Who is the Antichrist?

[JayRob]

Now, you know I have stated many times that Christ showed a few of the disciples what an angelic body looks like...........Luke 9:27-36

A spiritual body is a physical body. Remember, humans live in a flesh "BODY", and angels live in a spiritual "BODY". We are talking about physical bodies, but made up of a different substance, however the point is both are physical.

JayRob, the angelic footprint is at least 10 million years old. I don't recall the Neanderthal human dating back 10 million years......do you?

You don't recall because your mind is so closed and fixated on fitting history into the bible no matter what. Your research is lacking as well, not to mention your fixation on a man who has no idea what he's talking about, but that doesn't seem to matter to you.

Neanderthals date back to ten million years, just in case you didn't know. No need for fictitous spiritual beings making footprints on physical ground as you claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

See under Classification: It says the following:

Neanderthals evolved from African apes along a path similar to that of humans. Sometime between 5 and 10 million years ago a common ancestral species between chimps and humans lived in Africa. The ancestor evolved along a path that might include Ardipithecus kadabba, Ardipithicus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster (or Homo erectus). The last common ancestor between anatomically modern Homo sapiens and Neanderthals appears to be an African variant of Homo heidelbergensis known as Homo rhodesiensis, named after an archaic Homo sapiens, Broken hill 1 (Kabwe 1) discovered in the territory of Rhodesia in 1921.

And FYI, a physical body is not a spiritual body. LOL!!

 

[ROYAL BLUE]

You don't recall because your mind is so closed and fixated on fitting history into the bible no matter what. Your research is lacking as well, not to mention your fixation on a man who has no idea what he's talking about, but that doesn't seem to matter to you.

Neanderthals date back to ten million years, just in case you didn't know. No need for fictitous spiritual beings making footprints on physical ground as you claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

See under Classification: It says the following:

Neanderthals evolved from African apes along a path similar to that of humans. Sometime between 5 and 10 million years ago a common ancestral species between chimps and humans lived in Africa. The ancestor evolved along a path that might include Ardipithecus kadabba, Ardipithicus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster (or Homo erectus). The last common ancestor between anatomically modern Homo sapiens and Neanderthals appears to be an African variant of Homo heidelbergensis known as Homo rhodesiensis, named after an archaic Homo sapiens, Broken hill 1 (Kabwe 1) discovered in the territory of Rhodesia in 1921.

And FYI, a physical body is not a spiritual body. LOL!!

What part of between don't you understand? The angelic footprint is much older, however scientists state the footprint is conservatively at least 10 million years of age.......not between 5 and 10 million.

What part of the following don't you understand?

FYI, the word "BODY" is defined as............

BODY

bod·y (bd)
n. pl. bod·ies
1.
a. The entire material or physical structure of an organism, especially of a human or animal.
b. The physical part of a person.
c. A corpse or carcass.
2.
a. The trunk or torso of a human or animal.
b. The part of a garment covering the torso.
3.
a. A human; a person.
b. A group of individuals regarded as an entity; a corporation.
4. A number of persons, concepts, or things regarded as a group: We walked out in a body.
5. The main or central part, as:
a. Anatomy The largest or principal part of an organ; corpus.
b. The nave of a church.
c. The content of a book or document exclusive of prefatory matter, codicils, indexes, or appendixes.
d. The passenger- and cargo-carrying part of an aircraft, ship, or other vehicle.
e. Music The sound box of an instrument.
6. A mass of matter that is distinct from other masses: a body of water; a celestial body.
7. A collection or quantity, as of material or information: the body of evidence.
8. Consistency of substance, as in paint, textiles, or wine: a sauce with body.
9. Printing The part of a block of type underlying the impression surface.
tr.v. bod·ied, bod·y·ing, bod·ies
1. To furnish with a body.
2. To give shape to. Usually used with forth: "Imagination bodies forth the forms of things unknown" (Shakespeare). http://www.thefreedictionary.com/body

 

[JayRob]

What part of between don't you understand? The angelic footprint is much older, however scientists state the footprint is conservatively at least 10 million years of age.......not between 5 and 10 million.

What part of the following don't you understand?

FYI, the word "BODY" is defined as...........

RB, just face it, you're "busted" once again. 9, 10 or 11 million means very little in time, unless you're just fixating your mind on trying to fit PROVEN science into an imaginary book. No scientist ever said anything about an angel. Only religious folks like you can come up with such unproven nonsense.

Let's just for fun, take your case seriously. Then you're admitting that this Old Testament god, whose supposed to be loving, merciful and full of good, this god stood around for hundreds of thousands, even MILLIONS of years while humans suffered from weather changes, from diseases of the mouth, from wars, from suffering of the young due to high rates of infant mortality, from early death by most because they only lived to about 30 years of age. As a matter of fact, 99.9 percent of all creatures who ever existed are now extinct.
There was immense suffering by these humans, yet this OT god stood around for millions of years, watching and waiting, and NOT UNTIL 6,000 years ago did he decide to intervene in human affairs. WOW, some god....some design by that Old Testament god!!

How could a loving god, a loving creator have waited around for millions and millions of years waiting and procrastinating, while these poor creatures suffered and suffered and suffered, then finally decided he would intervene?

Surely RB, you can do better than this.

 

[Blacknbengal]

Who is he? He's the devil in disguise of a man.

 

[ROYAL BLUE]

RB, just face it, you're "busted" once again. 9, 10 or 11 million means very little in time, unless you're just fixating your mind on trying to fit PROVEN science into an imaginary book. No scientist ever said anything about an angel. Only religious folks like you can come up with such unproven nonsense.

Let's just for fun, take your case seriously. Then you're admitting that this Old Testament god, whose supposed to be loving, merciful and full of good, this god stood around for hundreds of thousands, even MILLIONS of years while humans suffered from weather changes, from diseases of the mouth, from wars, from suffering of the young due to high rates of infant mortality, from early death by most because they only lived to about 30 years of age. As a matter of fact, 99.9 percent of all creatures who ever existed are now extinct.
There was immense suffering by these humans, yet this OT god stood around for millions of years, watching and waiting, and NOT UNTIL 6,000 years ago did he decide to intervene in human affairs. WOW, some god....some design by that Old Testament god!!

How could a loving god, a loving creator have waited around for millions and millions of years waiting and procrastinating, while these poor creatures suffered and suffered and suffered, then finally decided he would intervene?

Surely RB, you can do better than this.

No, you got busted with that ape human malarkey you trying to push. The information I posted "CLEARLY" states the footprint is "more" than 10 million years of age, however, a more conservative age would be "at least" 10 million years old. What part of that don't you understand? Can you comprehend the words "between" and "at least"?

It's sad to see you totally confused.....just sad.:shame:

 

[ROYAL BLUE]

Who is he? He's the devil in disguise of a man.

Yes, Satan is an angelic man disguised as a holy savior.

2 Corinthians 11:14 And it is no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light;

mas·quer·ade (msk-rd)
n.
1.
a. A costume party at which masks are worn; a masked ball. Also called masque.
b. A costume for such a party or ball.
2.
a. A disguise or false outward show; a pretense: a masquerade of humility.
b. An involved scheme; a charade.
intr.v. mas·quer·ad·ed, mas·quer·ad·ing, mas·quer·ades
1. To wear a mask or disguise, as at a masquerade: She masqueraded as a shepherd.
2. To go about as if in disguise; have or put on a deceptive appearance: The stowaway masqueraded as a crew member. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/masquerades

 

[dacontinent]

...What do you need to forgive me for? For telling the truth? As far as cutting me up, I think I've already done that to a number of your postings, not intentionally, but naturally.

I forgive you for calling me a liar when you know that I am telling the truth. Witness your own statement below.

...Some of those practices were committed by pagans, but your Bible clearly show that the Old Testament god ordered the slaughter of women, children and infants. Do you not deny that?
Was the Old Testamen god influenced by pagans to the point where he practiced their rituals of death? We all know the answer to that question.

Some of those practices...??!! Let's try this again, JayRob-style. Please answer each of the questions in RED.

1. Was the murder of babies an active part of pagan religious practices before Abram left Ur of the Chaldees?
2. Was the murder of women an active part of pagan religious practices before Abram left Ur of the Chaldees?
3. Was the subjugation of women an active part of pagan religious practices before Abram left Ur of the Chaldees?
4. Was the subjugation of whole races an active part of pagan religious practices before Abram left Ur of the Chaldees?
5. Was the murder and genocide of whole races an active part of pagan religious practices before Abram left Ur of the Chaldees?

JayRob said these issues were among "Some of the detructive paths brought on by the Christian religion.....". I implied that since these were already in pagan practice even before Judaism existed, they could not have been brought on by Christianity. Furthermore, I did identify those things that were clearly attributable to Judaism/Christianity. JayRob called me a liar then. JayRob's [honest] answers to each of the questions in red above will straighten this out.

...There's no evidence that one would find to counteract the ignorant fables and fairytales believed by ancient Middle East nomads who thought and taught that diseases were caused by evil spirits because it never existed and doesn't exist today.
It just goes to show you that those ignorant folks had no knowledge of microscopic germs such bacteria and viruses.
Modern science show microscopic germs are the culprits of physical diseases, not evil spirits, as taught in the Bible.
By the way, not one time does the Bible mention microscopic germs. Why would an all-knowing god deprive his people of such important knowledge? I'll tell you why, it's because he never existed, therefore he couldn't tell the ignorant authors of the Bible about them. It's as simple as that. THIS is why those nomads knew little to nothing about bacteria and viruses...

The Bible had no need of mentioning microscopic germs because there were no microscopes to see them. Come on, man. What God did instead was to give dietary and hygienic rules on handling them...but we have talked about that before.

...What gospel are you referring to? There are 30,000 Christian denominations in the world? Do you care to tell me which one is preaching the so-called TRUE gospel that this Jesus supposedly talked about?...

You know which one:

• Birth
• Life
• Death
• Resurrection
• Return

of Jesus, the Christ. There are plenty of churches/denominations preaching just that.

...I see you didn't put up much of an argument about the Old Testament god's disdain for women, and YES, there's blatant contradiction in Paul's writings just as there is throughout the Bible.

Here are a few examples of how women are demeaned....
--If a women failed to yell why she was being raped, she should be killed. Yes, that's in the Old Testament.
--A woman was considered property in the Old Testament and could be bought for a few shekels.....WITHOUT her consent.
--No women were appointed as apostles, yet a male thief and liar was.
--1 Corinthians 11:3: "...Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and the head of Christ is God". Women, you BETTER obey your man or you'll go to hell and burn forever and ever and ever.
--1 Corinthians 11:7-9:"For a man...is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."
These verses imply that a woman is not god's glory, but the man is. WOW!!
--1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
WOMEN, KEEP YOUR MOUTHS SHUT IN CHURCH UNTIL YOU GET HOME. LOL!!
--Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything." Yes, its says, EVERYTHING!!!
--1 Timothy 2:11-15:"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent..." WOMEN SHOULD LEARN IN FULL SUBMISSION AND REMAIN SILENT. LOL!! WOW!!!!
--1 Timothy 3:2: "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife..."
--1 Timothy 3:8: "Deacons likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere..."
This would seem to imply that all overseers (bishops) and deacons must be male.

For the sake of overkill, I'll stop right there.
..I know enough to realize how contradictory, how untrue and how flawed it's teachings and contents are. No need for a holy spirit for that.

Comparing submission to subjugation is like comparing humility to humiliation. That I will leave to you.

As for the rest of the treatise, JayRob's ignorance is showing. The last line of Post #54 is the frame of reference here. Paul said it like this:

Rom 8:5-7 KJV

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

JayRob, I emplore you: Come to Jesus and let Him fill you with the Holy Ghost and fire. You will make an awesome agent in the Kingdom of God. Until then, you will continue like Saul of Tarsus.

 

[Dr H..]

Yes, Satan is an angelic man disguised as a holy savior.

Satan is not an angelic man, he is a created spiritual being, created by God. There is no such thing as an "angelic man" If so that would make Satan part man and part angel, which is impossible.

A spiritual body is a physical body. Remember, humans live in a flesh "BODY", and angels live in a spiritual "BODY". We are talking about physical bodies, but made up of a different substance, however the point is both are physical.

Where did you get that from? Angles do not have a physical body.

Luke 9:23-36 "angelic body looks like"

No it does not! The only description "they saw his glory"

This is a prime example how RB takes a scripture and attempts to fit it into his own reasoning.

The three disciples saw Jesus as He will appear in His glorified state at His second coming.

Words used:

“his countenance was changedâ€￾ face was changed [Glory “doxiaâ€￾ splendour, brightness]

This only describes what Jesus “Look likeâ€￾ Jesus is not an angel, but a Spiritual being, what does a Spiritual being look like. The only conclusion you can get from this is Jesus appeared in brightness / splendor. You cannot draw the conclusion that he appeared in an angelic body. If so, now would have to describe what an angel look like. And the bible does not provide a scripture what an angel look like, before it takes on a human form, to do Gods will.

The fact of the matter is, no ones kow what Lucifer (Satan); Micheal; Gaberal or any other Angel look like in their original substance. They only "appear" in a form when they are on a mission from God.

 

[JayRob]

I forgive you for calling me a liar when you know that I am telling the truth. Witness your own statement below.

Dacon, you'd rather avoid the truth than tell it, ESPECIALLY when it goes against the bible.

Some of those practices...??!! Let's try this again, JayRob-style. Please answer each of the questions in.

JayRob said these issues were among "Some of the detructive paths brought on by the Christian religion.....". I implied that since these were already in pagan practice even before Judaism existed, they could not have been brought on by Christianity. Furthermore, I did identify those things that were clearly attributable to Judaism/Christianity. JayRob called me a liar then. JayRob's [honest] answers to each of the questions in red above will straighten this out.

Dacon, you're ignoring the fact that the Old Testament god ordered the deaths of thousands and thousands of babies, women and infants FOR NO REASON AT ALL. He even ordered that some of his own people be slaughtered by their fellow Israelite brothers. Will you admit this to be fact? Will you? Will you?
I admitted that pagans, under the guise of RELIGION, participated in such nonsense, but it seems that you're afraid to admit that the OT god ordered pure slaughter amongst innocent children and babies.
Question: If god told you to kill your children or a close loved one in a dream, would you do it? A simple yes or no is all that's needed.

The Bible had no need of mentioning microscopic germs because there were no microscopes to see them. Come on, man. What God did instead was to give dietary and hygienic rules on handling them...but we have talked about that before.

The bible DID have a need to mention microscopic germs such as bacteria and viruses. People in the OT, and Dark Ages believed that SPIRIT beings caused diseases. Innocent women and men were burned at the stake for such beliefs.
Why didn't the OT god correct them and reveal to them that germs existed and germs were the cause of diseases? Thousands of lives could've been saved if they had that knowledge. Why let them go on believing lies for thousands of years and killing innocent people for thousands of years, while he sat back and watched the pain and misery? I'll tell you why, it's because this OT god doesn't exist no more than Santa Clause delivering gifts, this is why he COULDN'T reveal such knowledge to them.

You know which one:

• Birth
• Life
• Death
• Resurrection
• Return

of Jesus, the Christ. There are plenty of churches/denominations preaching just that.

Which one(s) are preaching it Dacon? You don't know and no one else does either.

Comparing submission to subjugation is like comparing humility to humiliation. That I will leave to you.

--I see you didn't specifically mention any of those verses. You were dishonest in lumping ALL of them together.
--What woman wants to be sold for a few shekels and would call that submission as you did? What slave would call being a slave submission?
--Paul's verses simply told the woman in so many words to shut up and be quiet in church. If she needed to learn something, let her keep her mouth shut until she got home. If her husband felt like telling her, he would, provided he attended to begin with.
--I see you didn't mention the part about women being sold as property for a few shekels. Why didn't you break down that verse like I did yours?
--I see you didn't mention the fact that the bible basically orders women to not only be subservient, but submissive as well to their man.
--Paul goes on to say that ONLY men were created in god's image, while the woman was merely created in the man's image. HOW INSULTING CAN ONE GET TOWARDS WOMEN?
--I see you didn't mention the fact that Paul implies that ALL deacons must be MEN.
Dacon, there's no way around the fact that the bible is perhaps one of the most biased and prejudiced books in the world that speaks loudly against women being granted equal rights to men and you know it, but you'll never say it. Aren't you glad you're not an OT or NT woman? LOL!!

As for the rest of the treatise, JayRob's ignorance is showing. The last line of Post #54 is the frame of reference here. Paul said it like this:

Rom 8:5-7 KJV

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Yes, I DO mind the things of the flesh, such as the PHYSICAL LAWS OF SCIENCE. I refuse to believe that spirit beings cause diseases; I refuse to believe that the world is flat and round; I refuse to believe that earthquakes and volcanoes are caused by spirit beings. I know good and well that tectonic plates every now and then slip along fault lines, THUS causing earthquakes. I know good and well that bacteria and viruses cause diseases, not some ethereal spirit entity as is taught by the bible. How can ANY modern man fix their brains to believe such nonsense after what science has proven for decades and decades?!

Dacon, look at it this way, for you to believe in the miracles of the bible, you'd have to believe that the unmoving laws of nature were suspended JUST SO YOUR BIBLICAL MIRACLES COULD COME TO PASS. This is what you would HAVE to believe, for the laws of nature to suddenly disappear. Are you serious or what?

Another question or two....."Which is more likely to have occurred: a) physical law being suspended (for example, Joshua's day lasting longer so he could defeat his enemies) OR.....b) is it more likely that whomever wrote about the miracles in the bible were lying? Which is more likely Dacon? I'll take the latter.

JayRob, I emplore you: Come to Jesus and let Him fill you with the Holy Ghost and fire. You will make an awesome agent in the Kingdom of God. Until then, you will continue like Saul of Tarsus.

I emplore you to think with common sense, sprinkled with proven logic and science, rather than believing the nonsense of spirit beings causing boils, plagues and the like, when science has CLEARLY shown that microscopic germs cause diseases.

 

[ROYAL BLUE]

Satan is not an angelic man, he is a created spiritual being, created by God. If so that would make Satan part man and part angel, which is impossible.

What part of the following don't you understand? The angels in Genesis sat down and ate a full meal with Abraham. Did they not?

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer(Satan), son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Isaiah 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

Isaiah 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Isaiah 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Isaiah 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man(Satan) that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

Revelation 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man(Satan); and his number is Six hundred threescore and six(666).

There is no such thing as an "angelic man".......Angles do not have a physical body.

Genesis 18:1 And the LORD appeared unto him(Abraham) in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

Genesis 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

Genesis 19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

Genesis 19:2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.

Genesis 19:3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

Genesis 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

Genesis 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

 

[JayRob]

No, you got busted with that ape human malarkey you trying to push. The information I posted "CLEARLY" states the footprint is "more" than 10 million years of age, however, a more conservative age would be "at least" 10 million years old. What part of that don't you understand? Can you comprehend the words "between" and "at least"?

It's sad to see you totally confused.....just sad.:shame:

RB, face it, all you have are words. Nothing to back them up, just words. Science, on the other hand, can be respected due to the fact that there's extensive research-based evidence to support their theories. Science has theories and laws to support the causes of earthquakes, of tsunamis, of hurricanes, of tornadoes, of diseases, of why the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. Science has proven all of these things, whereas religion can only say "I believe".....with nothing to support it.

People like you are nothing more than leaches. You try and TAKE what science has discovered and use it as your own, no matter how ignorant it sounds.
If science proves something is 10 million years old, you try and CLAIM it as yours, eventhough you have no evidence whatsoever PROVING that it's yours. Science claimed the footprints of humans 10 million years ago, yet someone like you (with NO supporting evidence), claims it was an angel?! LOL!! When will this foolishness ever end?

This is why your religion is laughed at and scoffed, even within it's own ranks. You haven't PROOF, all you have is FAITH, which in essence means, "the substance of things HOPED for, and the EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN. In other words, NO EVIDENCE, just a BELIEF system. That's what your own bible says in Hebrews.

If the bible had begun in our modern time, it would've been laughed out of existence before it could gain any growth because of what we know today through science.
Stories and fables such as spirits causing diseases, spirits causing earthquakes, stories about a day longer than 24 hours would've been laughed and mocked out of existence. You can thank the Bronze age ignorant nomads, who didn't know much about science or astronomy, for this foolishness.

RB, from now on, it would only be correct for you to say that "you BELIEVE such and such happened or occurred", because that's all you have is a BELIEF. Anything else would show you an exponential fabricator of the truth and contradicting your own source called the bible.

 

[dacontinent]

I have to split these up beause the total response is too long for one post. So, this is Part 1.

(thank you, moderator, for giving us a little grace here) :banana:.

...Dacon, you're ignoring the fact that the Old Testament god ordered the deaths of thousands and thousands of babies, women and infants FOR NO REASON AT ALL. He even ordered that some of his own people be slaughtered by their fellow Israelite brothers. Will you admit this to be fact? Will you? Will you?
I admitted that pagans, under the guise of RELIGION, participated in such nonsense, but it seems that you're afraid to admit that the OT god ordered pure slaughter amongst innocent children and babies.
Question: If god told you to kill your children or a close loved one in a dream, would you do it? A simple yes or no is all that's needed.
...

Not only have I confirmed that God wiped out folks and ordered groups wiped out, I have offered instances of the same without your prompting in response to previous posts. The trouble with your perspective is that you don't find the REASONS AT ALL acceptable to you. This is not a new subject for us. You know that.

As for God telling me to do something adverse to someone that I love, that would be a lot easier for me to follow than for Abraham. I have Abraham as a precedent, so I know God will make a way. Abraham had to learn that through experience; I get it vicariously first and through my own experiences since. :nod: While it would not just be a "matter of fact" to consider...yes, I would do it. That's what faith is: believing God.

...The bible DID have a need to mention microscopic germs such as bacteria and viruses. People in the OT, and Dark Ages believed that SPIRIT beings caused diseases. Innocent women and men were burned at the stake for such beliefs.
Why didn't the OT god correct them and reveal to them that germs existed and germs were the cause of diseases? Thousands of lives could've been saved if they had that knowledge. Why let them go on believing lies for thousands of years and killing innocent people for thousands of years, while he sat back and watched the pain and misery? I'll tell you why, it's because this OT god doesn't exist no more than Santa Clause delivering gifts, this is why he COULDN'T reveal such knowledge to them.
...

One day when I get to Heaven I will ask God these types of questions and the answers will be completely revealed. I have an idea that the story will go something like that of Lazarus and the rich man wherein the rich man ends up in Hell and wants to go back to warn survivors not to disobey OT God and end up where he did. OT God gave us free will, allowing us to screw up if we want to. Of course our screw ups can cause others to suffer needlessly. He doesn't always stop suffering nor does He always impute the penalty for causing such suffering. He never answers to me as I am not His superior. Though JayRob and I were both given faith in God, I have allowed my faith to be developed beyond his THUS FAR by hearing the Word of God. That could change when JayRob starts to hear in the future.

Now, we both know that people thoughout time camd to understand that bacteria and virus caused diseases. Though they could not see them, they knew they existed and developed ways to avoid them. Do you find it strange that the methods that were uncovered - in direct accordance with the instructions that God gave them - would have been effective in keeping perhaps millions of them alive had His instructions simply been followed? We have to HEAR HIM, bruh.

...Which one(s) are preaching it Dacon? You don't know and no one else does either.
...

JayRob, after having identified what the gospel is, all one has to do is listen to what is preached. We are back to HEARING HIM again. This is beginning to be thematic.

...I see you didn't specifically mention any of those verses. You were dishonest in lumping ALL of them together.
--What woman wants to be sold for a few shekels and would call that submission as you did? What slave would call being a slave submission?
--Paul's verses simply told the woman in so many words to shut up and be quiet in church. If she needed to learn something, let her keep her mouth shut until she got home. If her husband felt like telling her, he would, provided he attended to begin with.
--I see you didn't mention the part about women being sold as property for a few shekels. Why didn't you break down that verse like I did yours?
--I see you didn't mention the fact that the bible basically orders women to not only be subservient, but submissive as well to their man.
--Paul goes on to say that ONLY men were created in god's image, while the woman was merely created in the man's image. HOW INSULTING CAN ONE GET TOWARDS WOMEN?
--I see you didn't mention the fact that Paul implies that ALL deacons must be MEN.
Dacon, there's no way around the fact that the bible is perhaps one of the most biased and prejudiced books in the world that speaks loudly against women being granted equal rights to men and you know it, but you'll never say it. Aren't you glad you're not an OT or NT woman? LOL!!
...

Please forgive me. Allow me to respond now.

--1 Corinthians 11:3: "...Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and the head of Christ is God". Women, you BETTER obey your man or you'll go to hell and burn forever and ever and ever.
...

Since the scripture is in quotes, what comes after shows JayRob's ignorance. This simply identifies the chain of command. Someone has to be in-charge and responsible.

--1 Corinthians 11:7-9:"For a man...is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."
These verses imply that a woman is not god's glory, but the man is. WOW!!
...

JayRob really doesn't get it, does he? There is a gulf of difference between implication and inference. What JayRob did here was reach his own inference in order to make mockery. :shame:

I am sure that JayRob has studied logic because he mentions it often. Still, he has trouble keeping up with this.
If man is the glory of God ... and woman is the glory of man ... then woman is the glory of the glory of God! Wow!!! What a status God has given to woman!!! The only thing left for JayRob to understand is what glory is.

 

[dacontinent]

Now, Part 2

...--1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
WOMEN, KEEP YOUR MOUTHS SHUT IN CHURCH UNTIL YOU GET HOME. LOL!!
...

In his study - sorry - reading of the Bible, JayRob obviously came to know that the vast majority of issues that Paul wrote about in his letters was in response to them being brought to his attention. He also knows that these letters were circulated and that Paul and the other first century apostles were aware of their circulation. Knowing other passages in other letters that Paul wrote on related subject might be confusing for JayRob because he might not understand that chapters 11, 12, & 14 of 1 Corinthians recapture ordinances set forth by Paul, with chapter 13 explaining that they only work by love. Had JayRob captured the concept of ordinances vs. laws in his reading, he would then understand that the women commended for their teaching in Romans would not be a contradiction at all, and that there was obviously some problem with the way the women in Corinth were behaving in church that was different from the women in Romans.

...
--Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything." Yes, its says, EVERYTHING!!!

Well, now. Let's help JayRob look at the CONTEXT of what he read.

Eph 5:21-29 KJV
21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.​

[Wait while I see if I can locate a classic negro preacher's voice]
Since we fust must submit to each other, then doin' so in accordance with the Wu-ud of Gawd ought not to be a problem...eh...but the Apostul Paul takes a little time to he'p us who sometimes forgit. So-o-o-o-o-o, wives you oughtta know how to rest while walking at your husband's side and under his godly protection, because you know God is leading him for your good. That man's leadership and care for you is gonna make you shine like his glory, and that you are - set apart, special, spectacular, exclusive - GLORI-OUS!!! Say amen. Say amen. Say it again - AMEN! Pristine, peerless, precious, magnificent, adored, guarded, protected, and secure - not because it's his job, but because He loves you just like Christ loves the church. That husband ... mmm ... will lay his life down - literally sacrifice himself to keep his good thing alive, knowing that the legacy that he would leave in her will cause her not just to love him but to love and submit herself to the God that he loves. Now, brothers, when you love your woman like God says to love her, she won't have any trouble submitting herself to you in every- I said every ... mmm .... some of ya'll don't want this - I said what the Wu-ud says: those wives won't have any trouble submitting to their husbands in EVERY THING.

--1 Timothy 2:11-15:"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent..." WOMEN SHOULD LEARN IN FULL SUBMISSION AND REMAIN SILENT. LOL!! WOW!!!!

Helping a young pastor maintain order in that church. Order and structure are very important in any congregation. Timothy was a young man pastoring older people and some of them strong women. Timothy's mother and grandmother were strong women, though it is not clear that they were ministring with him as a pastor. Read the end of Chapter 4 and that should help. Timothy needed to assert himself or the congregants were not going to respect his authority.

--1 Timothy 3:2: "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife..."
--1 Timothy 3:8: "Deacons likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere..."
This would seem to imply that all overseers (bishops) and deacons must be male.

It might be what JayRob infers here EXCEPT that JayRob does not consider the perspective of this pastoral epistle and that Paul is still talking about order and protocal in the church that Timothy is pastoring. He is also forgetting that women were basically not allowed to be educated at the time and would basically getting their knowledge of the scriptures from listening to what their men told them of the scriptures rather than being able to read them for themselves. Not being readers was therefore understood universally that women of that time were not prepared to serve as overseers.

Now contrast this, again, with Romans 16 and you will know that this was first an ordinance for Timothy (1 Tim 3:15) and a good practice for all congregations.

...--What woman wants to be sold for a few shekels and would call that submission as you did? ...

As you have read, I did not call that submission. Neither did God. No one of any gender wants to be handled like a commodity. But

...What slave would call being a slave submission?...

Ones who owed a debt that they could not otherwise pay. The kind referred to in Ephesians 6, Colossians 3 & 4, 1 Timothy 6, Titus 2, and 1 Peter 2.

 

[dacontinent]

And now, the third and final installment to this treatise.

...
--Paul's verses simply told the woman in so many words to shut up and be quiet in church. If she needed to learn something, let her keep her mouth shut until she got home. If her husband felt like telling her, he would, provided he attended to begin with.
--I see you didn't mention the part about women being sold as property for a few shekels. Why didn't you break down that verse like I did yours?
--I see you didn't mention the fact that the bible basically orders women to not only be subservient, but submissive as well to their man.
--Paul goes on to say that ONLY men were created in god's image, while the woman was merely created in the man's image. HOW INSULTING CAN ONE GET TOWARDS WOMEN?
--I see you didn't mention the fact that Paul implies that ALL deacons must be MEN.
Dacon, there's no way around the fact that the bible is perhaps one of the most biased and prejudiced books in the world that speaks loudly against women being granted equal rights to men and you know it, but you'll never say it. Aren't you glad you're not an OT or NT woman? LOL!!
...

These were debunked above. Stop reading and start studying. Wait ... studying won't do you much good until after you are born again. Start there.
And, yes, I am VERY glad to be a man, even though I will never be able to give birth to or suckle a child ... am responsible for the wife that God gave me (just like Adam was) and carry the weight of her coming to know the God that I love ... am responsible for setting the example for everyone in my lineage and those who look on ... carry the responsibility for being the image of Christ in the earth. Yes, I am VERY glad to be a man.

...Yes, I DO mind the things of the flesh, such as the PHYSICAL LAWS OF SCIENCE. I refuse to believe that spirit beings cause diseases; I refuse to believe that the world is flat and round; I refuse to believe that earthquakes and volcanoes are caused by spirit beings. I know good and well that tectonic plates every now and then slip along fault lines, THUS causing earthquakes. I know good and well that bacteria and viruses cause diseases, not some ethereal spirit entity as is taught by the bible. How can ANY modern man fix their brains to believe such nonsense after what science has proven for decades and decades?!
...

JayRob does not investigate many of the critical terms that he reads. If he had, he would understand that [Gr] sarx and [He] nephe are the closest in association of the concept of soul+body between the two languages. Contrary to what he says above, I am quite certain that JayRob believes that the earth is both flat and round as proven by science. Thankfully, JayRob does admit some things that he refuses to believe, a practice that is good for all of us. JayRob refuses to believe that spirits can have effects on physical things, yet his own spirit has an effect on what his body does and physical science cannot prove it. Mind-boggling.

...Dacon, look at it this way, for you to believe in the miracles of the bible, you'd have to believe that the unmoving laws of nature were suspended JUST SO YOUR BIBLICAL MIRACLES COULD COME TO PASS. This is what you would HAVE to believe, for the laws of nature to suddenly disappear. Are you serious or what?...

Yes, JayRob. I am completely serious about that. I believe such incredulous things as:

• A lost axehead made to float.
• The earth opening up to swallow thousands of people and closing up again to allow people to pass over it.
• The earth's rotation stopping so the people of God could win a victory in a pivotal battle.
• A stormed-tossed ocean being calmed by the spoken word.
• Peter and Jesus walking on the water.
• Christ raised from the dead and his body exiting the tomb without so much as an open entryway.

Yes. I seriously believe all of that stuff...and more. Don't you?

...Another question or two....."Which is more likely to have occurred: a) physical law being suspended (for example, Joshua's day lasting longer so he could defeat his enemies) OR.....b) is it more likely that whomever wrote about the miracles in the bible were lying? Which is more likely Dacon? I'll take the former...

b) is more likely. I am glad that you agree with me by taking the former, which is a). You seem to be changing your mind. I knew there was hope for you! Come on, man. Join me and go the whole way.

...I emplore you to think with common sense, sprinkled with proven logic and science, rather than believing the nonsense of spirit beings causing boils, plagues and the like, when science has CLEARLY shown that microscopic germs cause diseases.

So, you do believe in the plagues. Good. Let's just stick with the 10 associated with Egypt and the release of the Israelites. What do you think caused them and why in such rapid succession?


JayRob, when you have finished with that, please get back to my 5 questions in red in Post #107. I am reasonably confident that others are waiting to read your responses.

(thank you, moderator, for giving us a little grace here) :banana:.

 

[JayRob]

Not only have I confirmed that God wiped out folks and ordered groups wiped out, I have offered instances of the same without your prompting in response to previous posts. The trouble with your perspective is that you don't find the REASONS AT ALL acceptable to you. This is not a new subject for us. You know that.

What acceptable reason is there for a god to wipe out INNOCENT babies and children through drownings, the sword, fire and pain?

As for God telling me to do something adverse to someone that I love, that would be a lot easier for me to follow than for Abraham. I have Abraham as a precedent, so I know God will make a way. Abraham had to learn that through experience; I get it vicariously first and through my own experiences since. :nod: While it would not just be a "matter of fact" to consider...yes, I would do it. That's what faith is: believing God.

And you'd spend the rest of your life in jail where you would belong.
THIS is why religion is a poison to the masses. An outright admittance that he would KILL a loved one if he had a dream from a god in the bible ordering him to do so. WOW!!
I have to take a little time to gather myself after reading that.:shame::shame:

One day when I get to Heaven I will ask God these types of questions and the answers will be completely revealed. I have an idea that the story will go something like that of Lazarus and the rich man wherein the rich man ends up in Hell and wants to go back to warn survivors not to disobey OT God and end up where he did. OT God gave us free will, allowing us to screw up if we want to. Of course our screw ups can cause others to suffer needlessly. He doesn't always stop suffering nor does He always impute the penalty for causing such suffering. He never answers to me as I am not His superior. Though JayRob and I were both given faith in God, I have allowed my faith to be developed beyond his THUS FAR by hearing the Word of God. That could change when JayRob starts to hear in the future.

(I highlighted the MANY excuses mentioned by Dacon in defense of the OT god once again. There seems to be no end to them).

In other words, you can't answer the questions, so you make MORE excuses for your Old Testament god, a god who not ONE time mentioned the powers of bacteria and virus and the superiority they have over man?
The OT god said in Genesis that "MAN would be ruler over all creatures." It's obvious that he didn't know what he was talking about because diseases caused by microscopic organisms are killing men, women, children and animals every day, with no end in sight. Some power man has over these creatures. He didn't know because he doesn't exist. It's as simple as that. If he did/does exist, he has to be one of the most incompetent gods in all of history combined to not warn his "beloved" creation about the most dangerous creatures on earth. Perhaps he loves to see men, women, children and animals suffering from cancer, glaucoma, gout, diabetes and other diseases?
The Egyptians were very healthy people, yet they didn't have those food laws mentioned in the OT. As a matter of fact, those folks who are following such laws today are sicker than many who don't. And didn't Paul abolish such laws any how? Didn't he say let no one judge you in the kinds of foods you eat? Yes, he did. So what laws are you referring to?

JayRob, after having identified what the gospel is, all one has to do is listen to what is preached. We are back to HEARING HIM again. This is beginning to be thematic.

Again, the hearer is left to HIS OWN opinion about what IS the gospel and what ISN'T the gospel. On this very forum, two or three people can't agree on basic Christian doctrines, so how do you expect people from 30,000 denominations to know what to believe? It's ridiculous to even say what "THE GOSPEL" is because no one knows. It's OPINIONATED. What's gospel to one may not be gospel to the next. Again, nothing but pure confusion.

Please forgive me. Allow me to respond now.

Since the scripture is in quotes, what comes after shows JayRob's ignorance. This simply identifies the chain of command. Someone has to be in-charge and responsible.

So it ALWAYS has to be a man? Come on Dacon, you can do better than that. That was the primitive culture of a primitive society who made god into THEIR own image, not the other way around. They ruled and dominated women, therefore they made their god(s) to do the same. It's as clear as day that these OT and NT gods seem to HATE women.

JayRob really doesn't get it, does he? There is a gulf of difference between implication and inference. What JayRob did here was reach his own inference in order to make mockery. :shame:

I am sure that JayRob has studied logic because he mentions it often. Still, he has trouble keeping up with this.
If man is the glory of God ... and woman is the glory of man ... then woman is the glory of the glory of God! Wow!!! What a status God has given to woman!!! The only thing left for JayRob to understand is what glory is.

Why couldn't he have said that BOTH the woman and man are the glory of god? Instead, this man said that ONLY men are the glory of his god, and made women glory of men, men who are on a FAR lesser plane than god. It says it right there Dacon in black and white.

THEN, to make matters worse, this Paul fellow goes on to say that "WOMEN WERE MADE FOR MEN!!" He held back nothing.
He said that "man wasn't made for the woman, but THE WOMAN FOR THE MAN". WOW!!! Now WHAT woman today wouldn't be tempted to pimp slap a man if he walked up and said that to her? That's an insult to me, and I'm a man, however my mother and sisters were/are women. Religion makes a mockery of women pure and simple and it's a joke.:lecture:

 

[Dr H..]

What part of the following don't you understand? The angels in Genesis sat down and ate a full meal with Abraham. Did they not?

I see now that you are ignorant in understanding God’s word. So, because some angels ate some food, they are part angel and part man.

If that’s true, Jesus would be part man and part angel as well as part man and part “God”

True or False

Revelation 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man(Satan); and his number is Six hundred threescore and six(666).

Dude, the Scripture is talking about, if you read the original text:

Verse 18 says 666 is the number of "man." The article "a" is absent in the Greek text. Therefore, the text is referring to mankind, not Satan or any particular individual.

Also, in 18, John’s writing indicated that it would take wisdom (Gr. sophia) to figure out the number of the beast (17:9). This wisdom is the understanding and skill necessary to solve the problem (Dan. 9:22; 12:10). John is saying being able to identify the beast's number believers, will be able to recognize him for who he is. Calculating or counting (Gr. psephisato) is the key to John’s puzzle.

Note: John did not have the wisdom

Therefore, you or anyone else knows who the 666 represent [if you believe this has not come to pass]; however we know it’s a government, because of previous references to governments. But, as you read Daniel in conjunction with Revelation, we know that John is talking about the government, not an individual or Satan. In the text he uses the word “man" anthrōpos - mankind / human beings. If it was a specific/ particular man, John would have use the word [tis, meaning certain individual]. Which he did not, therefore you or Murray to say 666 refers to Satan, is false.


Question: If Satan is the dragon as previously identified in John’s vision, how can he also be the beast as you say? So is Satan seeing himself coming out of the sea [figuratively]?

 

[JayRob]

Now, Part 2

In his study - sorry - reading of the Bible, JayRob obviously came to know that the vast majority of issues that Paul wrote about in his letters was in response to them being brought to his attention. He also knows that these letters were circulated and that Paul and the other first century apostles were aware of their circulation. Knowing other passages in other letters that Paul wrote on related subject might be confusing for JayRob because he might not understand that chapters 11, 12, & 14 of 1 Corinthians recapture ordinances set forth by Paul, with chapter 13 explaining that they only work by love.

Dacon, I have a couple of questions for you regarding your statement:
--Why did Paul single out the WOMEN in the congregation?
--Did not the men have problems that needed singling out?
These rantings by this man named Paul is nothing more than male chauvinism. He orders the women to be quiet and to wait until they get home to talk, but he says nothing of the sort to the men. There is NO mistaking that the women were treated like second class citizens.
Dacon, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. It boggles the mind as to how and why you're defending obvious biasness in that congregation.

​

Well, now. Let's help JayRob look at the CONTEXT of what he read.

Eph 5:21-29 KJ.....V29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.​

[Wait while I see if I can locate a classic negro preacher's voice]
Since we fust must submit to each other, then doin' so in accordance with the Wu-ud of Gawd ought not to be a problem...eh...but the Apostul Paul takes a little time to he'p us who sometimes forgit. So-o-o-o-o-o, wives you oughtta know how to rest while walking at your husband's side and under his godly protection, because you know God is leading him for your good. That man's leadership and care for you is gonna make you shine like his glory, and that you are - set apart, special, spectacular, exclusive - GLORI-OUS!!! Say amen. Say amen. Say it again - AMEN! Pristine, peerless, precious, magnificent, adored, guarded, protected, and secure - not because it's his job, but because He loves you just like Christ loves the church. That husband ... mmm ... will lay his life down - literally sacrifice himself to keep his good thing alive, knowing that the legacy that he would leave in her will cause her not just to love him but to love and submit herself to the God that he loves. Now, brothers, when you love your woman like God says to love her, she won't have any trouble submitting herself to you in every- I said every ... mmm .... some of ya'll don't want this - I said what the Wu-ud says: those wives won't have any trouble submitting to their husbands in EVERY THING.

Bring in the emotional Baptist preacher tone for moral support if you must, but it still doesn't negate the following....that women were treated like second class citizens. They were basically ordered by their leader named Paul to submit to their husbands in EVERYTHING. You failed to understand that these SAME OT women were reared under the iron hand of the Old Testament god, the same god who gave fathers the RIGHT to sell their daughters for shekels without the daughter's consent.

Now this Paul is telling these woman to submit even MORE to such men, men who were taught for decades that women coudn't be in authority positions, that women were the personal property of men, that women could be sold, that women could be raped and killed for being raped? He's now telling these women to submit to men who were taught like that?!
That's like telling the sheep to submit to the wolf.

And as far as your theory about the man taking care of his family, that's fine and dandy, but please don't confuse PHYSICAL strength with superior parenting skills and/or superior intellect and compassion.
Just because a man is physically stronger, doesn't mean that's he's competent to be the leader in that marriage. That's a dangerous teaching and I know it to be first hand due to the deaths and abuse of women who were told by others to stick it out and do what they were told.

And for you to say to women that a woman's submission to a man is conditional to the man being a good husband, could easily be construed as an unintentional insult to women. That HER feeble mindset depends on WHAT THE MAN DOES! If I were a woman, I would be insulted.

The reason MANY women submit to men is because that's what they've been taught in a religious culture and society. They've seen their grandmother submit, their mother submit, no matter how stupid and ignorant the husband acted, they still submitted cause they thought it to be their godly duty. Many did it to their own detriment and death.
It's not wise to say that one party should submit to the other in EVERYTHING, not wise at all.

In Africa, before Islam (religion) came along, women played major roles in the family. Islam diminished the roles of women in the family tremendously and also brought on GENITAL MUTILATION.
If you look at ALL of the major religions, you will see a pattern women being treated as second class citizens and them not being given equal rights with men. I think you know this, or at least you should. It's ashamed that you teach this nonsense.

Helping a young pastor maintain order in that church. Order and structure are very important in any congregation. Timothy was a young man pastoring older people and some of them strong women. Timothy's mother and grandmother were strong women, though it is not clear that they were ministring with him as a pastor. Read the end of Chapter 4 and that should help. Timothy needed to assert himself or the congregants were not going to respect his authority.

It might be what JayRob infers here EXCEPT that JayRob does not consider the perspective of this pastoral epistle and that Paul is still talking about order and protocal in the church that Timothy is pastoring. He is also forgetting that women were basically not allowed to be educated at the time and would basically getting their knowledge of the scriptures from listening to what their men told them of the scriptures rather than being able to read them for themselves. Not being readers was therefore understood universally that women of that time were not prepared to serve as overseers.

Dacon, most of the men in the congregation were more than likely unable able to read either. Usually at the synogogue, there was only one Torah book, so the men and women who couldn't read were equal in that sense, nevertheless Paul didn't tell those men to be quiet and not talk, neither did he prohibit them from being deacons.
It wasn't about education or reading to begin with when it came to the treatment of women. The woman would've been treated with disdain no matter what, so let's not try and muddy the waters with the "they-couldn't-read" theory, therefore we must keep them subservient.

You all but admit that this culture treated women like surfs, yet you still want what Paul ordered back then to be practiced today, in our time?! Please tell me I'm reading this wrong. The excuses folks make for religion seems to know no end.
The bible is simply man's way of trying to find his way through a world (before science and reason), just like the Egyptians were guilty of when they had their "book of the dead" to follow religiously.

Now contrast this, again, with Romans 16 and you will know that this was first an ordinance for Timothy (1 Tim 3:15) and a good practice for all congregations.

So you admit, that Paul is saying that it's a good practice for deacons and bishops to be only men?! You said it, I didn't.

As you have read, I did not call that submission. Neither did God. No one of any gender wants to be handled like a commodity. But

Ones who owed a debt that they could not otherwise pay. The kind referred to in Ephesians 6, Colossians 3 & 4, 1 Timothy 6, Titus 2, and 1 Peter 2.

You don't have to call it submission. The average person would call it slavery or serfdom. The fact of the matter is that this Paul fellow ordered the women to submit to men who LIVED by the Old Testament laws, laws that were STILL in effect during his time that held women in bondage and servitude.
Paul even had the audacity to order slaves not to run away from their masters. What manner of creature would make such an order, unless the bible was authored by those in authority who owned slaves?

Dacon, were slaves wrong for running from their masters in the Old South? Reading Paul's writings, if you are honest, you would HAVE to say so.

This is what religion teaches, yet folks want to shy away from these teachings and pick and choose what verses they want to follow. You can't choose the "good parts" and throw away the trashy parts. They ALL are in the same book.

 

[JayRob]

And now, the third and final installment to this treatise.

These were debunked above. Stop reading and start studying. Wait ... studying won't do you much good until after you are born again. Start there.
And, yes, I am VERY glad to be a man, even though I will never be able to give birth to or suckle a child ... am responsible for the wife that God gave me (just like Adam was) and carry the weight of her coming to know the God that I love ... am responsible for setting the example for everyone in my lineage and those who look on ... carry the responsibility for being the image of Christ in the earth. Yes, I am VERY glad to be a man.

Fine and dandy that you have a respectful wife, but one doesn't have to be religious or "born again" to be respectful.
That's neither here nor there because if we still observed the Old Testament god's teachings regarding women of today, your wife's father could've sold her for a few shekels and you could sell your daughter (if you have one) as well. Ask your wife or daughter if they're glad that we're not observing such foolishness today.
THANK goodness we've progressed from that nonsense.

And as far as debunking the verses about Paul's obvious biasness, try again. Paul was a woman-hater.

JayRob does not investigate many of the critical terms that he reads. If he had, he would understand that [Gr] sarx and [He] nephe are the closest in association of the concept of soul+body between the two languages. Contrary to what he says above, I am quite certain that JayRob believes that the earth is both flat and round as proven by science.

Dacon, you cease to amaze me with your sneakiness and word twisting. What you type in your posts needs no intensive research or investigation because debunking it comes naturally most of the time. It's not difficult at all to counter your religious postings.
As far as the earth being flat and round, THIS is what the church taught for hundreds of years, that it was shaped like a flat pancake and that one could sail over the edge if they went too far.
They even threatened and tortured Galileo because he taught that the Earth was NOT the center of our solar system. Stupid and ignorant religious folks taught that the sun revolved around the Earth. The religious folks ended up apologizing hundreds of years later, thank you, yet you believe what they printed and copied STILL?!! How gullible can one be?

Thankfully, JayRob does admit some things that he refuses to believe, a practice that is good for all of us. JayRob

refuses to believe that spirits can have effects on physical things

, yet his own spirit has an effect on what his body does and physical science cannot prove it. Mind-boggling.

Again, more word twisting by Dacon. I'm getting used to it though.
First of all, I clearly (at least I thought I did) stated that EVIL SPIRITS don't cause diseases as is taught in the Bible. You completely and hopefully unintentionally, misinterpreted what I posted.
Show me evidence of evil spirits causing diseases OR earthquakes OR hurricanes. Hopefully you won't take that out of context.

Yes, JayRob. I am completely serious about that. I believe such incredulous things as:
[*]The earth opening up to swallow thousands of people and closing up again to allow people to pass over it.
[*]The earth's rotation stopping so the people of God could win a victory in a pivotal battle.
[*]A stormed-tossed ocean being calmed by the spoken word.
[*]Peter and Jesus walking on the water.
[*]Christ raised from the dead and his body exiting the tomb without so much as an open entryway.
[/LIST]
Yes. I seriously believe all of that stuff...and more. Don't you?

Dacon, you can "BELIEVE" anything you want. That's not the issue. I want you to PROVE to me that such nonsense ever occurred. Heck, I can say that I BELIEVE in Santa Clause, but that's all it would be.....a "belief", supported by nothing.
Your beliefs are just that, supported by nothing but a book written and plagiarized by ignorant nomads roaming the Middle East seeking enlightenment as best they could with what they had at the time. That's ALL you have.

b) is more likely. I am glad that you agree with me by taking the former, which is a). You seem to be changing your mind. I knew there was hope for you! Come on, man. Join me and go the whole way.

My mistake for not re-reading my earlier post before submitting, nevertheless, you know that's not my stance based on my previous postings.
It's highly likely that ignorant, uneducated nomads, in Bronze age Middle East, who had no idea that the sun revolved around the earth and that bacteria caused diseases.....it's obvious that these ignorant nomads were lying, yet STILL we have so-called educated people believing such nonsense. That's mindboggling to say the least.
Nevermind that these SAME miracles are not happening in our day, just take the word of past nomads who CERTAINLY weren't lying. That is what you and people like you HAVE to believe. LOL!!

Dacon, you and those of your ilk, would HAVE to believe that the SOLID laws of nature were done away with in order for your miracles to have occurred, rather than believing that ignorant nomads weren't lying when they copied and wrote about claims that a day lasted longer than 24 hours, that the earth opened up, that a huge sea split, that a donkey talked and other biblical miracles. THIS is what you have to believe.
If you believe such, "I rest my case".

So, you do believe in the plagues. Good. Let's just stick with the 10 associated with Egypt and the release of the Israelites. What do you think caused them and why in such rapid succession?

No, you tell me how the laws of nature were suddenly suspended in order for these plagues to occur.

JayRob, when you have finished with that, please get back to my 5 questions in red in Post #107. I am reasonably confident that others are waiting to read your responses.

Here are your questions:

1. Was the murder of babies an active part of pagan religious practices before Abram left Ur of the Chaldees?
2. Was the murder of women an active part of pagan religious practices before Abram left Ur of the Chaldees?
3. Was the subjugation of women an active part of pagan religious practices before Abram left Ur of the Chaldees?
4. Was the subjugation of whole races an active part of pagan religious practices before Abram left Ur of the Chaldees?
5. Was the murder and genocide of whole races an active part of pagan religious practices before Abram left Ur of the Chaldees?

I thought I addressed them earlier, but I'll do it this way by saying yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.

I stated that RELIGION (no matter which one) is oftentimes the main reason good people do EVIL things. Based on your above questions, all pertain to religious rituals. Need I say more? No, but I will.

What moral and ethical person would sacrifice children or humans in burning fire in his right mind? What ethical person would voluntarily take out his sword and hack humans to pieces in our day and age unless their god ordered them.
What moral person would attach a bomb to his body and walk into a crowded market in the Middle East unless his god told him to?

Dacon, you already stated that you would KILL a loved one of yours if your god told you to do so in a dream. This tells me that you're no better than these pagan folks in the above questions. You admitted that you're a proponent of HUMAN SACRIFICE.

I deem you as an ethical person, but due to your outdated religion, YOU WOULD BE DEEMED EVIL IN TODAY'S SOCIETY IF YOU FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH KILLING A LOVED ONE JUST BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT YOUR GOD TOLD YOU TO DO IT and you'd be locked up for life or given the death penalty. Fortunately, that OT nonsense is too much even for the average fundamentalist Christian to bear and put into practice....at least I hope. However, you said you'd follow through with it. A telling story indeed and a sad one.

As for your religion and that kind of belief, you can have it.

 

[dacontinent]

What acceptable reason is there for a god to wipe out INNOCENT babies and children through drownings, the sword, fire and pain?
...

In Numbers 16, Korah decides to challenge God's choice of Moses and Aaron. Korah commits his entire lineage in the challenge and they all die, swallowed up in the earth. Korah could have gone by himself, but he brought everyone with him. They all lost - men, women, children - innocent or not.

And you'd spend the rest of your life in jail where you would belong.
THIS is why religion is a poison to the masses. An outright admittance that he would KILL a loved one if he had a dream from a god in the bible ordering him to do so. WOW!!
I have to take a little time to gather myself after reading that.:shame::shame:

JayRob missed the entire premise: Since Abraham is my precedent, then my expectation is the same. The Lord would provide Himself a sacrifice. Wait. He already did that in Jesus! Come on, man. This is not a storybook we are talking about. This is life. No more animal sacrifices necessary. Now, I have been commanded to sacrifice other things - including familial relationships that I held dear. I did it. You would, too.

...(I highlighted the MANY excuses mentioned by Dacon in defense of the OT god once again. There seems to be no end to them).

In other words, you can't answer the questions, so you make MORE excuses for your Old Testament god, a god who not ONE time mentioned the powers of bacteria and virus and the superiority they have over man?
The OT god said in Genesis that "MAN would be ruler over all creatures." It's obvious that he didn't know what he was talking about because diseases caused by microscopic organisms are killing men, women, children and animals every day, with no end in sight. Some power man has over these creatures. He didn't know because he doesn't exist. It's as simple as that. If he did/does exist, he has to be one of the most incompetent gods in all of history combined to not warn his "beloved" creation about the most dangerous creatures on earth. Perhaps he loves to see men, women, children and animals suffering from cancer, glaucoma, gout, diabetes and other diseases?
The Egyptians were very healthy people, yet they didn't have those food laws mentioned in the OT. As a matter of fact, those folks who are following such laws today are sicker than many who don't. And didn't Paul abolish such laws any how? Didn't he say let no one judge you in the kinds of foods you eat? Yes, he did. So what laws are you referring to?
...

No, bruh. I am not going to try to tell you something that God has not disclosed. That doesn't mean that I am not curious about it. It means that I trust Him. That is my choice and not yours. If that makes me guilty of something, then go ahead and pass the sentence on me.

This is a circular argument going nowhere.

God doesn't mention anything about electrocution or lethal injections either. I am not on death row here in Florida. He simply commanded me not to commit murder and I've done that. Amazing, don't you think?

We are discussing the same dietary and hygienic laws as we have before. Nothing new here. Were the Egyptians in compliance with those dietary customs in sync with Jewish dietary laws? Close? How close? Tell us, please. Paul said those things TO THE GENTILES WHOM THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS WERE TRYING TO BRING TO A MORE RESTRICTIVE DIET. And, the statistics show that those persons who follow such dietary laws are significantly healthier.

...Again, the hearer is left to HIS OWN opinion about what IS the gospel and what ISN'T the gospel. On this very forum, two or three people can't agree on basic Christian doctrines, so how do you expect people from 30,000 denominations to know what to believe? It's ridiculous to even say what "THE GOSPEL" is because no one knows. It's OPINIONATED. What's gospel to one may not be gospel to the next. Again, nothing but pure confusion.

I told you what the gospel is. It is really simple. Either you accept it or you don't.

...So it ALWAYS has to be a man? Come on Dacon, you can do better than that. That was the primitive culture of a primitive society who made god into THEIR own image, not the other way around. They ruled and dominated women, therefore they made their god(s) to do the same. It's as clear as day that these OT and NT gods seem to HATE women...

Yeah...it ALWAYS HAS TO BE THE HUSBAND AND ONLY MEN ARE HUSBANDS. If women start to be husbands, then something has gone wa-a-a-y foul.

...Why couldn't he have said that BOTH the woman and man are the glory of god? Instead, this man said that ONLY men are the glory of his god, and made women glory of men, men who are on a FAR lesser plane than god. It says it right there Dacon in black and white.

THEN, to make matters worse, this Paul fellow goes on to say that "WOMEN WERE MADE FOR MEN!!" He held back nothing.
He said that "man wasn't made for the woman, but THE WOMAN FOR THE MAN". WOW!!! Now WHAT woman today wouldn't be tempted to pimp slap a man if he walked up and said that to her? That's an insult to me, and I'm a man, however my mother and sisters were/are women. Religion makes a mockery of women pure and simple and it's a joke.:lecture:

One of the differences between you and me - maybe the biggest difference - is that I trust God (i.e. His Word), and you don't. As long as that is true, you and I will differ. I don't have to know all of the why's now. I will find them out later.

Paul just said what the scriptures taught: the woman was made out of man. There was nothing to hold back. I am sorry that you are insulted. Perhaps you should have been left on an island without the possibility of procreation. Maybe you would be more fulfilled.

To the best of my knowledge, no woman that has ever heard me (or anyone else) teach from this passage has expressed any desire to pimp slap someone because of it. My wife is my glory, and she certainly lets me know it, insisting that I do what I need to make her shine. My daughter won't date a man who thinks less. So, maybe the women you refer to have self-esteem issues. I really don't know.

 

[dacontinent]

I had to shorten some of these to go under 10000 again.

Dacon,...--Why did Paul single out the WOMEN in the congregation?...Did not the men have problems that needed singling out?
...There is NO mistaking that the women were treated like second class citizens...

I answered #1 already.

In his study - sorry - reading of the Bible, JayRob obviously came to know that the vast majority of issues that Paul wrote about in his letters was in response to them being brought to his attention...

As for #2...not so much in this particular epistle. There were things addressed in the manner of living by mankind, but not so much as distinguished for males ... unless you count circumcision. Even relative to that in the context of this epistle it was referring to mankind rather than males.

Bring in the emotional Baptist preacher tone for moral support if you must, but it still doesn't negate the following....that women were treated like second class citizens. They were basically ordered by their leader named Paul to submit to their husbands in EVERYTHING. You failed to understand that these SAME OT women were reared under the iron hand of the Old Testament god, the same god who gave fathers the RIGHT to sell their daughters for shekels without the daughter's consent...Now this Paul is telling these woman to submit even MORE to such men, ... that women could be raped and killed for being raped? He's now telling these women to submit to men who were taught like that?!
That's like telling the sheep to submit to the wolf...

Now, as for women being treated like second-class citizens, it is not advocated by the text. Even you can see that. I am curious about daughters being sold. Please show me that one. My daughter is a fine specimen of womanhood. I cannot fathom what a family might want to give me for her.

Again, Paul did not advocated women being any more submissive that Eve was to be to Adam. He just told them WHY: one of your favorite questions to ask. And please show me where the Bible advocates the raping of women. You mentioned that in other threads.

And as far as your theory about the man taking care of his family, that's fine and dandy, but please don't confuse PHYSICAL strength with superior parenting skills and/or superior intellect and compassion.
Just because a man is physically stronger, doesn't mean that's he's competent to be the leader in that marriage. That's a dangerous teaching and I know it to be first hand due to the deaths and abuse of women who were told by others to stick it out and do what they were told.

:clap::clap: You are exactly right. Whether he is a physical wimp or a mental midget (as distinguished from a little person), he is responsible for leading the family. That might mean being smart enough to recognize that his wife is better prepared to take the lead roles in certain areas where other couples have a man in the lead role.

And for you to say to women that a woman's submission to a man is conditional to the man being a good husband, could easily be construed as an unintentional insult to women. That HER feeble mindset depends on WHAT THE MAN DOES! If I were a woman, I would be insulted...

I did not call any woman's mindset feeble. You will have to stand for that one on your own. Nor did I say that a woman's submission what conditional. What I did say is that women don't have any worry in submitting to a man who loves her as Christ loves the Church and gives himself for her.

The reason MANY women submit to men is because that's what they've been taught in a religious culture and society...Many did it to their own detriment and death.
It's not wise to say that one party should submit to the other in EVERYTHING, not wise at all...

By the same token, many women fail to submit to their husbands for the same reasons that you note here. The other thing that that I and many others teach in this passage is that husbands learn submission from their wives. Since men are part of the Bride of Christ, the behavior of their wives teaches men how to submit to Christ. We need women to help us to understand how to walk in meekness with the Lord. We are programmed otherwise. So, while you deem it unwise, it is absolutely necessary.

In Africa, before Islam (religion) came along, women played major roles in the family...If you look at ALL of the major religions, you will see a pattern women being treated as second class citizens and them not being given equal rights with men. I think you know this, or at least you should. It's ashamed that you teach this nonsense...

I don't know nearly as much about other religions as you do. I really don't study them. I focus on Christianity. Jesus did not treat women with any degree less than men. No Christian should. That is what I teach. If you think that it is nonsense, then I will leave you to your opinion.

Dacon, most of the men in the congregation were more than likely unable able to read either. Usually at the synogogue, there was only one Torah book,... nevertheless Paul didn't tell those men to be quiet and not talk, neither did he prohibit them from being deacons.
It wasn't about education or reading to begin with when it came to the treatment of women. The woman would've been treated with disdain no matter what, so let's not try and muddy the waters with the "they-couldn't-read" theory, therefore we must keep them subservient...

More than likely??!! You're scratching for something here rather than sticking with the truth and facts. You're guessing and it is not serving you well.

You're mixing the cultures here. Corinthians were not Jews and they were EXTREMELY well-educated. Their literacy was among the highest of the day. So, there is no muddy water here, sir. Stay with the facts and follow the bouncing ball.

You all but admit that this culture treated women like surfs, yet you still want what Paul ordered back then to be practiced today, in our time?! Please tell me I'm reading this wrong. The excuses folks make for religion seems to know no end...

YOUR ARE READING THIS WRONG. Bruh, I make no excuses for culture. Being a serf or being treated like one crosses both cultures, genders, and times. I just watched a story on 60 Minutes last Sunday on resteveks (sp?) in Haiti. I was blown away.

Righteousness and holiness originate with God and not with culture. Culture will not be excused for failing to obey God. Much of today's culture advocates hedonism, homosexuality, lying, murder, pornography, gossip, envy, idolatry, etc. God will have none of such things.

Not only do I want what Paul ordered back then, but I see, participate in, and enjoy it every day.

So you admit, that Paul is saying that it's a good practice for deacons and bishops to be only men?! You said it, I didn't.

Absolutely. Have you ever done those jobs? If so, you would know. Still, to this day there are some things that some women are better equipped to do and others that we sometime can't find men to do where women step in and take up the slack. I would never want to be in a church or church organization where women were not celebrated for what they bring to the table - or just the fact that they are women.

You don't have to call it submission. The average person would call it slavery or serfdom. ...Paul even had the audacity to order slaves not to run away from their masters. What manner of creature would make such an order, unless the bible was authored by those in authority who owned slaves?

I guess you missed Corinthian History. While they were extremely smart, these were converts from what was among the most paganistic of their time.

The manner of creature who would order slaves (indentured servants and not the chattle that Africans were sold into in modern Europe and Asia) not to run away from their masters was one who pastored them in the same congregation; which is part of what equipped him to tell the masters how to treat their BROTHERS. Many of these slaves had been their peers before and would again be their peers after their debt was paid. Their reputations would need to be honorable regardless to which role they played in the master-slave relationship because they were going to have to continue to serve together when the payment was satisfied. The same applies to employees and their supervisors today.

Dacon, were slaves wrong for running from their masters in the Old South? Reading Paul's writings, if you are honest, you would HAVE to say so.

Let's be clear: those indentured servants - almost all White - who ran away here in the US before their debts were paid, were wrong for running away. That is what prompted the African slave trade in the first place. Those Africans people who were bought and sold like cattle had every right to try to escape. Reading Paul's writings, you would have to say that he would agree.

This is what religion teaches, yet folks want to shy away from these teachings and pick and choose what verses they want to follow. You can't choose the "good parts" and throw away the trashy parts. They ALL are in the same book.

Yes, it is all there. Religion also teaches things like

...the bible is a plagiarized book of contradictions, fairytales, untrue stories and unfulfilled prophecies...Some of the detructive paths brought on by the Christian religion [are] murder of babies, murder of women, subjugation of women, subjugation of whole races

and some people actually believe it.

 

[dacontinent]

Fine and dandy that you have a respectful wife, but one doesn't have to be religious or "born again" to be respectful.
...

No...but it sure does help. My wife not nor will my daughter bought or sold. They are priceless. They have no worries. My daughter and I have had discussions about arranged marriages and she does see the benefit. We won't carry things out that way, but she does appreciate the value.

As for Paul being a woman-hater, get saved :lecture:, then study :read:, and then you will know better :happydance:.

Dacon, you cease to amaze me with your sneakiness and word twisting. What you type in your posts needs no intensive research or investigation because debunking it comes naturally most of the time. It's not difficult at all to counter your religious postings.
As far as the earth being flat and round, THIS is what the church taught for hundreds of years, that it was shaped like a flat pancake and that one could sail over the edge if they went too far.
They even threatened and tortured Galileo because he taught that the Earth was NOT the center of our solar system. Stupid and ignorant religious folks taught that the sun revolved around the Earth. The religious folks ended up apologizing hundreds of years later, thank you, yet you believe what they printed and copied STILL?!! How gullible can one be?
...

Really?? These folk of whom you mention here ... what passages of scripture did they pen? You're pretty amazing.

Again, more word twisting by Dacon. I'm getting used to it though.
First of all, I clearly (at least I thought I did) stated that EVIL SPIRITS don't cause diseases as is taught in the Bible. You completely and hopefully unintentionally, misinterpreted what I posted.
Show me evidence of evil spirits causing diseases OR earthquakes OR hurricanes. Hopefully you won't take that out of context...

Let me make sure that I don't twist anything...

...I refuse to believe that the world is flat and round; I refuse to believe that earthquakes and volcanoes are caused by spirit beings...

So, are you now saying that non-EVIL SPIRITS can cause diseases as is taught in the Bible? Please straighten me out. I don't want to misunderstand or misquote.

I can no more show you any physical evidence that spirits of any kind cause diseases, earthquakes, or hurricanes than you can show me that they don't.

Dacon, you can "BELIEVE" anything you want. That's not the issue. I want you to PROVE to me that such nonsense ever occurred. Heck, I can say that I BELIEVE in Santa Clause, but that's all it would be.....a "belief", supported by nothing.
Your beliefs are just that, supported by nothing but a book written and plagiarized by ignorant nomads roaming the Middle East seeking enlightenment as best they could with what they had at the time. That's ALL you have.
...
It's highly likely that ignorant, uneducated nomads, in Bronze age Middle East, who had no idea that the sun revolved around the earth and that bacteria caused diseases.....it's obvious that these ignorant nomads were lying, yet STILL we have so-called educated people believing such nonsense. That's mindboggling to say the least.
Nevermind that these SAME miracles are not happening in our day, just take the word of past nomads who CERTAINLY weren't lying. That is what you and people like you HAVE to believe. LOL!!...

What we believe is absolutely the issue. You said so yourself:

...Dacon, look at it this way, for you to believe in the miracles of the bible, you'd have to believe that the unmoving laws of nature were suspended JUST SO YOUR BIBLICAL MIRACLES COULD COME TO PASS. This is what you would HAVE to believe, for the laws of nature to suddenly disappear. Are you serious or what?...

...and that is exactly what I responded to. Now you are back to your "highly unlikely" with no proof of what you "believe." That's mindboggling to say the least.
The dead are still being raised, sight recovered, the lame walk and the dumb are now speaking. [sigh]

Dacon, you and those of your ilk, would HAVE to believe that the SOLID laws of nature were done away with in order for your miracles to have occurred, rather than believing that ignorant nomads weren't lying when they copied and wrote about claims that a day lasted longer than 24 hours, that the earth opened up, that a huge sea split, that a donkey talked and other biblical miracles. THIS is what you have to believe.
If you believe such, "I rest my case".

Thanks. It is about time.

No, you tell me how the laws of nature were suddenly suspended in order for these plagues to occur.

The same God who established them also suspended them.

Thanks for responding to my questions. Perhaps that will remove the liar tag that you put on me earlier. Maybe you want to wea --- Nevermind.

...Dacon, you already stated that you would KILL a loved one of yours if your god told you to do so in a dream. This tells me that you're no better than these pagan folks in the above questions. You admitted that you're a proponent of HUMAN SACRIFICE...

Not a proponent of human sacrifice. Read Posts #112 & #119 again. Let's save some space on the hard drive.

..I deem you as an ethical person, but due to your outdated religion, YOU WOULD BE DEEMED EVIL IN TODAY'S SOCIETY IF YOU FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH KILLING A LOVED ONE JUST BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT YOUR GOD TOLD YOU TO DO IT and you'd be locked up for life or given the death penalty. Fortunately, that OT nonsense is too much even for the average fundamentalist Christian to bear and put into practice....at least I hope. However, you said you'd follow through with it. A telling story indeed and a sad one.

As for your religion and that kind of belief, you can have it.

Thanks.

 

[ROYAL BLUE]

Eclipse January 15 2010 A Sign of Revelation Part 1

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yIofkwwUrmw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yIofkwwUrmw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Eclipse January 15 2010 A Sign of Revelation Part 2 GREAT JOB PASTOR MURRAY!!!!!!!!

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ABC98pgwMG4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ABC98pgwMG4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[ROYAL BLUE]

Eclipse January 15 2010 A Sign of Revelation Part 3

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2-ab-SoQHKM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2-ab-SoQHKM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[JayRob]

In Numbers 16, Korah decides to challenge God's choice of Moses and Aaron. Korah commits his entire lineage in the challenge and they all die, swallowed up in the earth. Korah could have gone by himself, but he brought everyone with him. They all lost - men, women, children - innocent or not.

Dacon, try if you must, but there's no way you can justify the killings of innocent babies and children. Your man-made Old Testament god ordered mass killings of not some, but ALL Amalekite babies and children. The sad part about it is that the babies and children were innocent.
There's no telling how many total babies and children were murdered if you count the so-called Flood, by this OT god. Some people still have the nerve to call him, "love". WOW!!!!

JayRob missed the entire premise: Since Abraham is my precedent, then my expectation is the same. The Lord would provide Himself a sacrifice. Wait. He already did that in Jesus! Come on, man. This is not a storybook we are talking about. This is life. No more animal sacrifices necessary. Now, I have been commanded to sacrifice other things - including familial relationships that I held dear. I did it. You would, too.

Dacon, no need to back off of what you said earlier. It's there for all to see and read. I asked if you would kill a loved one if ordered to by your god in a dream. You responded by saying that you would. No misinterpretation there bud. You said what you said.
Regarding this Abraham story, this god involved this him in human sacrifice. He demanded that he give up his son. What would've happened to Abraham if he had not obeyed? This tyrant god probably would've took it upon himself to kill Isaac out of spite and anger. He DOES have a history of doing this. The following verses are evident:
Joshua 6:21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it - men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.
Judges 11:30-39 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD: "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."

Dacon, you can talk about pagans all you want, but when it came to human sacrifice, the OT god was perhaps WORSE than many of the pagan gods.
As a matter of fact, the entire Christian religion is primarily based on human sacrifice. It's ironic that you would try and deny that your god participated in such nonsense.
And I haven't even mentioned the massive slaughter of animals for their blood sacrifices.
Oh, one more thing you are wrong about....this IS a "story", a story of pure fiction.

No, bruh. I am not going to try to tell you something that God has not disclosed. That doesn't mean that I am not curious about it. It means that I trust Him. That is my choice and not yours. If that makes me guilty of something, then go ahead and pass the sentence on me.

This is a circular argument going nowhere.

God doesn't mention anything about electrocution or lethal injections either. I am not on death row here in Florida. He simply commanded me not to commit murder and I've done that. Amazing, don't you think?

We are discussing the same dietary and hygienic laws as we have before. Nothing new here. Were the Egyptians in compliance with those dietary customs in sync with Jewish dietary laws? Close? How close? Tell us, please. Paul said those things TO THE GENTILES WHOM THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS WERE TRYING TO BRING TO A MORE RESTRICTIVE DIET. And, the statistics show that those persons who follow such dietary laws are significantly healthier.

Dacon, for you to compare the importance of bacteria viruses not being mentioned in the bible to the way a person dies in a prison not being mentioned is ludricous.
The Old Testament authors didn't mention microscopic creatures because they DIDN'T know about them. Their god didn't know about them either because he was a fictional god, borrowed from other Middle Eastern religions, that's why. Those religions knew nothing about bacteria or viruses either. It's as simple as that.

As far as diet is concerned, if you say this OT diet was good, why did Paul not demand it for the Gentiles? Why don't MOST Christians follow this diet today if it's so good? You can't pick and choose which verses you want to add and do away with, but you still try. It's all or nothing.

I told you what the gospel is. It is really simple. Either you accept it or you don't.

You gave YOUR version of what it is. There are 31,000 more versions of this "gospel" you speak of and most don't share the same beliefs. You have NO idea what a "true" gospel is, you're only guessing just like the others.

Yeah...it ALWAYS HAS TO BE THE HUSBAND AND ONLY MEN ARE HUSBANDS. If women start to be husbands, then something has gone wa-a-a-y foul.

A clear command that ONLY men could be deacons. Just one of MANY ways the bible demeans women. This is exactly what one would expect from such a primitive male-dominated culture. Genital mutilation of women is what one would expect from such a culture, but thanks to religion, it continues.

One of the differences between you and me - maybe the biggest difference - is that I trust God (i.e. His Word), and you don't. As long as that is true, you and I will differ. I don't have to know all of the why's now. I will find them out later.

You call it trusting a god you've never seen, felt, touched, smelled or heard with no evidence. You call it trusting in words written by primitive, ignorant, nomadic tribesmen, whom you've never seen, heard, touched or smelled.
I call it believing in superstition. Superstition requires no evidence, only a belief. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

Paul just said what the scriptures taught: the woman was made out of man. There was nothing to hold back. I am sorry that you are insulted. Perhaps you should have been left on an island without the possibility of procreation. Maybe you would be more fulfilled.

What evidence is there that woman came from man? Please tell me. Other than mere words, where's the scientific evidence that woman came from man?
This has nothing to do with any procreation, so why you brought that up is another red herring on your part. Show me where there's scientific evidence of woman coming from man.

To the best of my knowledge, no woman that has ever heard me (or anyone else) teach from this passage has expressed any desire to pimp slap someone because of it. My wife is my glory, and she certainly lets me know it, insisting that I do what I need to make her shine. My daughter won't date a man who thinks less. So, maybe the women you refer to have self-esteem issues. I really don't know.

Dacon, if your wife and daughter grew up in the U.S. with biblical influence, it's quite obvious why they would think that way. They obviously think that what they're doing is "god's will" and are following what he taught. THAT'S why they do it and you know it.
If they had grown up in an equal society without the influence of biblical religion, they wouldn't think that women were made for men. No woman in her right mind, unless influenced by religion, thinks they're made for men without the man being made for her as well.

Religion has forced you and unsuspecting others into a time warp that goes back to the Dark Ages and primitive man. It's ashamed that supposed educated folks won't fast forward to an age of rationality and reason, especially when it's looking them right in the face. Such a shame.

 

[dacontinent]

Dacon, try if you must, but there's no way you can justify the killings of innocent babies and children. Your man-made Old Testament god ordered mass killings of not some, but ALL Amalekite babies and children. The sad part about it is that the babies and children were innocent.
There's no telling how many total babies and children were murdered if you count the so-called Flood, by this OT god. Some people still have the nerve to call him, "love". WOW!!!!...

He also ordered the anihilation of the Sidonians, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, Hivites, Arkites, Sinites, Arvadites, Zemarites, and Hamathites for starters.

My loving God hates sin. He makes no apologies for that. Should I choose a life of sin, I, too, will be destroyed.

Dacon, no need to back off of what you said earlier. It's there for all to see and read. I asked if you would kill a loved one if ordered to by your god in a dream. You responded by saying that you would. No misinterpretation there bud. You said what you said.
Regarding this Abraham story, this god involved this him in human sacrifice. He demanded that he give up his son. What would've happened to Abraham if he had not obeyed? This tyrant god probably would've took it upon himself to kill Isaac out of spite and anger. He DOES have a history of doing this. The following verses are evident:
Joshua 6:21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it - men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.
Judges 11:30-39 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD: "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." ...

I stand by what I said. Should God tell me to do so, I will make sure you're invited to oversee the proceedings.

Dacon, you can talk about pagans all you want, but when it came to human sacrifice, the OT god was perhaps WORSE than many of the pagan gods.
As a matter of fact, the entire Christian religion is primarily based on human sacrifice. It's ironic that you would try and deny that your god participated in such nonsense.
And I haven't even mentioned the massive slaughter of animals for their blood sacrifices.
Oh, one more thing you are wrong about....this IS a "story", a story of pure fiction...

Sir, Christianity is based on the life of Jesus Christ. That is all. If you want to make the conjecture above, please support it with evidence that you require of others. Not opinion; EVIDENCE.

Dacon, for you to compare the importance of bacteria viruses not being mentioned in the bible to the way a person dies in a prison not being mentioned is ludricous.
The Old Testament authors didn't mention microscopic creatures because they DIDN'T know about them. Their god didn't know about them either because he was a fictional god, borrowed from other Middle Eastern religions, that's why. Those religions knew nothing about bacteria or viruses either. It's as simple as that...

What I compared was two things that the Bible doesn't talk about (microscopic creatures vs. modern methods of execution) and how obedience to the laws given relative to those things protects you from those things.

As far as diet is concerned, if you say this OT diet was good, why did Paul not demand it for the Gentiles? Why don't MOST Christians follow this diet today if it's so good? You can't pick and choose which verses you want to add and do away with, but you still try. It's all or nothing...

Are you smarter than a second grader? Not in this case. That diet, like circumcision, was part of the distinction of the Jew in the OT. That is precisely why Paul did not demand it of the Gentiles and took Peter to task for it when he caused confusion with the Jews after his encounter at Cornelius' house.

You gave YOUR version of what it is. There are 31,000 more versions of this "gospel" you speak of and most don't share the same beliefs. You have NO idea what a "true" gospel is, you're only guessing just like the others...

Suppose you share another of those 31,000 with us.

A clear command that ONLY men could be deacons. Just one of MANY ways the bible demeans women. This is exactly what one would expect from such a primitive male-dominated culture. Genital mutilation of women is what one would expect from such a culture, but thanks to religion, it continues...

In Romans 16, the same fellow opens the chapter addressing Priscilla as a deacon. What is clear is that you missed something.

You call it trusting a god you've never seen, felt, touched, smelled or heard with no evidence. You call it trusting in words written by primitive, ignorant, nomadic tribesmen, whom you've never seen, heard, touched or smelled.
I call it believing in superstition. Superstition requires no evidence, only a belief. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

I have felt, touched, smelled, and heard God. Seeing that you did not know that, I won't call you a liar. You're only ignorant to my experiences.

What evidence is there that woman came from man? Please tell me. Other than mere words, where's the scientific evidence that woman came from man?
This has nothing to do with any procreation, so why you brought that up is another red herring on your part. Show me where there's scientific evidence of woman coming from man.

What evidence is there that woman did not come from man? Please tell me. Other than mere words, where's the scientific evidence that woman DID NOT come from man? This has everything to do with procreation and much more. On the basis that the Bible is right and Adam (JayRob) was alone, how would I have gotten here without an Eve? We will never know.

Dacon, if your wife and daughter grew up in the U.S. with biblical influence, it's quite obvious why they would think that way. They obviously think that what they're doing is "god's will" and are following what he taught. THAT'S why they do it and you know it.
If they had grown up in an equal society without the influence of biblical religion, they wouldn't think that women were made for men. No woman in her right mind, unless influenced by religion, thinks they're made for men without the man being made for her as well.

Now just where is your anthropological evidence of this? Were you a woman at one time and now a man? I doubt it. I'm sure you will correct me if am wrong. Could the above position be your opinion? We have small colonies of people here in Florida from Moldova (sp?) since the Berlin wall came down and they would counter both your opinion and evidence.

Religion has forced you and unsuspecting others into a time warp that goes back to the Dark Ages and primitive man. It's ashamed that supposed educated folks won't fast forward to an age of rationality and reason, especially when it's looking them right in the face. Such a shame.

Perhaps you are right. But, your religion has clearly forced you into not being willing to experience a personal relationship with the God who created you whom you have the opportunity to feel, tough, smell, and hear RIGHT NOW. My expectation is to live forever (eternity) with that same God. What expectation does your religion give to you of eternity? Such a shame.