The Bible or Morality: Which Came First (cont'd)

[JayRob]

Post from Dr. H, from part 1:

JayRob Quote:
To tell you the truth, this is insignificant to begin with. I was merely proving a point, but here you come late to the game trying to make a big deal out of something so insignificant.

What a lie, I just pointed out they very well could have lived in the same area because of the scripture. No one "to my knowledge" said they were the same people. I bet there are individuals living in your neighborhood, that you have never met.

Who said they were the same people, but they were related.

Pull off your "stupid" blinders and re-read my comments as it relates to Paul and Jesus as well as the Moabites. There are a number of events that took place in the OT as well as the NT do you expect each one to be mentioned in the bible. Paul, had siblings, are they names mentioned.

Perhaps I am missing something, where does it state that Paul was raised in Jerasulem?

All you have to do is understand the grammar os the sentence. Surely, if Paul and Jesus had debated, Paul would have recognized Jesus voice. But, that does not support they have never met. You, can met a person one, two or three times that does not gurantee you that you will recognize their voice a month or a year later.

JayRob Quote:
Dude, what are you talking about? None of that makes any sense.

Sure it does, you expect every event that took place in the OT / NT to be recorded in the bible. What I am saing to you, is that every event is not recorded in the bible.

Because Paul did not mention that he met Jesus, does not mean that he had not met him.

You said

"Paul/Saul had no clue who Jesus was. He didn't even recognize his voice. Acts 22 and 26 further prove such"

Is that not what I said, so why are you attempting to debate what I said. Moron, I am agreeing with you!

Something is wrong with your reading comprehension

JayRob Quote:
Paul, did not know any of the Apostles

Where did you get that from?

 

[JayRob]

What a lie, I just pointed out they very well could have lived in the same area because of the scripture. No one "to my knowledge" said they were the same people. I bet there are individuals living in your neighborhood, that you have never met.
Who said they were the same people, but they were related.

No need for me to lie about anything in the bible. Dacon and I had already discussed what you talked about, yet you come in repeating what was already said without reading our previous posts.

The Midianites and the Moabites were two distinct and separate groups of people who had their OWN kings and OWN priests. For anyone to hint that they dwelled in the same land under the same government and priesthood is not true at all.
You nor Dacon have yet to provide any scriptures stating otherwise.

Pull off your "stupid" blinders and re-read my comments as it relates to Paul and Jesus as well as the Moabites. There are a number of events that took place in the OT as well as the NT do you expect each one to be mentioned in the bible. Paul, had siblings, are they names mentioned.

What's not said oftentimes speaks louder than what is said. That's the case on this particular subject.
Whether or not Paul had siblings means nothing and lends nothing to this subject. Try again.

Perhaps I am missing something, where does it state that Paul was raised in Jerasulem?

Paul says it himself in Acts 22:3. “I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today."
When you go back to the previous chapter, it tells you what city Paul was in when he made this statement. The city is noted in Acts 21:17 where it says, "When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly".

All you have to do is understand the grammar os the sentence. Surely, if Paul and Jesus had debated, Paul would have recognized Jesus voice. But, that does not support they have never met. You, can met a person one, two or three times that does not gurantee you that you will recognize their voice a month or a year later.

Paul says nothing in his writings about Jesus. He says nothing in his writings about witnessing the resurrection in Jerusalem, where he was raised at the time Jesus was supposedly on the scene.
There's no way that Paul wouldn't have known of this man who is said to have worked mighty miracles, raised Lazarus, raised Jairus' daughter, caused the graves of many to open, rose to heaven, was the "son of god".
You would have to be in total denial to even think about Paul not knowing Jesus, especially when BOTH basically lived in Jerusalem and went to the temple on for the high days and some sabbaths.

Sure it does, you expect every event that took place in the OT / NT to be recorded in the bible. What I am saing to you, is that every event is not recorded in the bible.

No, I don't expect every minute detail to be mentioned, but I expect those major details to be noted. The major details of Paul not knowing Jesus speaks volumes indeed.

Because Paul did not mention that he met Jesus, does not mean that he had not met him.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it no matter how flawed and outlandish it might be.

You said
"Paul/Saul had no clue who Jesus was. He didn't even recognize his voice. Acts 22 and 26 further prove such"
Is that not what I said, so why are you attempting to debate what I said. Moron, I am agreeing with you!
Something is wrong with your reading comprehension

Again, it would've been impossible for Paul not to have heard Jesus because BOTH grew up in Jerusalem, attended the high sabbaths and holy days in that city as their custom was at the temple. There's no way they wouldn't have known each other.
Did you call me a moron? LOL!! Is it Christian to call another a "moron"? Just curious.

Where did you get that from?

During Jesus' supposed ministry, Paul did not know any of the apostles. He mentioned not one of them by name. As a matter of fact, In Galatians 1:18, he hinted that they had to get to know him and he had to get to know them.

 

[JayRob]

Previous post from JayRob responding to Dacontinent:

[*]The safest way possible to have intercourse is for two virgins to be married and remain exclusive to each other. That is what we teach.

That's what YOU teach but most Christians don't even follow those teachings. Regardless of that, it's still irresponsible and evil to teach non-condom use when they could save thousands and thousands of lives.

[*]I still don't hint.

Earlier, you clearly hinted that circumcision was done for health reasons among other things, but now you're backing away from it?

[*]Intimacy with God is the objective of worship. The closest expression that we have naturally is sex. It stands to reason that one reflects the other.

Huh?! Isn't god supposed to be male, yet he only demanded that males circumcise themselves? Why not females since sex involves two individuals? Now you claim he's interested in a male's organ because of sex? Sounds like homosexuality to me or you're just making up answers as you go along.

[*]You seem to be fixed on child consent for surgery...that the child's consent should be given for elective surgery. I don't want to go too far afield with this, but your positioning lends itself to the argument of a child's consent for all surgery...which would be ridiculous. Secondly, while nerve receptors will be removed with the foreskin, is it conclusive that the result is perceived to be better or worse? My very small sampling was and is unanimous that the sexual experience was more pleasurable AFTER circumcision. Your mileage may vary.

First of all, the surgery is totally unncecessary and is NOT a life-threatening necessity. If it was life-threatening, that would be a completely different story, but it's not. As a matter of fact, many have died from due to the surgery.

Second, it should be quite obvious that if you remove HALF of the sensual nerve-endings in the male organ, it should be elementary to conclude that a large percentage of sensitivity is lost, especially during intercourse. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand this much.

[*]I doubt that any medical association promotes circumcision over non-circumcision. It is all about making an INFORMED DECISION.

You earlier claimed that the CDC favored circumcision over non-circumcision, now you're switching gears. It's obvious that those who choose circumcision have not been informed of the advantages and/or disadvantages of the ritual.
Most merely do it for religious reasons and for that reason alone, so their decisions are not informed to say the least. Their decision is based on belief in an ignorant ritual that leads to limited pleasure in intercourse, possible death due to infection and possible trauma after the fact.

[*]So, may we now conclude that Paul says nothing about whether he knew Jesus prior to his conversion? No eveidence has been presented to the contrary. Saul not recognizing Gamaliel's voice would be disturbing. Jesus had not been Saul's teacher. There is nothing to suggest that Saul should be familiar with Jesus' voice. Saul understood that it was the Lord talking to Him on the Damascus road. The revelation was that the Lord was Jesus.

Again you seem to be in flat out denial in spite of the evidence showing that Paul would HAVE to have known who Jesus was if there ever was a Saul or Jesus. There's no earthly way possible that he wouldn't have known who this man was. Fact of the matter is that either Jesus was a myth or Saul was a myth or both were myths, made up by authors of the new testament who couldn't get their story plot straight. It had to be one or the other.

[*]Nicodemus was, indeed, a Pharisee.

Why did you earlier claim that no Pharisee was named in the new testament if that's the case? If Nicodemus was named, Saul should've been named and KNOWN by at least ONE or more of the apostles. The story plot of the gospels and epistles of Paul simply don't add up.

[*]In Acts 22 & 26 Paul gives testimony of his conversion in Acts 9 and some of what he learned afterward. There is nothing more suggest that he did or did not know Jesus prior to the crucifixion.

Again you seem to be in total denial. All of the evidence clearly points to the fact that Paul should've known not only Jesus, but at least a couple of the major apostles too.
In Matthew 27:52-53, it says "and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many."
How could Paul have not have known of the resurrection of Jesus, along with the other accounts of mass graves being opened up? It's virtually impossible.

There's conclusive evidence to show that he didn't know Jesus nor ANY of the apostles, including Judas, who plotted with the Pharisee sect (which Saul was a devoted member of), to have Jesus killed. For Paul not to have known about this is unreal. He mentions nothing about the resurrection either, something he should've known for sure.

[*]If Paul was a chief persecutor of Jesus and his followers while Jesus was alive, one would think there to be some mention of it somewhere in the New Testament; yet, that does not appear.

And why isn't there any mention of it? Because more evidence points to the strong possibility that the stories were concocted and made up by separate authors who couldn't their story straight. This is what happens when lies are being taught. It opens up a can of inconsistency.
Neither apostle knew Paul and Paul knew them not nor did he know this Jesus person.

[*]Gen 3:15 is both natural and spiritual.

To whom did satan's sperm go into and to whom did he have a child with? Eve was the only female around at the time, so did satan have sex with her? Well, did he?
The only logical explanation is that the above verse is spiritual, nevertheless I would like for you to provide your evidence as to why the verse is referring to something physical.

[*]Take a look at the Gen 6:4-5, Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; and recognize the Nephilim. When you do that, you will likely reach a different conclusion about what some spirits have done.

If this is the case, then who was the female human, satan had physical sex with? There was only ONE female present at the time.
Secondly, where does a spiritual satan get his physical sperm from?

 

[Dr H..]

The Midianites and the Moabites were two distinct and separate groups of people who had their OWN kings and OWN priests. For anyone to hint that they dwelled in the same land under the same government and priesthood is not true at all.

This is what I am talking about, did I say they were under the authority of the same king or religious leader. Is it possible for two different cultures to live in or around the same area and have the same or different governments “yesâ€￾

Question: Did I say or hint they were governed by the same government or religious leaders?

Re-read what I said.

Paul says it himself in Acts 22:3.

The scriptures does not say how old Paul was when start studying under Gamalie, he could have been five, twenty or thirty.

The word brought up has many meanings one being “nourished up to promote growth or forming the mindâ€￾

When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly".
Paul was an adult when this statement was made on his second or third Missionary Journey. Because, he used those particular words, only validate that other knew him and Luke. He was speaking of those that were members of the Church.

No, I don't expect every minute detail to be mentioned,
Stop telling that lie, because you are of the mindset that if it’s not spelled out, then it did not happen and your comments support my statement.

Do not avoid the question, just answer it.

Because Paul did not mention that he met Jesus, does not mean that he had not met him.

 

[JayRob]

The Midianites and the Moabites were two distinct and separate groups of people who had their OWN kings and OWN priests. For anyone to hint that they dwelled in the same land under the same government and priesthood is not true at all.

This is what I am talking about, did I say they were under the authority of the same king or religious leader. Is it possible for two different cultures to live in or around the same area and have the same or different governments “yes”

Give scriptures to support your above theory is all I asked. Is that asking too much?

Question: Did I say or hint they were governed by the same government or religious leaders?
Re-read what I said.

You also provided no supporting evidence of any kind. You're only offering an opinion.

Paul says it himself in Acts 22:3.
The scriptures does not say how old Paul was when start studying under Gamalie, he could have been five, twenty or thirty.
The word brought up has many meanings one being “nourished up to promote growth or forming the mind”

Dude, you continue to be in stark denial. You didn't even know that your OWN bible stated that Paul was raised in Jerusalem. A non-believer had to point that out to you. Now you're trying to rework verses into meaning something else? Every sane person knows what "raised" means for crying out loud.
For example, if someone said to you, "I was raised in the South", it simply means that for most of their young life as a child, they lived in the South. For you to try and twist it into something else is teetering towards being dishonesty and deceitful.

When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly".
Paul was an adult when this statement was made on his second or third Missionary Journey. Because, he used those particular words, only validate that other knew him and Luke. He was speaking of those that were members of the Church.

You said yourself that they received him warmly AFTER his second or third missionary journey. It's obvious he met them during his first and second journey.

No, I don't expect every minute detail to be mentioned,
Stop telling that lie, because you are of the mindset that if it’s not spelled out, then it did not happen and your comments support my statement.

You're denying the fact that Paul not mentioning anywhere in his writings that he personally knew Jesus is highly unusual?! Paul at no time indicated that he witnessed the many miracles of this son of god, yet you're here claiming that this is a minor detail?! Wow!!! Some folks it seems will go to any length to deny the obvious.

Because Paul did not mention that he met Jesus, does not mean that he had not met him.

You're entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is meaningless when you can't support it with evidence. Sorry, but that's just the way it goes.

 

[Dr H..]

You're denying the fact that Paul not mentioning anywhere in his writings that he personally knew Jesus is highly unusual?!

No I am not, what are you reading, certainly not my comment.


Theory, on what? That it's possible for two distinct groups to live in the same area, without being called by the same name.

"I was raised in the South",

Not always true, because most assoicate preachers say " I set under the feet or was raised by a certain preacher, that does not mean the person left home and was raised in another city."

"received him" I was just quoting what you used.

Because he used that phrase, does that mean he already knew the Apostles. No and the answer could be yes. You are the one that said that he did not know the other Apostles, not me.


When I read Paul's comment I did not take it as he leaving home, but to be raised "teaching and nurishing" Paul.

Haver you ever used a "Bible Map"


In the O T times, there was the Land of Canaan and the occupants [cities. Towns; villages] of the land were:

Israel; Samaria; Beersheba; Gilead and on the land mass there were the Philistines; Canaanites; Moabites and Edomites all called by the name of the "Tribe" they were assoicated with, were the not. Although, they were all distant kinfolks.

So why is it, you feel that people can not live in the same area, without being called by the same name.

 

[dacontinent]

• Most (All?) Christians know "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY". Teaching condom use for married and diseased persons is taught by churches all over. Should the Church teach semi-protected extramarital sex? No.
• I don't hint. There is nothing to indicate that the intent of circumcision by the Jews was for anything more than identification with the covenant. What we were discussing in the thread was what the pros/cons were on each side of the circumcision discussion from a health standpoint. Period.
• No. The Father is neither male nor female.
• No rocket scientists needed to know that nerve receptors are removed along with the tissue of the foreskin. I think what is at issue is whether the sensitivity of the tissue is preferred or not. My sampling of friends all prefer the level of sensitivity after the foreskin was removed. Your gathering of information sounds like it favors the sensitivity achieved with the foreskin in place. I, therefore, reached the conclusion that the results vary.
• I clipped a piece from the CDC about its findings in its ongoing study on circumcison. You can read it for yourself by following the link. The CDC neither endorses nor condemns the practice. I contend that most circumcision outside of third world countries is done for hygiene alone. What we were discussing were the pros/cons today as a practice regardless of the impetus.
• I believe (since we have nothing else to go on) that Nicodemus is the lone pharisee mentioned in the gospels because of his actions to actually gain understanding from Jesus (John 3) and show his resulting support (John 7). No other pharisee is depicted as such: not Gamaliel nor Saul. It seems to make sense to include Nicodemus when you look at the target audience of the Gospel according to John.
  Certainly ALL of the pharisees of the day knew who Jesus was and the resurrection. That was the impetus for Saul's work as a mercenary. Encountering Jesus is a completely different matter.
  Dr. Samy Al-Arian is now famous/infamous. I have passed him in the hallways at USF many times. I have been to USF more than 50 times during the time of his arrest and trial. My co-worker's wife worked on the case for the Justice Dept., traveling halfway around the world and bringing me back some souvenirs in the process. I could probably pick him out of a lineup, but not be able to identify him by voice. Just because someone is famous, accessible, and I know OF him does not mean that I KNOW him. Duane "Dog, the Bounty Hunter" Chapman knows very few of the people that he chases around the country, but he has to know about them in order to apprehend them. Anonymity is one of the primary assets of a bounty hunter like Saul. Does that make sense?
• Just where is this evidence that Saul did not know who Jesus or any of the apostles were? Not speculation but evidence.
• How did you possibly conclude that Eve was still alive let alone the only female present in Gen 6?
  
  Gen 4:19
  19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. KJV
  Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
  4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
  5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
  6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
  7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
  ...
  10 And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
  ...
  13 And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:
  ...
  16 And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:
  ...
  19 And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
  ...
  22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
  ...
  25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:
  26 And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:
  ...
  28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
  29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed.
  30 And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:
  31 And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
  32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
  ...
  6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, :read:

 

[JayRob]

No I am not, what are you reading, certainly not my comment.

Still no supporting verses.

Theory, on what? That it's possible for two distinct groups to live in the same area, without being called by the same name.

Still no supporting verses.

Not always true, because most assoicate preachers say " I set under the feet or was raised by a certain preacher, that does not mean the person left home and was raised in another city."

Still no supporting verses.

"received him" I was just quoting what you used.
Because he used that phrase, does that mean he already knew the Apostles. No and the answer could be yes. You are the one that said that he did not know the other Apostles, not me.

Where did he say that he knew the apostles at anytime before the first missionary journey?

When I read Paul's comment I did not take it as he leaving home, but to be raised "teaching and nurishing" Paul.

Paul said he was born in Tarsus and raised in Jerusalem. Come on "H", it can't be that difficult to understand that small phrase.

Haver you ever used a "Bible Map"
In the O T times, there was the Land of Canaan and the occupants [cities. Towns; villages] of the land were:
Israel; Samaria; Beersheba; Gilead and on the land mass there were the Philistines; Canaanites; Moabites and Edomites all called by the name of the "Tribe" they were assoicated with, were the not. Although, they were all distant kinfolks.
So why is it, you feel that people can not live in the same area, without being called by the same name.

The same AREA is not the issue. The issue is what they were called. Dacon and I already discussed this. You're late. The fact of the matter is that the verses clearly showed that the cultures of Midian and Moab did not have the same leader and they didn't have the same religious leaders, thus proving that they were distinct territories and NOT the same. This is the issue.

 

[dacontinent]

The same AREA is not the issue. The issue is what they were called. Dacon and I already discussed this. You're late. The fact of the matter is that the verses clearly showed that the cultures of Midian and Moab did not have the same leader and they didn't have the same religious leaders, thus proving that they were distinct territories and NOT the same. This is the issue.

• The AREA is the ENTIRE issue.
• We did discuss it. You refused to look at the geography then and now.
• Dr. H is not late. He makes the same point that I made.
• The Israelites, Moabites, and Midianites all had different leaders but they were all in Moab.
• What has been proven is that you haven't considered the information at which you stare.

 

[JayRob]

[*]Most (All?) Christians know "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY". Teaching condom use for married and diseased persons is taught by churches all over. Should the Church teach semi-protected extramarital sex? No.

Yeah, right. With a divorce rate of 60 plus percent of Americans, what are the odds? Blacks, most of whom are Christian, have an 80 percent divorce rate. The Baptists lead the nation in highest divorce rate by the way and are more likely to get divorced than atheists or agnostics.

[*]I don't hint. There is nothing to indicate that the intent of circumcision by the Jews was for anything more than identification with the covenant. What we were discussing in the thread was what the pros/cons were on each side of the circumcision discussion from a health standpoint. Period.

You brought up health reason advantages by posting CDC article, then backed down after you were shown otherwise. There are no advantages whatsoever to being genitally mutilated. Most folks overall circumcise their children purely for religious purposes, which is highly ignorant and higly immoral. They have no earthly idea what they're doing.

[*]No. The Father is neither male nor female.

Who impregnated Mary? A male or female? Why does he call himself "father" if he's not male?

[*]No rocket scientists needed to know that nerve receptors are removed along with the tissue of the foreskin. I think what is at issue is whether the sensitivity of the tissue is preferred or not. My sampling of friends all prefer the level of sensitivity after the foreskin was removed. Your gathering of information sounds like it favors the sensitivity achieved with the foreskin in place. I, therefore, reached the conclusion that the results vary.

You reached a conclusion that's more favorable to what your bible teaches, nothing more, nothing less. Circumcision goes contrary to medical science.

[*]I believe (since we have nothing else to go on) that Nicodemus is the lone pharisee mentioned in the gospels because of his actions to actually gain understanding from Jesus (John 3) and show his resulting support (John 7). No other pharisee is depicted as such: not Gamaliel nor Saul. It seems to make sense to include Nicodemus when you look at the target audience of the Gospel according to John.
Certainly ALL of the pharisees of the day knew who Jesus was and the resurrection. That was the impetus for Saul's work as a mercenary. Encountering Jesus is a completely different matter.
Dr. Samy Al-Arian is now famous/infamous. I have passed him in the hallways at USF many times.

Did this Dr. Arian person claim to raise the dead? Did he claim to heal the sick? Did he claim to cause the blind to see? Did he claim to be the son of god? Did he claim to be able to forgive the sins of the entire world? No, no, no, no and no. This is why this is not a fair comparison. You can't come up with a fair comparison to this Jesus character.

Encountering Jesus would've been Paul's primary goal since Jesus was the chief ringleader of this new sect. Paul was also associated with the chief priests, the same ones who were responsible for plotting Jesus' death.
How Paul wouldn't have known about this famous man is highly unlikely indeed.
The more one investigates this matter, the more it becomes quite obvious that if there ever was a Paul, he would HAVE to have known this Jesus character.

[*]Just where is this evidence that Saul did not know who Jesus or any of the apostles were? Not speculation but evidence.

He wrote about none of them in his gospel. Luke, in the history of the church in Acts, never indicates that the apostles knew this Paul or Saul.
There's no evidence that Paul knew who this Jesus was. The silence is deafening.

[*]How did you possibly conclude that Eve was still alive let alone the only female present in Gen 6?

I was still referring to Gen. 3:15 about the seed of satan and Eve's seed.
Eve was the only woman alive, so where did a spiritual satan get his sperm and more importantly, who did he impregnate to form a physical seed? Eve was the ONLY female alive back then. If your theory that the verse is physical, satan would have to have impregnated Eve.
The verse clearly refers to something spiritual alone, UNLESS you can show how and whom satan impregnated Eve on a physical level.

 

[Dr H..]

The fact of the matter is that the verses clearly showed that the cultures of Midian and Moab did not have the same leader and they didn't have the same religious leaders, thus proving that they were distinct territories and NOT the same.

Again, here you go, who said they had the same leaders political or religiously. The Continental U S is one Land Mass, divided into States (Territories, Cities or Town), however each state has its own [cities or towns] and each has its own government. But we are one “Land Massâ€￾ just as the Middle East is today, however they have distinct territories / countries on one land mass.

Look at the map

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CanaanMap.jpg

As I stated you had this land mass called Canaan, within that land mass it was divided into several areas which included “modern dayâ€￾ Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and a few other areas. Also during O T times, Canaan, was eventually divided into twelve [regions, providences, states, territories etc, etc] for the twelve tribes of Israel, but they were on the same land mass, that has been occupied by the Moabites and Midianites.

What / who were the gods of the Midianites and who were the gods of the Moabites?


Is it possible for two goups to live within a few miles of each other and not have the same name. Doggone, I see it monthly when I go to Memphis on one side of the river they are called Tennessean a mile or so away they are call Arkansans.


True of false, is the land / territory of the Moabites and Midianites are located in the same geographical area [Lower Right Corner] and they are both located in the Land of Canaan?

 

[JayRob]

[*]The AREA is the ENTIRE issue.

So the "area" is more important than the "name" of the tribe being cursed or punished? LOL!!

[*]We did discuss it. You refused to look at the geography then and now.

To refresh your memory a bit, the verses we talked about had to do with a Midianite woman being killed by Phineas. It also had to do with Numbers 25 claim that Moabite women were leading Israelite men astray. If the Moabite women were following the OT god's laws, it wouldn't have mattered where they resided. It has to do with their name and what they were accused of doing. The Moabites weren't punished because of where they lived, your bible says they were punished because of their practices.

[*]Dr. H is not late. He makes the same point that I made.

And his point is just as flawed as yours. Show where a scripture says the folks were punished solely because of where they lived.

[*]The Israelites, Moabites, and Midianites all had different leaders but they were all in Moab.

There you go again. Show the verses please. As I stated earlier, the Israelites transported the captured Midianite women and BROUGHT them to their camp. I even gave you the verses showing such, yet you still go against your own bible just to try and prove a insignificant point.
How can a separate group of people have their OWN king, their OWN priesthood, yet STILL be called by the name of another nation?
I can't believe you dared type such nonsense, then again?

Numbers 31:1 and Judges 6 clearly show that the Midianites had their own kings, army, religion and borders. Last I heard, that constitutes a nation.
Any objective history teacher would easily agree with me, that the Midianites and Moabites did not dwell within the same borders as you and "H" claim.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so to prove to you MIDIAN WAS NOT IN MOAB, here's the evidence:

NOTICE HOW EDOM SEPARATES THE LAND OF MOAB AND THE LAND OF MIDIAN.

Perhaps this is your way of diverting from the more important questions ABOUT PAUL, EVE AND SATAN'S SEED AND CIRCUMCISION.

 

[JayRob]

Again, here you go, who said they had the same leaders political or religiously. The Continental U S is one Land Mass, divided into States (Territories, Cities or Town), however each state has its own [cities or towns] and each has its own government. But we are one “Land Massâ€￾ just as the Middle East is today, however they have distinct territories / countries on one land mass.
Look at the map

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CanaanMap.jpg

As I stated you had this land mass called Canaan, within that land mass it was divided into several areas which included “modern dayâ€￾ Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and a few other areas. Also during O T times, Canaan, was eventually divided into twelve [regions, providences, states, territories etc, etc] for the twelve tribes of Israel, but they were on the same land mass, that has been occupied by the Moabites and Midianites.

What / who were the gods of the Midianites and who were the gods of the Moabites?
Is it possible for two goups to live within a few miles of each other and not have the same name. Doggone, I see it monthly when I go to Memphis on one side of the river they are called Tennessean a mile or so away they are call Arkansans.
True of false, is the land / territory of the Moabites and Midianites are located in the same geographical area [Lower Right Corner] and they are both located in the Land of Canaan?

Dude, it can't be that difficult. It matters not if they bordered next door, the fact of the matter is that THEY WERE DIFFERENT PEOPLE, HAD DIFFERENT KINGS, DIFFERENT JUDGES, DIFFERENT TERRRITORY.

Anyhow, you just get back to answering those Paul questions you're trying to divert from. LOL!!

 

[dacontinent]

• You know the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. :read: He is called Father because only father's can impregnate and fathers establish lineage in Israel. However, His nature is also female (El Shaddai), reflected in Adam being made in His image and Eve being made out of Adam.
• Dr. Al-Arian is the most notorious Al Quaeda member apprehended in the US to date. He is germane to why thousands of lives have been lost and billions of our tax dollars are being spent every day in the Middle East. Everyone in America should know who he is...like Saul knew who Jesus was. The silence IS deafening.

I was still referring to Gen. 3:15 about the seed of satan and Eve's seed.

Go back and read your last entry in Post #3 and read what you quoted of me immediately before that. Then, post your entry that says you were wrong.

...Eve was the only woman alive, so where did a spiritual satan get his sperm and more importantly, who did he impregnate to form a physical seed? Eve was the ONLY female alive back then. If your theory that the verse is physical, satan would have to have impregnated Eve.
The verse clearly refers to something spiritual alone, UNLESS you can show how and whom satan impregnated Eve on a physical level.

Huh?
Gen 3:15 - And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed [1] and her seed [2]; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

[1] Seed of Satan ... [2] Seed of the woman. Two seeds adverse to one another. Not the union of Satan and Eve.

Physically, Jesus was the seed of Eve ... and Mary. He was not the seed of Joseph. Jesus was the seed of God - spiritual. Spiritually, Jesus and those of His kind will crush the head of the serpent.

Spiritually, Satan (serpent) has and will bruise the heel (assault but not prevail) Jesus and His kind. That will also be manifest physically through sin, sickness, disease, etc.

Physical and spiritual are not entirely separate. There is interaction between the two.

 

[Dr H..]

Dude, it can't be that difficult. It matters not if they bordered next door, the fact of the matter is that THEY WERE DIFFERENT PEOPLE, HAD DIFFERENT KINGS, DIFFERENT JUDGES, DIFFERENT TERRRITORY.

You're right it's not difficult. So is it possible for two groups of individuals living in the same area to be called by different names?

You previously said that they would be called by the same name. Using your map, Edom [Edomites] and Midian [Midionites] were neighbors on the same land mass, but were called different names.

Negative, you answer my questions that I asked several weeks ago - why are you avoiding the questions.

Are you the product of God's Creation or the Theory of Evolution.

Is it possible for the Hebrews to dwell in the Sinai for forty years and whatever was left by them was covered up by thousands of years of sand?

Have the archeologist dug up every inch of the Sinai searching for artifacts of the Hebrews.

I noticed that you did not comment on this information that Iposted # 184. Notice, whats highlighted in red. You previously stated that the Nation of Israel / Hebrews (OT) was a myth and they did not exist.

Read

Moabite stone (mō'əbīt'), ancient slab of stone erected in850 B.C. by King Mesha of Moab; it contains a long inscription commemorating a victory in his revolt against Israel. It was discovered at Dibon, Jordan (1868), by F. A. Klein, a German clergyman. Although it was later broken when Klein tried to purchase it from the Arabs, most of the fragments were recovered. They are in the Louvre. The language of the Moabites is a Phoenician dialect that represents an early form of Hebrew

Now that youhave read the statement and Israel is mentioned, do you still deny the existance of the Hebrews or Israel. If so, then Moab and the Moabites, are just part of our "Fairy Tale"

Now I guess you will be saying Mr. Klein, is a lie.

Please respond.

 

[dacontinent]

I think this is the last time I am going to address this Moab/Midian issue in this thread. Strap up and stay with me.

Thanks for identfying the Land of Edom between the Lands of Midian and Moab. The plains of Moab were east of the Jordan opposite Jericho.

Nice map. It shows the Land of Midian, where Moses returned with the Israelites in the Exodus. The Land of Midian ... back to Reuel/Jethro. We also see Moab, many miles north of the Land of Midian. Peor was a mountain in Moab where Baal Peor was worshipped by people in Moab. In Numbers 25 the Israelites are camped in the plains of Moab. There is the slaughter of 24K Baal worshippers, the first of which was a Midianitish woman named Cozbi. Her father, Zur, was one of the Midianite kings in Moab ... once again, MOAB ... not in the Land of Midian. So, that means that there were kingdoms in the land of Moab that were not run by Moabites. At least one of them was a Midianite kingdom. But, wait ... In Numbers 31, the Israelites are still camped in the plains of Moab when they are ordered to go war against the Midianites. Israel wins and 5 kings are killed, including Zur. That means that there were at least 5 Midianite kingdoms in Moab.

So, there were Midianites in the Land of Midian (south), but there was a different faction of Midianites in the Land of Moab (north) ... just like I said two threads ago when I simply asked JayRob to look at the scriptures and the map. Thanks, JayRob.

Now, I hope that that you can understand that the Moabites (people of the lineage of Moab) and the Midianites who lived in the Land of Moab (people of the lineage of Midian) were both punished for the same practices and their attempt to conspire against Israel...not because of where they lived but because of what they did.

 

[Dr H..]

And Mesha king of Moab was a sheepmaster, and rendered unto the king of Israel an hundred thousand lambs, and an hundred thousand rams, with the wool. But it came to pass, when Ahab was dead, that the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel. ... the Israelites rose up and smote the Moabites, so that they fled before them: but they went forward smiting the Moabites, even in their country. And they beat down the cities, and on every good piece of land cast every man his stone, and filled it; and they stopped all the wells of water, and felled all the good trees: only in Kirharaseth left they the stones thereof; howbeit the slingers went about it, and smote it. And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords, to break through even unto the king of Edom: but they could not. [2 King 3:4-5, 24-26]

It sounds like the Moabites lost, but according to king Mesha they won. It reads in part:

Omri was king of Israel and oppressed Moab many days, for Chemosh was angry with his land. And his son succeeded him and he also said I will oppress Moab. In my days he said this, but I got the upper hand of him and his house: and Israel perished for ever... And Kemosh said to me, 'Go, take Nebo from Israel.' And I went in the night and fought against it from the daybreak until midday, and I took it and I killed the whole population: seven thousand male subjects and aliens, and female subjects, aliens, and servant girls. For I had put it to the ban for Ashtar Kemosh. And from there I took the vessels of Yahweh, and I presented them before the face of Kemosh.

The text on the stele is Moabite and is the oldest Phoenician alphabet on record. It's also basically the same as early Hebrew, which suggests that the Moabites and the Israelites were far more similar culturally than the Bible lets on.

Note:

Sound like JR lied about the non-existance of Isreal / Hebrews [Moses, David etc, etc]

What we have is a stone, that mentions Israel / Hebrews as a nation / people.

So, JR what do you have to say?

 

[JayRob]

[*]You know the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. He is called Father because only father's can impregnate and fathers establish lineage in Israel. However, His nature is also female (El Shaddai), reflected in Adam being made in His image and Eve being made out of Adam.

Dude, you're all over the place right now and making no sense. Adam was a male, supposedly made in the sky god's image. Eve wasn't made in the sky god's image.
Mary was supposedly impregnated with sperm, not an egg. Do you not know the nature of your own sky god?
How can a person named "father" be a female? If the sky god was both male and female, he wouldn't have needed Mary for anything.
Where in the bible is the sky god ever referred to as a female? Provide verses to support. LOL!!

[*]Dr. Al-Arian is the most notorious Al Quaeda member apprehended in the US to date. He is germane to why thousands of lives have been lost and billions of our tax dollars are being spent every day in the Middle East. Everyone in America should know who he is...like Saul knew who Jesus was. The silence IS deafening.

That example you gave is nowhere near the example I gave. This man you mentioned was not a prophet, he wasn't a healer, he didn't claim to be "god", he did claim to raise the dead, he didn't claim to forgive sins. For you to compare him to the fictional characteristics of the biblical Jesus could be akin to blasphemy. Nevermind though since it's fictional jargon.

Go back and read your last entry in Post #3 and read what you quoted of me immediately before that. Then, post your entry that says you were wrong.
Huh?
Gen 3:15 - And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed [1] and her seed [2]; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
[1] Seed of Satan ... [2] Seed of the woman. Two seeds adverse to one another. Not the union of Satan and Eve.

Physically, Jesus was the seed of Eve ... and Mary. He was not the seed of Joseph. Jesus was the seed of God - spiritual. Spiritually, Jesus and those of His kind will crush the head of the serpent.

Spiritually, Satan (serpent) has and will bruise the heel (assault but not prevail) Jesus and His kind. That will also be manifest physically through sin, sickness, disease, etc.

Physical and spiritual are not entirely separate. There is interaction between the two.

Where is Satan's physical seed? Who are physical descendants of satan? If you claim that Genesis 3:15 refer to both spiritual AND physical seed, you must provide physical descendants of satan just as you provided a physical descendant of Eve.
Who are the physical descendants of satan? How did they get his physical seed? Who did satan have sex with in the garden in order for them to become his physical seed? Provide verses to support please.

 

[JayRob]

I think this is the last time I am going to address this Moab/Midian issue in this thread. Strap up and stay with me.

Thanks for identfying the Land of Edom between the Lands of Midian and Moab. The plains of Moab were east of the Jordan opposite Jericho.

Nice map. It shows the Land of Midian, where Moses returned with the Israelites in the Exodus. The Land of Midian ... back to Reuel/Jethro. We also see Moab, many miles north of the Land of Midian. Peor was a mountain in Moab where Baal Peor was worshipped by people in Moab. In Numbers 25 the Israelites are camped in the plains of Moab. There is the slaughter of 24K Baal worshippers, the first of which was a Midianitish woman named Cozbi. Her father, Zur, was one of the Midianite kings in Moab ... once again, MOAB ... not in the Land of Midian. So, that means that there were kingdoms in the land of Moab that were not run by Moabites. At least one of them was a Midianite kingdom. But, wait ... In Numbers 31, the Israelites are still camped in the plains of Moab when they are ordered to go war against the Midianites. Israel wins and 5 kings are killed, including Zur. That means that there were at least 5 Midianite kingdoms in Moab.

So, there were Midianites in the Land of Midian (south), but there was a different faction of Midianites in the Land of Moab (north) ... just like I said two threads ago when I simply asked JayRob to look at the scriptures and the map. Thanks, JayRob.

Now, I hope that that you can understand that the Moabites (people of the lineage of Moab) and the Midianites who lived in the Land of Moab (people of the lineage of Midian) were both punished for the same practices and their attempt to conspire against Israel...not because of where they lived but because of what they did.

And let me address this insignificant issue one more time or as many times as need be. The land you're talking about was not occupied by Moabites, it was occupied by Amorites.

Amorites land was east of the Jordan (Num. 21:13) -- the Arnon is the frontier between Moab and the Amorites. This land of the Amorites reaching "from Arnon to Jabbok, even unto the children of Ammon" (ibid. 24), had been taken away from Moab by Sihon (ibid. 24, 26, 29), who built Heshbon to be his residence (ibid. 26, 27) directly before the immigration of Israel. Amorites dwelling in Jazer are specially mentioned (ibid. 32).
These Amorites "which dwelt beyond Jordan" are also referred to (Deut. 1:1, 4, 3:2; I Kings, 4:19; Ps. 135. 136. 19; Josh. 2:10, 9:10).

They seem to have originally occupied the land stretching from the heights west of the Dead Sea ( Gen. 14:7) to Hebron (compare 13:8; Deut. 3:8; 4:46-48), embracing "all Gilead and all Bashan" ( Deut. 3:10), with the Jordan valley on the east of the river ( 4:49), the land of the "two kings of the Amorites," Sihon and Og (Deut. 31:4; Josh. 2:10; 9:10).

The five kings of the Amorites were defeated in a great slaughter by Joshua (10:10). They were again defeated at the waters of Merom by Joshua, who smote them till there were none remaining (Josh. 11:8). It is mentioned as a surprising circumstance that in the days of Samuel there was peace between them and the Israelites (1 Sam. 7:14).

Hope this helps. You can thank me later.

 

[JayRob]

And Mesha king of Moab was a sheepmaster, and rendered unto the king of Israel an hundred thousand lambs, and an hundred thousand rams, with the wool. But it came to pass, when Ahab was dead, that the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel. ... the Israelites rose up and smote the Moabites, so that they fled before them: but they went forward smiting the Moabites, even in their country. And they beat down the cities, and on every good piece of land cast every man his stone, and filled it; and they stopped all the wells of water, and felled all the good trees: only in Kirharaseth left they the stones thereof; howbeit the slingers went about it, and smote it. And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords, to break through even unto the king of Edom: but they could not. [2 King 3:4-5, 24-26]

It sounds like the Moabites lost, but according to king Mesha they won. It reads in part:

Omri was king of Israel and oppressed Moab many days, for Chemosh was angry with his land. And his son succeeded him and he also said I will oppress Moab. In my days he said this, but I got the upper hand of him and his house: and Israel perished for ever... And Kemosh said to me, 'Go, take Nebo from Israel.' And I went in the night and fought against it from the daybreak until midday, and I took it and I killed the whole population: seven thousand male subjects and aliens, and female subjects, aliens, and servant girls. For I had put it to the ban for Ashtar Kemosh. And from there I took the vessels of Yahweh, and I presented them before the face of Kemosh.

The text on the stele is Moabite and is the oldest Phoenician alphabet on record. It's also basically the same as early Hebrew, which suggests that the Moabites and the Israelites were far more similar culturally than the Bible lets on.

Note:

Sound like JR lied about the non-existance of Isreal / Hebrews [Moses, David etc, etc]

What we have is a stone, that mentions Israel / Hebrews as a nation / people.

So, JR what do you have to say?

I touched on this subject at least three previous times. It's getting tiresome having to spoonfeed you information you can pull up for yourself about this stone. As a matter of fact, I posted something recently on the subject. You just need to go back and find it for yourself.

 

[JayRob]

I noticed that you did not comment on this information that Iposted # 184. Notice, whats highlighted in red. You previously stated that the Nation of Israel / Hebrews (OT) was a myth and they did not exist.

Read

Moabite stone (mō'əbīt'), ancient slab of stone erected in850 B.C. by King Mesha of Moab; it contains a long inscription commemorating a victory in his revolt against Israel. It was discovered at Dibon, Jordan (1868), by F. A. Klein, a German clergyman. Although it was later broken when Klein tried to purchase it from the Arabs, most of the fragments were recovered. They are in the Louvre. The language of the Moabites is a Phoenician dialect that represents an early form of Hebrew

Now that youhave read the statement and Israel is mentioned, do you still deny the existance of the Hebrews or Israel. If so, then Moab and the Moabites, are just part of our "Fairy Tale"

Now I guess you will be saying Mr. Klein, is a lie.

Please respond.

Oh, so now you believe in archaeology when you THINK they've found something credible?! Weren't you the very same person discrediting archaeological findings a couple of days ago? LOL!!
You find one rock, and you think that's enough evidence to support what your bible says about Israel?

The bible is accurate on some historical accounts. That cannot be denied, however what can be denied are subjects like Noah's Flood, The Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, Dead people coming out of their graves in Jerusalem and much more.

I've always said that the biblical authors COPIED from other sources, so what's the big deal about? The writings on the stone support what I've been saying all along. The biblical authors copied other sources and called it their own and made it favorable to their own kind.

No one ever said Israelites were a myth. What I did say was that the Israel of the old testament has no evidence of being an Israelite kingdom with a population of 2-3 million people, nor was it ever a dominant kingdom as mentioned in the bible.

There's no clearcut evidence of a David or a Solomon, two people who should've been recorded, if only for their biblical greatness, by other nations in existence at that time.
Nothing of the sort has EVER been found.

What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all of the Bible.

Out of thousands and thousands of artifacts, historical documents and writings, there's only one or two mentions of a david of some sort and no solomon? Do you REALLY want to hang your faith and hat on that? If you do, then you're mighty desperate indeed.

"The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts.

The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known."

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html

 

[dacontinent]

• Maybe I should write slower.
  
  Gen 5:1-2
  5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam . In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
  2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam , in the day when they were created.​
  They are Adam in the the day of Adam's creation (Gen 1:26,27). Later, they are separated into Adam and Woman (Gen 2:21-23).
  So, as created in the image of God, Adam was a single unit, both male and female. It was not a good state for Adam, so God put Adam to sleep and extracted Woman. After the fall, Adam named the woman Eve (Gen 3:20). That might be a little difficult to follow, but it is all right in the scripture. God's image (Adam) was both male and female until separated by and operation.
  
  God's names reflect his nature.
  
  • Jehovah/YWHW is for covenant. (Ex 6:3)
  • El Elyon - possessor of heaven and earth.
  • El Shaddai - Source, Nourisher, Breasted-One, Nurse (Gen 17:1)
  In El Shaddai, part of God's nature is FEMALE in character - as we give anthropomorphic characteristics to God.
  
  Now, Mary was impregnated with sperm by the Holy Ghost (Matt 1:20). She was a virgin. No hanky-panky with Joseph or anyone else (Luke 1:34). So, that means the Jesus is the seed of a woman, but not the seed of a man. Still with me?
  
  Mary is a direct decendant of Adam, and she is a woman, just like Eve was Woman. So, the spiritual seed of the Woman (Gen 3:15) is also the physical seed of Mary, another woman. The Woman of Gen 3:15 is then named Eve in Gen 3:20. Still with me?
  
  The physical Jesus died on the cross (bruised heel) for your sins and mine, and went on to conquer (crushed head) death and hell (Rev 1:18) so he could pass the keys of the kingdom to us (Mt 16:19). Now, Jesus sits in heaven on the right of the Father (Heb 7:25;8:1) - in the place of power and authority.
  
  Recap:
  
  • God's nature of both male and female characteristics.
  • That nature reflected in Adam in creation; separated by an operation performed by the Creator (Elohyim).
  • Decree on the seed both natural and spiritual, extending from the fall of man through the birth and death of Jesus and into eternity
  
  Now, I asked before about the Nephilim. You haven't gotten back to me on that yet. I will leave that one on the table for now and wait for you.
• The example of Dr. Al-Arian is very pertinent.
  1. He is a man viewed as one of the most notorious of our time.
  2. His arrest and trials have been ongoing since 2003.
  3. He did his dirt right here in my backyard.
  4. He has cost American lives and billions of dollars daily.
  5. I get the impression that until I brought him up in this thread that you did not know about him - even with all of the information and technology available to us.

 

[JayRob]

[*]Maybe I should write slower.

Gen 5:1-2
5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam . In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam , in the day when they were created.​

They are Adam in the the day of Adam's creation (Gen 1:26,27). Later, they are separated into Adam and Woman (Gen 2:21-23).
So, as created in the image of God, Adam was a single unit, both male and female. It was not a good state for Adam, so God put Adam to sleep and extracted Woman. After the fall, Adam named the woman Eve (Gen 3:20). That might be a little difficult to follow, but it is all right in the scripture. God's image (Adam) was both male and female until separated by and operation.

Just try and make it fit, no matter how ludricous it sounds. So now your sky god is a hermaphrodite?! Wow, I've read it all now. Hahahahahaha!!!! This is nothing more than an Eastern Asian god.
The lengths some will go to prevent from saying they were wrong.

God's names reflect his nature.

• Jehovah/YWHW is for covenant. (Ex 6:3)
• El Elyon - possessor of heaven and earth.
• El Shaddai - Source, Nourisher, Breasted-One, Nurse (Gen 17:1)

In El Shaddai, part of God's nature is FEMALE in character - as we give anthropomorphic characteristics to God.

So now your sky god has breasts?! LOL!! This is REALLY getting funny. A sky god with breasts and has a female nature?!

Now, Mary was impregnated with sperm by the Holy Ghost (Matt 1:20). She was a virgin. No hanky-panky with Joseph or anyone else (Luke 1:34). So, that means the Jesus is the seed of a woman, but not the seed of a man. Still with me?

If that's the case, the Jesus cannot be the seed of Joseph nor is he from the seed of David. Joseph is a descendant of David, therefore this disqualifies Jesus as being the Messiah.

Mary is a direct decendant of Adam, and she is a woman, just like Eve was Woman. So, the spiritual seed of the Woman (Gen 3:15) is also the physical seed of Mary, another woman. The Woman of Gen 3:15 is then named Eve in Gen 3:20. Still with me?

The physical Jesus died on the cross (bruised heel) for your sins and mine, and went on to conquer (crushed head) death and hell (Rev 1:18) so he could pass the keys of the kingdom to us (Mt 16:19). Now, Jesus sits in heaven on the right of the Father (Heb 7:25;8:1) - in the place of power and authority.

Recap:

• God's nature of both male and female characteristics.
• That nature reflected in Adam in creation; separated by an operation performed by the Creator (Elohyim).
• Decree on the seed both natural and spiritual, extending from the fall of man through the birth and death of Jesus and into eternity

Now, I asked before about the Nephilim. You haven't gotten back to me on that yet. I will leave that one on the table for now and wait for you.

You just unwisely and unknowingly disqualified your Jesus as being the Messiah by claiming that he has NO ties to Joseph. In the bible and in your own words, the geneology comes THROUGH THE MAN ALONE, so Mary's geneology doesn't count. Even if one could trace one's genealogy through Mary, there would be the additional problem that Luke 3:31 lists Mary as a descendent of David through Nathan, Solomon's brother, and not through Solomon himself as required according to the prophesy in I Chronicles 22:10 of the OT.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I'll ask for the THIRD time, WHO did Satan have sex with? Who was his physical seed of Genesis 3:15?
Eve was the ONLY woman in existence at the time, so WHO was satan's physical seed?
Even if satan could have sex, which you're claiming since you brought up the nephilim, WHO did he have sex with being that Eve was the only female around at that time?

[*]The example of Dr. Al-Arian is very pertinent.

1. He is a man viewed as one of the most notorious of our time.
2. His arrest and trials have been ongoing since 2003.
3. He did his dirt right here in my backyard.
4. He has cost American lives and billions of dollars daily.
5. I get the impression that until I brought him up in this thread that you did not know about him - even with all of the information and technology available to us.

1. 
   
   Your comparison is ludricous and a copout. No one knows this person. Adolf Hitler is more famous than this Dr. Al-Arian you mentioned.
   
   The fact of the matter is that Paul, eventhough he was raised in Jerusalem, was a devout Pharisee, had strong ties with the chief priests, he attended the high holy days annually in Jerusalem at the temple, he supposedly raised humans from the dead, caused the blind to see, walked on water, was the head of the most hated sect by the Pharisees.....all that and more, yet you have the gall to try and convince yourself that Paul didn't know this Jesus person?!
   
   Ask your Sunday school folks who this Dr. Al-Arian fellow is, then ask your Sunday school folks who is this Jesus person. Who will they recognize the most?
   You should be ashamed of yourself for comparing the person you call "the son of god", to a known assassin and killer.

 

[Dr H..]

Oh, so now you believe in archaeology when you THINK they've found something credible?! Weren't you the very same person discrediting archaeological findings a couple of days ago?

Refresh my memory - you were the one peaching about the realibility of archaeolighist.

Apparently you are not familiary with the mentaligy of Kings or Military Leaders - during that time, every battle was claimed as a victory. But did you not say that the Hebrews / Israelites wer a "Myth or Fairy Tail"

Yes or No. And go back and answer my previous questions about the Hebrews / Saini

The bible is accurate on some historical accounts...

You said the bible was no more than a collection of "Fairy Tails - Alice in Wonderland [did you not say this]" Fairy tails is no more than ones imigination. Therefore, you denied the accuracy of the bible.

But you still have not answered my questions about the Hebrews - Exodus as it relates to the amount of time between the Exodus and when archologist started searching the desert. Consider, a one time the Spinix was coverd with sand, was it not.

Yes or No

There was witness, "people coming out of ther grave" You still cannot prove that Noah's Flood dis not happen. But I seriously need to to explain, how certain sea life fossels is found in the on various mountain tops, in the middle of the desert and how oil is found in the Artic, bottom of the ocean etc, etc, Considering, oil is made from decayed "trees and other vegitation" I have never seen this thye of vegitation greo in sea water or in sub-zero climates.

it ever a dominant kingdom as mentioned in the bible.

You did say the Hebrews / Israelites were a "Myth" and that the Exodus never happened, they are both related. That was not Gods desire for the Hebrews, to become a dominate kngdom. His intent was to direct the Hebrews toward Him as it is with people today.

 

[dacontinent]

• JayRob considers God being nurturing as ludicrous. That the same God also produces seed to procreate life. Such an assessment coming from a man who has no god but himself. That's sadly funny.
• Next, JayRob skips by the fact the Mary is also a descendent of David. The primary thing that qualifies anyone to be Messiah is that He is born of immaculate conception: directly the son (and Son) of God.
• Eve would have been thousands of years old at the time of the Nephilim. Go back and study some more.
• Adolf Hitler led a nation, incited a World War, controlled almost an entire continent, killed millions people ... and Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Ronaldinho, and Cristiano Ronaldo are all more famous than him. What is your point? In saying that "No one knows [Dr. Al-Arian]", you directly support my point. In asking my Sunday School class about Jesus and Dr. Al-Arian you will find that they know who both of them are. They will know far more about Jesus since he is the constant subject of discussion in all of Christianity. No one is more famous than Jesus. I dare say that no one ever will be.

You are flailing away in this very shallow water.