Recommended Posts
there is no FUCKING WAY that my statement validates your belief in the myth. you just proved that a 'believer' will do anything to make it true.
those two words prove that the priesthood twisted the truth, to subjugate people's minds elohim means gods not god.
Steveorino, you keep proving point 1 of the opening statement in this thread. go read it again. please.
those two words prove that the priesthood twisted the truth, to subjugate people's minds elohim means gods not god.
Steveorino, you keep proving point 1 of the opening statement in this thread. go read it again. please.
we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively
wishers never choose, choosers never wish
wishers never choose, choosers never wish
YOU said the prebiblical records show a reference to the god(s), patriarchs of the bible. I noted the Bible records there were men of God that were NOT Israelites (descendants of Abraham) Melchizedek and Job were two of them. Melchizedek came from the lands you say the tablets are from. I think I have proven my point.
REBUTTAL to your attachment: You have an attachment that is rebutting archelogical findings. Almost from the beginning, they are woefully wrong that any historian with any credibility would pick out.(translated: you don't have to be a historical or biblical scholar)
David, Scripture says, was such a superb military leader that he not only captured Jerusalem but also went on to make it the seat of an empire, uniting the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Thus began a glorious era, later amplified by his son, King Solomon, whose influence extended from the borders of Egypt to the Euphrates River. Afterward, decline set in.
Israel was somewhat divided in loyalties between King Saul and David, however,they were not divided from Judah. That division took place under Rheaboan/Jeroboan (sp?) two generations after David. Hey, at least get the obvious stuff correct.
steveOrino
REBUTTAL to your attachment: You have an attachment that is rebutting archelogical findings. Almost from the beginning, they are woefully wrong that any historian with any credibility would pick out.(translated: you don't have to be a historical or biblical scholar)
David, Scripture says, was such a superb military leader that he not only captured Jerusalem but also went on to make it the seat of an empire, uniting the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Thus began a glorious era, later amplified by his son, King Solomon, whose influence extended from the borders of Egypt to the Euphrates River. Afterward, decline set in.
Israel was somewhat divided in loyalties between King Saul and David, however,they were not divided from Judah. That division took place under Rheaboan/Jeroboan (sp?) two generations after David. Hey, at least get the obvious stuff correct.
steveOrino
abraham, david, saul, esau, israel are canaanite gods a thousand years before your bibles history began. once again you prove nothing except your denial of the truth. do you suport the killing of the war in iraq? our use of depleted uranium, makes our leaders WAR CRIMINALS.
Hitler was a christian, too. Do you get it , yet?
nobody makes a greater mistake, in times of moral crisis, than one who maintains nuetrality. EDMUND BURKE
you and everyone like you, praying for the return of a solar myth, are maintaining nuetrality in a time of crisis.
The United States Is not founded on Christianity.(Treaty of Tripoli, 8 Stat 154)
America is a British Colony.(THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION, NOT A LAND MASS. IT EXISTED BEFORE THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR. THE BRITSH TROOPS DID NOT LEAVE UNTIL 1796.) Respublica v. Sweers, 1 Dallas43, Treaty of Commerce 8 Stat 116, The Society for Propagating the Gospel & Co. v. New Haven, 8 Wheat 464,Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80, IRS Publication 6209, Articles of Association Oct 20 1774.)
Great Britain is owned by the Vatican. (Treaty of A.D. 1213.)
The pope can abolish any law in the United States. (Elements of Eccliastical Law, Vol. I, 53-54)
The pope claims to own the Entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery. (papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493).
The pope has ordered the genocide and enslavement of millions of people. (papal bulls of 1455 and 1493).
The Popes laws are obligatory on everyone. (Bened. XIV, De Syn. Dioec, lib, c.vii., n.4.Prati, 1844)(syllabus, prop 28,29, 44).
you can only deny the truth, not prove it false
www.truthbeknown.com
Hitler was a christian, too. Do you get it , yet?
nobody makes a greater mistake, in times of moral crisis, than one who maintains nuetrality. EDMUND BURKE
you and everyone like you, praying for the return of a solar myth, are maintaining nuetrality in a time of crisis.
The United States Is not founded on Christianity.(Treaty of Tripoli, 8 Stat 154)
America is a British Colony.(THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION, NOT A LAND MASS. IT EXISTED BEFORE THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR. THE BRITSH TROOPS DID NOT LEAVE UNTIL 1796.) Respublica v. Sweers, 1 Dallas43, Treaty of Commerce 8 Stat 116, The Society for Propagating the Gospel & Co. v. New Haven, 8 Wheat 464,Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80, IRS Publication 6209, Articles of Association Oct 20 1774.)
Great Britain is owned by the Vatican. (Treaty of A.D. 1213.)
The pope can abolish any law in the United States. (Elements of Eccliastical Law, Vol. I, 53-54)
The pope claims to own the Entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery. (papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493).
The pope has ordered the genocide and enslavement of millions of people. (papal bulls of 1455 and 1493).
The Popes laws are obligatory on everyone. (Bened. XIV, De Syn. Dioec, lib, c.vii., n.4.Prati, 1844)(syllabus, prop 28,29, 44).
you can only deny the truth, not prove it false
www.truthbeknown.com
we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively
wishers never choose, choosers never wish
wishers never choose, choosers never wish
Have a great day, Hairy!
steveOrino
Quotedo you suport the killing of the war in iraq?
I'm not sure why this question is in this thread, but yes, I wish we'd kill the war in Iraq.
steveOrino
what a laugh? you should really do the research. you cannot prove it false. you are in the same denial that a drug addict exhibits prior to his admission that he's an addict.
from "seven years that changed the world 1941-1948
if 'jesus' was about peace love and brotherhood, EVERY christian clapping his hands for war is a hypocrite. if the shoe fits wear it.
Are you a practicing Communist?
from "seven years that changed the world 1941-1948
if 'jesus' was about peace love and brotherhood, EVERY christian clapping his hands for war is a hypocrite. if the shoe fits wear it.
Are you a practicing Communist?
we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively
wishers never choose, choosers never wish
wishers never choose, choosers never wish
billvon 3,036
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
> If I want to use logic to prove that Jackson Pollock is a good artist,
>I have to define what I mean by good. Good in what sense? Using
>my standard of good, Jackson Pollock doesn't fit.
Exactly. But he does indeed fit other people's definition of "good." That does not mean you are wrong, or illogical.
>So why can't I use logic to study the bible? I define what my
> standards are, do the comparison and get my answer. What is
> wrong with that? Why is the bible exempt from scrutiny in this way?
Nothing at all. You can define your own terms and use them to examine the bible. And, just as in the Pollack example, you get an answer that is right for YOU. That does not mean that it's the same answer for everyone else, or that your answer works for everyone else.
Again, it may not fit your definition of "good" or "correct." That does not mean that other people are wrong or illogical for believing in the lessons contained therein.
>you're saying that the bible is comparable to art and just like art,
>I can either choose to like it or not.
Well, I'd use the example of literature, but basically yes. The important part of the bible is what it teaches you, not whether or not the earth was really created in 144 hours.
>I have to define what I mean by good. Good in what sense? Using
>my standard of good, Jackson Pollock doesn't fit.
Exactly. But he does indeed fit other people's definition of "good." That does not mean you are wrong, or illogical.
>So why can't I use logic to study the bible? I define what my
> standards are, do the comparison and get my answer. What is
> wrong with that? Why is the bible exempt from scrutiny in this way?
Nothing at all. You can define your own terms and use them to examine the bible. And, just as in the Pollack example, you get an answer that is right for YOU. That does not mean that it's the same answer for everyone else, or that your answer works for everyone else.
Again, it may not fit your definition of "good" or "correct." That does not mean that other people are wrong or illogical for believing in the lessons contained therein.
>you're saying that the bible is comparable to art and just like art,
>I can either choose to like it or not.
Well, I'd use the example of literature, but basically yes. The important part of the bible is what it teaches you, not whether or not the earth was really created in 144 hours.
'any christian who claps his hands for war is a hypocrite'-Seven Years That Changed the World-1941-1948 by Wing Anderson, An Essene
we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively
wishers never choose, choosers never wish
wishers never choose, choosers never wish
Mentions of God before the Bible?? Makes sense to me. The Priest/King Melchizedek (Gen14) blessed Abraham. Melchizedek came from a canaanite land. God was working with people outside Judaism long before Abraham. Thanks for your validation of scripture.
steveOrino
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites