those slaughtered and survivors of the the Manchester Arena terrorist attack by Islam fanatic Salman Ramadan Abedi.

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@Dr.Franklin

Dr.Franklin wrote: The Bible is explicitly clear that Christ WAS accepted by everyone in Palestine...except the Jews.

Stephen wrote: And you can quote chapter and verse to support that claim can you?

Dr.Franklin wrote: Romans 3:29 [ Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,]

And that is your evidence is it? My word, Doc. You really are a thicko. Tell me, did the Polytheist Romans accept the Jew Jesus as their king and god?

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

Tiberius...

Well when all was said and done he was the top Bod.

I see. Yes Tiberius is said to have been "top bod" / 2nd Emperor ( son of god) during the time of Jesus.

Does he get a mention in the Bible?

He does. According to Luke . But only as a mark in time and mentioned only once by name.

So what did Tiberius have to say?

Nothing to my knowledge. We can only imagine that all local problems and decisions were left in the hands of his procurator Pilate to sort out. This would include Zealots, rebel rousers, pretenders to the throne and pretenders the title Son of God.

How's Mrs Vic by the way?

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

So what did Tiberius have to say.

Tiberius?

In what respect?

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Pat_Johnson

did Pilate have an authority to assign Israel a king?

Good point. The answer is no. But Caesar had appointed the puppet king Herod. Was Herod accepted by the Jews as king of Israel? Or did they simply tolerate the situation? The Zealots didn't and wouldn't accept an Arab for a king although Herod was said to have been a "practicing Jew".

Pilate more than likely wrote what he did not necessarily because he may have believed Jesus to be rightful heir to the throne but did so to piss off the Jewish hierarchy.

All good stuff.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Pat_Johnson

Btw, that label Pilate inserted on him was a mockery but let us ignore that for your sake.

There is nothing to suggest it was 'mockery' on the behalf of Pilate or the Romans. Any suggested mockery came from the Jew population and they, the bible states, protested that Pilate ordered the inscription on the cross head claiming Jesus to be " king of the Jews".

I enjoy your posts , by the way.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

@ the Witch

. If you don't know what the f*** you're talking about don't talk about it.

Why are you so reluctant to talk about what it is that you believe, Witch?

The last time I aired my own beliefs, you mocked them and me only for it to eventually turn out that you believed exactly the same as I. 🤣

Would you like reminding of your hypocrisy and double standards, Witch?

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@rosends

-He must build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28)

But failed.

-He must gather all the Jews back to the Land of Israel (Is. 43:5-6)

But failed

- He must usher in an era of world peace and bring an end to hatred, oppression, suffering and disease (Is. 2:4)

But failed.

- He must spread the knowledge of the G-d of Israel, uniting the entire world as one (Zechariah 14:9)

But failed again.

AND, it seems, the Reverend ' tradey' Munchausen was made in the image of a complete failure.

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@Dr.Franklin

All sounds very familiar. 'Build back better'. 'New normal' . 'The great reset'
Except Christianity did NOT install a progressive NWO onto the people.

Rome was the NWO. And there was another NWO when it fell.

The Bible is explicitly clear that Christ WAS accepted by everyone in Palestine...except the Jews.

And you can quote chapter and verse to support that claim can you?

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@PREZ-HILTON

A new story, a new moral system,

All sounds very familiar. 'Build back better'. 'New normal' . 'The great reset'

and yes, a new religion:

Corporations are the new gods of the new millennium. And government their priests. Don't be surprised if government decide to reset the clock to the year zero. It's not as if this hasn't happened before, is it?

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

What happened.

-->

@zedvictor4

Mrs Zed and I haven't been away yet, as Mrs Zed is awaiting cataract surgery

I hope that is a great success Vic, and that she and yourself have a well deserved break from it all.

All the very best to you both Vic lad.

Created:

3 years ago

3

Posted in:

What happened.

-->

@zedvictor4

What happened?

Don't know about anyone else Vic lad, but Mrs Stephen and I have been here https://meteora.com/meteora-monasteries/ home for a few days and then here https://www.visitscotland.com/info/see-do/rosslyn-chapel-p564661

How about you?

Created:

3 years ago

3

Posted in:

-->

@Tradesecret

I disagree that the gospels contain factual errors.

Would you like a list of the many factual errors in the gospels?

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

@the Witch

Gods having sex with women, especially virgins, was definitely a Greco-Roman thing .....

It was a Mesopotamian thing too. Abram/Abraham originated from that part of the world. The bible if read carefully when speaking of Eve's offspring explains that she had a child " from the Lord". <<< this was the" forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge".

The book of Enoch explains that it was the sons of god that had committed the crime of having sex with human females there- by defiling themselves. For to have sex with humans was completely taboo. They were forced to take them as wives as punishment and were never allowed to return to their heavenly realm. The BIBLE alludes to this at Genesis 6:2. One of these son's of god slipped a bit into Eve there by introducing to her the knowledge of sexual intercourse. Hence, when we read terms of phrases - him knowing her, or he knew her, or they knew her, it was all to do with sexual intercourse and sometimes it was rape;

Example

Judges 19:22-25 King James Version (KJV)

22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.

23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.

24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.

25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

Indeed Witch. It doesn't get more misogynistic does it?

And its not the first time in the bible where character offers his own innocent daughter to the gang raping mob is it.

And it takes one of those what you call "lying, cowardly and misogynistic atheist" to reveal this too you.

Created:

3 years ago

3

Posted in:

Atheists are cowards.

-->

@FLRW

“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.”

― Albert Einstein

Does that sound like a coward?

You haven't reckoned on Tradesecret's definition of the word - coward, have you.

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@FLRW

What would happen if Jesus and the "virgin Mary" took a Paternity Test.
Maury would open the envelope and say: "God, you are not the Father!"

Nor the son, nor the holy spirit!

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

Prayer

-->

@Tradesecret

In either event, I am happy to stop being so rude if that it was I was doing.

And how do Christians like you define the word "defamatory" or "rude", as you like to water t down, Hypocrite!

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

Curious facts about witchcraft that.....

-->

@Deb-8-a-bull

I can't help but feel that the poly witch may have just performed a spell of sorts to harm us.

I don't know about any spells Deb, But she does say that posting here is- for her the equivalent of " taking a shit!. #140 Or maybe she was referring to her "unblocking herself"#26 in the exercise of the "attuning".

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@Castin

No, the Septuagint translated the word as parthenos -- which originally meant "young woman" but eventually came to mean "virgin." This left some ambiguity in its meaning, and that ambiguity is the source of all this confusion. So it may be more useful to say the Septuagint translated the word as maiden,

The star sign for Virgo is the maiden. The bible alludes to astrology/astronomy often. In fact the ancients were obsessed with it from the day of Adam. To the ancients, the "heavens" were their calendar or star clock. Is it at all possible that Joseph simply married a Virgo/Virgin named Mary?

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@Castin

Stephen wrote: And one simply has to ask, what good would a child to be born 700 in the future be of any use Ahaz in his hour of need?

Precisely -- none at all.

Stephen wrote: I have said it many times before on this forum that this is the author of Matthew's gospel once again reaching for his trusty OT in a desperate attempt to link Jesus to the OT prophesies as being the one to come and prophesised about.
Quite true. Matthew was really preoccupied with fulfillment of scripture.

We all tend to have an egocentric approach to reading. We interpret based on what is useful, meaningful, and inspirational to us. Matthew too was guilty of this. But it's important to remember that the authors of Isaiah were, just like us, more concerned with events closer to home.

Exactly. A1.

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@Castin

Here is a summary of what this part of Isaiah is actually about, for any lazy-but-curious readers:

Ahaz, the king of Judah, is freaking out. He's being besieged by the kings of Israel and Syria. In distress, he asks his prophet, Isaiah, what to do. How does Isaiah reply? "Chill out. There's this pregnant young woman in your kingdom who's about to bear a son. Before the kid knows right from wrong, he'll be eating curds and honey. His name will be Immanuel." In other words, soon the kingdom will see prosperous times again. God's got this. Immanuel means "God is with us."

And as I have said many times when this ridiculous attempt to link Jesus to OT prophesies pops up. One simply has to ask, what good would a child to be born 700 years into the future be of any use Ahaz in his hour of need?

I have said it many times before on this forum that this is the author of Matthew's gospel once again reaching for his trusty OT in a desperate attempt to link Jesus to the OT prophesies as being the one to come and prophesised about.

Created:

3 years ago

4

Posted in:

Curious facts about witchcraft that.....

@ the Witch

And atheists call us liars.

Only when they do lie and continue to make unsupported claims, lie about others, use double stands and are blatant hypocrites, Witch.

Created:

3 years ago

3

Posted in:

Curious facts about witchcraft that.....

-->

@3RU7AL

It's sad to think the only way atheists can be content is if theists no longer exist. Maybe you guys can come up with a way to take us out then you could have a world that you feel you can be happy and free in. It's sad to think that you can't go through your whole day without thinking about the fact that somebody somewhere doesn't think like you. How horrible it must be when you have an immediate family member like a spouse or a child who has any interest in spirituality that you have to look at them and talk to them and have meals with them when they're just disgusting theists. That you sit while you're eating and look at them and think someday you people will no longer exist. But I'm evil and I'm horrible and I'm lower than you. It would be funny if it wasn't probably the scariest thing if people took any time to really sit and think about it.
many atheists are very spiritual.

I 100% agree.

The Witch wrote: Two whole people, as you continue to pat people who are anti-theists on their back. Don't bother adding insult to injury. Everyone who posts here knows better.
3RU7AL wrote: how many examples do you need ?

i consider myself a DEIST GNOSTIC and TAOIST who happens to be UNCONVINCED of the utility of subscribing to any particular THEISTIC (personality based) GOD(S)

I believe all the characters in the bible existed. I believe all the stories in the bible - minus the so called miracles. I think that makes me a theist that refuses to believe in miracles.

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@Tradesecret

What makes it valid? It is an argument from silence.

Which is an argument you use often in defence of these unreliable half told stories in scripture.
An argument from silence is not an argument.

Which doesn't stop you suggesting, surmising, guessing and theorising as to what things Jesus may or may not have said. And it doesn't stop you presenting your conjecture and theorise as biblical fact when it suites you to do so.

In any event - Matthew who was one of Jesus' inner 12 did raise it.
NOPE. You are attempting the pass off something written by an unknown author assumed to be 'Mathews' gospel by purposefully confusing it with the disciple named Mathew of which there is very little known to the point of being almost obscure. You are also ignoring what I have actually wrote and purposefully conflating the Immaculate Conception with the so called - virgin birth.
the disciple Matthew is credited with writing his gospel.

By whom? There is absolutely no evidence as to the actual names of the authors of the scriptures . You are lying.

But we don't know whether Jesus raised it or not.

Jesus doesn't mention his immaculate conception at all. Which strangely is one of those stories the likes of Christians use to say that Jesus was the one prophesised about in the OT. In fact, the or A Immaculate Conception, isn't written about anywhere in the OT.
We don't know whether he raised it or not.

We know that the bible doesn't mention Jesus himself speaking of his Immaculate Conception

Matthew did mention it was prophesied.

Nope. The author of Mathews gospel does not say anything about an Immaculate Conception being part of any prophesy. Stop telling lies.

From the book of Isaiah.

Nope. Stop telling lies. Isiah mentions nothing of an Immaculate Conception. Stop telling lies.

the Septuagint records it. did you miss the memo? oops.

NOPE! And I notice sarcasm or what you would define as "abuse" creeping in.

Jesus said and did many things that are not recorded.

Maybe so. Which leave only guesswork and conjecture, and hypothesis which you use often when it suites you to do so but never afford others the same curtesy.
shhh don't tell anyone. I certainly don't care whether he mentioned it or not.

Well that is all that is left for you to say once your own comments are broken down for the nonsense that they actually are.

The point is that [gospel of] Matthew and [gospel of]Luke did mention it.

But they were not members of the 12.

You can forget those facts if you like - I know it sucks. But they did. How inconvenient for you?

They are not facts though are they. This is a perfect example of you presenting your own theories and conjecture as BIBLICAL facts

Stephen wrote: Interesting that Jesus doesn't once mention his "miraculous conception" . And neither do any of Jesus' inner circle of 12 disciples.

Tradesecret wrote Matthew and Luke raised it. [the immaculate conception]

Nope. Luke is not even mentioned as being the name of any of his inner circle of 12 disciples, so again you are attempting the pass off the unknown author assumed to be 'Luke's' gospel as one of Jesus' 12. He wasn't.
I am not saying Luke was a disciple. Matthew was.

And my point was that NONE of the 12 disciples mentioned the Immaculate Conception. And again, the author of 'Matthews gospel is unknown and was not a disciple of Jesus.

Luke however was close associates with many of the disciples and even of Mary, the person in question.

Wouldn't that be hearsay?

hearsay

/ˈhɪəseɪ/

noun

1.information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour: Or do Christians have a completely different definition for the word - hearsay?

Mary raised it. And Joseph her husband knew it to be true.

But did any single one of the 12? And Mary doesn't once tell us her that she had actually Immaculately Conceived a child. Quite the opposite, she is simply bewildered by it all and askes "how can this be"?

Mary raised it. And so did Matthew. Hello Matthew wrote the gospel Matthew was one of the 12.

Nope.

Stephen wrote: And they must have been far too dumb to work out for themselves that the woman said to be Jesus' Mother was all human with inherited sin making her offspring also riddled in sin and all very human.
SkepticalOne wrote: Yah...but magic solves any problemairtight?! ;-)
Tradesecret wrote: Magic is not attempting to solve anything. Jesus was God and he was man. That is not magic. Magic is deception and mirrors.

As is religion on the whole. Intentional or not. imo
That is your entire MO. you disbelieve in anything that is not material.

Wrong again. I believe all the characters in the bible existed I believe the stories too - just minus the miracles. Which I have explained my stance many times now and to you in particular.

you can't believe in god so you think everyone who does is a nutter.

Nope . I don't accept the scriptures as they have been passed on to us through the millennia.

I don't believe in magic either. But God is not magic. Of course you can't see the difference. That is your problem not mine.

It hasn't been a problem to me ever.

In fact - if Jesus had tried to claim this[ that he was immaculately conceived] later on - it may well have manipulated people to believe him.

Opinion. And one has to wonder why he didn't ? Mark' and John's gospels don't mention the conception or the birth of Jesus. One can only suppose it wasn't true, not important or simply hadn't heard about it....

Yes. Opinion. but one just as meritable as yours.

Maybe. But in my case I have the bible showing that neither Jesus nor any of his 12 inner circle of disciples speaking of Jesus' Immaculate Conception. You on the other hand are assuming they did and presenting your assumptions - and lies as fact even though you tell us that you

" don't even care if Jesus or his disciples mention the Immaculate Conception". And for someone that doesn't even care, you going to great lengths to debunk my comments going as far as to outright lie.

You are such a poor scholar it seriously is amazing you really want to be heard at all. Sad actually.

More sarcasm that no doubt you would define as abuse. I keep telling you. You do not have to read or respond to my posts.... at all..... ever.

Have you no self control man?

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@SkepticalOne

@Tradesecret

Stephen wrote: Interesting that Jesus doesn't once mention his "miraculous conception" . And neither do any of Jesus' inner circle of 12 disciples.

Valid point.
What makes it valid? It is an argument from silence.

Which is an argument you use often in defence of these unreliable half told stories in scripture.

In any event - Matthew who was one of Jesus' inner 12 did raise it.

NOPE. You are attempting the pass off something written by an unknown author assumed to be 'Mathews' gospel by purposefully confusing it with the disciple named Mathew of which there is very little known to the point of being almost obscure. You are also ignoring what I have actually wrote and purposefully conflating the Immaculate Conception with the so called - virgin birth.

But we don't know whether Jesus raised it or not.

Jesus doesn't mention his immaculate conception at all. Which strangely is one of those stories the likes of Christians use to say that Jesus was the one prophesised about in the OT. In fact, the or A Immaculate Conception, isn't written about anywhere in the OT.

Jesus said and did many things that are not recorded.

Maybe so. Which leave only guesswork and conjecture, and hypothesis which you use often when it suites you to do so but never afford others the same curtesy.

Stephen wrote: Interesting that Jesus doesn't once mention his "miraculous conception" . And neither do any of Jesus' inner circle of 12 disciples.

Tradesecret wrote: Matthew and Luke raised it. [the immaculate conception]

Nope. Luke is not even mentioned as being the name of any of his inner circle of 12 disciples, so again you are attempting the pass off the unknown author assumed to be 'Luke's' gospel as one of Jesus' 12. He wasn't.

Mary raised it. And Joseph her husband knew it to be true.

But did any single one of the 12? And Mary doesn't once tell us her that she had actually Immaculately Conceived a child. Quite the opposite, she is simply bewildered by it all and askes "how can this be"?

What point would it have been necessary to raise it again anyway?

Then what was the point of it even being in two of the gospels in the first place?

Stephen wrote: And they must have been far too dumb to work out for themselves that the woman said to be Jesus' Mother was all human with inherited sin making her offspring also riddled in sin and all very human.
SkepticalOne wrote: Yah...but magic solves any problemairtight?! ;-)
Tradesecret wrote: Magic is not attempting to solve anything. Jesus was God and he was man. That is not magic. Magic is deception and mirrors.

As is religion on the whole. Intentional or not. imo

In fact - if Jesus had tried to claim this[ that he was immaculately conceived] later on - it may well have manipulated people to believe him.

Opinion. And one has to wonder why he didn't ? Mark' and John's gospels don't mention the conception or the birth of Jesus. One can only suppose it wasn't true, not important or simply hadn't heard about it....

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@SkepticalOne

Interesting that Jesus doesn't once mention his "miraculous conception" . And neither do any of Jesus' inner circle of 12 disciples.

Valid point.

In fact the only thing that Jesus agrees himself to being in the whole of the NT is a messiah.

John 4:25-26 King James Version

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

And he failed to perform anything at all that was expected of a messiah.

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

Prayer

-->

@Tradesecret

If you wish me to respond to you in any topic in this forum you will remove all derogatory remarks about me from them. Otherwise I will simply see it as nothing less than what it is. Trollish behaviour. Stalking behaviour. Defamatory behaviour. I will refuse to respond.

example>>

Tradsecret wrote: @ zedvictor4One wonders what type of drugs you are using. #8

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@SkepticalOne

Interesting that Jesus doesn't once mention his "miraculous conception" . And neither do any of Jesus' inner circle of 12 disciples.

And they must have been far too dumb to work out for themselves that the woman said to be Jesus' Mother was all human with inherited sin making her offspring also riddled in sin and all very human.

Created:

3 years ago

3

Posted in:

Major woo woo

-->

@Deb-8-a-bull

Anddddddddd
When you become a master. Can ya do me for free. ?
Or half price.

Well it appears that is all one has to do is " unblock" themselves to become a "master", Deb.

"For some students an attunement can be a very wonderful, or emotional experience.

And if someone doesn’t feel a lot during an attunement, they often will have wonderful experiences later on, as long as they continue to use Reiki.

For example I had a Reiki class with 3 women, they were all friends. Two of them had intense experiences during the attunements, but one of them felt nothing. She was sad, that she couldn't feel anything during the attunements, but her friends did.

I told her that this is ok, maybe she needed to release some blockages first".

Is it any wonder that the Witch tells us that she comes here to only take shite?

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

Just as I predicated.

You have shown that you have absolutely no intention of answering simple questions, even those that fall well within the parameters of your own bullshite dictates. OR as they are referred to in the legal - "get- out clauses".. as you yourself set out in post 1here #1. You are a fkn clown Reverend Munchausen.

That is good enough for me.

I am content now with sitting back and watching you spew more of your "personal" guesses, thoughts, opinions AND conjecture while breaking your own caveats at the same time and while also denying other members the same curtesy. 😂

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Tradesecret

LOOK, Just simply stop responding to me if your intent is to keep refusing to answer my questions that are clearly in the bounds of your own fkn dictates, you sanctimonious, contradictory, backpaddling whining little tart . Its not fkn hard.
Nothing personal there is there?

There is now, and you are derailing your own thread .

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

Major woo woo

Witch wrote:

There's only one level after that which is teacher and as a teacher you're able to do attunements.

With a strong intention, and the help of Reiki Symbols, the Reiki Master will first connect to the Source of Reiki, to become a Channel for the Universal Life Energy.

........Then the Reiki Master will perform a specific ritual on the student with the intention to help them to clear the Chakras, and the energy channels, so that they become a channel for Reiki.

This means that the Reiki Master channels the energy through the Chakras of the students, to help to release any blockages. It is basically like an intensive Reiki session. My teacher compared it with a chimney sweeper, cleaning out the chimney.

During the attunement the teacher might only concentrate on the ritual, but stays open for input from their Spirit Guides, through which they follow their intuition. This might also be the reason that there are differences in the Attunement Procedures.......

🤣

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

Contrary to ....

-->

@BrotherD.Thomas

She is only known upon this forum because of being outright Bible stupid, and because of this fact, she is the #1 Runaway from the Bible.

I can assure you Brother D. That Tradesecret is known for much, much more than the above mentioned. Being a outright lying narcissist to name a few.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Tradesecret

The very fact that I have told you that those questions are not serious questions by you because you want to know - and yet you continue to push anyway - is demonstration that you have your own agenda.

BULLSHIT! Reverend. This is what I wrote very early on in this thread concerning your Weasley dictates that you laid down here> #1 and are now backpaddled on :

Stephen wrote: So right of the bat , you have returned to true form and you are refusing to answer two genuine and serious questions . You must think everyone here is absolutely dumb. What you have done with your opening post is lay down your own ground rules where only YOU will determine and define what is a " genuine" and "serious" question. #4

You are now simply attempting to bury my genuine and serious questions that are completely in the bounds of your OWN caveat under a pile of posts.

So how does "the Christian bible" define the word - righteous?

And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - blameless?

And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - perfect?

And although mankind's fall means we will remain sinful does this mean we will not ever be perfect until we accept Jesus, the resurrection and die?

LOOK, Just simply stop responding to me if your intent is to keep refusing to answer my questions that are clearly in the bounds of your own fkn dictates, you sanctimonious, contradictory, backpaddling whining little tart . Its not fkn hard.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Tradesecret

And haven't you made it clear above on this thread that you only take your understandings and meanings of words" from the bible itself"?#20 and not "some dictionary"?

I am not asking you for the definitions of these words given in "some dictionary". I asked you questions that are well inside your own capacity and the dictates and the requirements that you set down in your original post yourself, namely:

Tradsecret wrote:[1] What I propose - to try and simplify things is that if people who have asked me a serious question and wish an answer I will reply here.
Tradsecret wrote:[2] These questions must be genuine and in response to what I have written .or others if they are serious. #1

So how does "the Christian bible" define the word - righteous?

And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - blameless?

And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - perfect?

And although mankind's fall means we will remain sinful does this mean we will not ever be perfect until we accept Jesus, the resurrection and die?

It is a commitment to stop you and Brother from trolling and making personal attacks.

There is no personal attack made by me on this thread. You are just desperate to avoid the questions even if it means breaking rules set down by yourself.

And again you refuse to answer a single question although they are totally in the bounds of your own caveat.

I don't mind those questions sitting there showing the members that you will break your own rules if it means not having to answer..

I will now sit back and watch you unravel as you normally do when under the slightest pressure.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

Contrary to ....

-->

@Tradesecret

Turning into a right little troll aren't you Reverend Munchausen.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

Major woo woo