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

[Dr H..]

JT

I chaged my mind

Dating Techniques [C-14, Potassium-Argon, C-14]

"All the above (radiometric) methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history...It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.' The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologist and evolutionists..." (W.D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytech State University, The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, 1987.

Question: How can you have two or three instruments giving different dates. Consider, a thermometer [digital, anolog or fluid] all three will give you the same temperature within 2 - 3 degrees of each other.

Question: Why is it something as simple as a thermometer is accurate and scientific instruments are not. One will indicate the bones are 2.3 million years old another 5 million and another 5.6 million years old.

Carbon-14 Will Tell Us...Won't It?

"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago." (From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D. -- Geology, Professor, University of Kansas, quoted in Antarctic Journal of the United States, 1971.

"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)

Question: How could the hair of the mammoth, be older than the soil. Considering, God make the earth (soil / dirt / rocks) first. If this is true, the mammoth was 26K years old when he died. Meaning, that the mammoth was 4.6 times as old as the soil.

 

[dacontinent]

...This is the mindset that proves how immoral religion is. There are natural laws, having nothing to religion, that are at our fingertips to help with healing.
What are atoms? What are electrons? They're energy, which is what humans are made of. Why is it demonic for humans to utilize what's been there long before the Christian religion came on the scene? This is exactly how religion blinds, deceives and misleads humans down a road of unnecessary suffering, pain, disease and death. Shame on religious leaders for withholding this knowledge from innocent humans who have the right to know.

Nevermind the shame, because religious leaders will never allow this information to get to it's flock because it takes power away from them and puts it in the hands of their individual members. This is what brings fear to religious leaders more than anything, which is LOSING POWER over their flock.
This is why they label things they fear the most as being demonic and evil. Natural healing from natural energy is not evil. Religion is evil for teaching that it's evil.

I have no problem with the information getting the flock. They are not stupid. The will follow the links and see the same things that I did. I have every confidence that they will reach the same conclusions. It was like finding a turd in a punchbowl: it stinks, you know what it is, and you know you don't want any of it.

 

[Dr H..]

In your opinion does God exist?

God does not have to prove that He exist, you have to prove that He does not exist.

But you still fail to explain your existance are you the product of Creation or Evolution?


This is funny, in a way

You speak of the record keeping of the Egyptians. It's strance they do not have records how they built the Pyramids or the Sphinx. Where are those records?

 

[JayRob]

JR

What has science proved? The only thin science has proved is the bible is right! Science / Mathematics have proven that the earth is not as old as some “Scientist and Archeologist “say it is. Science has proven that fossils are not as old as Paleontologist say they are. Science has proven that the “Theory of Evolution†is what it says it is a “Theoryâ€

Paleontologist says the fossils are millions / billions of years old. I previously presented a mathematical equation that shows the earth is between 6 – 7K years old. There are other “scientific†facts that disprove the earth being millions plus years old. Now, if that’s true, then it’s impossible for fossils to be as old as archeologist / paleontologist say they are.

I stopped reading right there. You can't be serious, you just can't be. The earth is 6-7000 years old?! See folks, this is what religion does to an otherwise average thinking person. It causes them to try and force a square peg into a round hole. In other words, the religious person has to twist proven science to try and force it into what the bible says.

Where does the bible specifically say that the earth is 6-7000 years old? Please post supporting verses.

Here are some other facts to disapprove what some scientist state as a fact.

Be careful of what you call "facts". I hate doing this to you time and time again, but truth is more important than fiction. The following site totally debunks every point you're about to make. Actually it makes your arguments look elementary at best.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/

Look at Earth’s Magnetic Field

It is decaying at a measurable rate. The half-life of the magnetic field has been calculated to be 14K years. [The Origin and Destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field], this means that 14K years ago it was twice as strong as it is today. It is predicted that the magnetic field will be completely gone by the year 4000. Now, [regressing] 7K years ago, it would have been 32 times as strong as it is today. Continuing, to go back in time 10,000 years ago the magnetic field would have been so strong that the earth and every living creature would have disintegrated from the internal / magnetic forces.

Didn't you just say that the earth is 6-7000 years old? How can you get "14,000 years ago from 7,000?!
This theory was disproved long ago. See the following site. It destroys each one of your arguments bit by bit.
http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...-earth/specific_arguments/magnetic_field.html

Shrinkage of the Sun

In 1979 scientist [Scientist, not Theologians] were able to measure the shrinkage of the sun. According to scientist, the sun is shrinking at a rate of 0.1% per century or 5 feet per hour. [G. B. Lubkin, Physics Today., Vol 32, no 17, 1979]The Sun makes up 99% of the mass of the entire Solar System.
1.4 million kilometers (the circumference is 4.4 million km around).
Surface area is 6.1 x 1018 square meters. That's the same as 11,900 Earths.
The total volume of the Sun is 1.4 x 1027

Using this known rate of shrinkage, going back in time to “let say†100,000 years the sun would be twice the size it is today. Life [people, animals, plants etc, etc] could hot have existed. So how can fossils, be millions of years old. Now, let’s go back 20 million years [The oldest known fossil is a stromatolite (meaning "mattress rock" in Greek) dating to 2.74 billion years ago. the oldest known fossil of a multicellular organism, which dates back to about 600 million years ago. The researchers said the fossil found last year at Atapuerca in northern Spain, along with stone tools and animal bones, is up to 1.3 million years old].

20M years ago, the earth would have been inside of the sun.
Are you confused?

Wrong again. The "shrinking sun" theory was debunked years ago. The information obviously hasn't gotten to those who believe in a young earth theory.

"The unwarranted assumption that the rate of shrinkage reported by Eddy and Boornazian is an established fact. Far from it! Their conclusion was published as an abstract to further scientific discussion, not as a polished paper. Creationists nevertheless pounced upon it as though it were the Holy Grail. Before long, serious flaws in its methodology turned up and the data has since been discredited; the full text of their study was never published. It is instructive to note how creationist authors became fixated on that one point even though several studies at the time (or shortly thereafter) drew completely different conclusions."

Some creationists, such as Walter Brown, have tried to pump new life into the argument by quoting additional sources (Lippard, 1990, p.25), but they have not succeeded. In Brown's case, two of the three sources he offered were obsolete, and the third actually undercut his position! (Lippard, 1990, p.25). In a rebuttal to Lippard, Walter Brown offered no new studies to back up his "feeling" that the sun is undergoing a small, but continuous shrinkage (Brown, 1990, pp.4546).

A number of studies have not found any evidence for a continuous shrinking of the sun. Leslie Morrison, for example, drawing on Edmund Halley's observations of the solar eclipse of 1715, concluded that there is no evidence that the sun is shrinking. His findings were reported in January, 1988 in Gemini (no.18, pp.68). Gemini is the official journal of the Royal Greenwich Observatory.

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE FOR UPDATED ACCURATE INFO.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/sun_shrinking.html

Hydrogen / Helium
Scientist / science have proven hydrogen is constantly being converted by natural process into helium. If the universe / earth [Creation] was as old as some say, you would find very little if any hydrogen remaining. But, the universe is composed of hydrogen.

Helium (used in blimps) is an extremely light gas and simply escapes from the earth’s atmosphere.

Ironically because of helium escaping from the atmosphere, it is also argued by some creationists that the atmosphere should have less helium if the earth was old, ignoring the replenishment of helium by uranium decay.

Cosmic Dust

It has been proven by science / scientist that the earth is constantly being bombarded with space dust. It has been estimated that 14 million tons of dust hit the earth’s surface yearly. [Hans Peterson, “Cosmic Spherules and Meteoritio Dust†Scientific America, Vol. 202 Feb. 1960 p132]
Let say the density of dust is 140 per cubic foot and the age of the earth is 5M years old a layer of cosmic dust would be 182 feet deep. Want proof, look at the Moon. Very little cosmic dust on the Moon as it is on the Earth.

This estimate of dust influx is simply out of date. Space probes have found that the level of dust influx is 400 times less.

Cont'd on next post......

 

[JayRob]

cont'd

Fossils:

One question, if fossils are as old as you believe and some archeologist / paleontologist say they are “millions of years old†why are so many found on top of the ground and some only a few feet under the ground, with layers [Layer] of dirt or rock on them. It would seem to reason, that if they are as old as they say, they would be covered with between fifty and 100 Ft of cosmic dust.

Thought I clearly explained this one earlier.
This argument ignores the fact that strata in the earth frequently are thrust up, wrapped around on themselves, and thrust sideways into younger higher strata. This moves older fossils above younger ones.

Scientific Dating

“Don’t get me started on this†How can archeologist / paleontologist say a dinosaur died at a particular age and time using C-14. First of all they would have to know the age of the dinosaur and the amount of Carbon in the body and start their calculations using the information available.

Explained other dating methods earlier. Refer back to them.
If you want additional assurance that we have the correct halflife, then look at the close correlation between C-14 dates and tree ring dates (after correcting for variances in C-14 production caused by changes in the earth's magnetic field). The snug fit indicates that the halflife of C-14 is stable and accurately known. Therefore, so is its decay curve.

Today, the half-lives of those radioactive elements used in dating are known to a few percent by careful laboratory study.

Census Calculation

Using a Census Calculator “going backwards†say the Earth is between 6 – 7K years old. So how can fossils be millions / billions of years old.

The human exponential growth rate of the last few hundred years is possible only because of technology. When our ability to stay one jump ahead of starvation and disease fails, when our resources give out, then you'll see a dramatic change in that growth rate! It will no longer be exponential; it will be disastrous!

When man lived in scattered tribal groups, which is what he did for 99% of his history, the net human population growth was zero most of the time, just as it is for animals today.
Before technology (scientific discoveries), came on the scene, human population growth was basically the same.

Flood / Fossils

So you freely admit there are fossils of fish and other animals on mountain. The question is how did they get there “fly fish†I don’t think so.

I explained that earlier. This argument ignores the fact that strata in the earth frequently are thrust up, wrapped around on themselves, and thrust sideways into younger higher strata through earth's shifting tectonic plates. This moves older fossils above younger ones. In addition, there are far more mountains without fossils than there are with fossils, thus disproving the above theory.

Possibilities:

There was a worldwide flood covered the mountains and after the flood waters went down, the fish and other life was stranded covered by time and became fossils.
There was a worldwide flood and the mountains as we know them today, was flat land. The water went down fish and other animals stranded, the earth changed due to earthquakes and contents began to form, mountain were created and the fish became fossils.
In fact the word hills and mountain, has the same meaning.

Dude, how can mountains, formed MILLIONS of years ago have been covered by water less than 6,000 years ago? If your theory is true, then fish fossils should've been on all of the mountains. As I stated earlier, there are far more mountaintops with no fish fossils than there are with them. This alone destroys your theory.

Hills mean mountains? LOL!! Nice try. You have to change the word mountains to "hills" because there's no way that mountains are formed in less than 6,000 years and there's certainly no way any flood covered those mountains. Believing that flood waters covered mountains is beyond lunacy.
If you believe it only took ONLY 6,000 years for mountains like the Himalayas and Mt. Everest to form, you are truly delusional and your educational status has sorely diminished. It takes mountain ranges millions of years to form. This alone proves that the earth is millions of years old.

 

[JayRob]

JT

I chaged my mind

Dating Techniques [C-14, Potassium-Argon, C-14]

"All the above (radiometric) methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history...It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.' The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologist and evolutionists..." (W.D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytech State University, The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, 1987.

Question: How can you have two or three instruments giving different dates. Consider, a thermometer [digital, anolog or fluid] all three will give you the same temperature within 2 - 3 degrees of each other.

Question: Why is it something as simple as a thermometer is accurate and scientific instruments are not. One will indicate the bones are 2.3 million years old another 5 million and another 5.6 million years old.

Carbon-14 Will Tell Us...Won't It?

"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago." (From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D. -- Geology, Professor, University of Kansas, quoted in Antarctic Journal of the United States, 1971.

"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)

Question: How could the hair of the mammoth, be older than the soil. Considering, God make the earth (soil / dirt / rocks) first. If this is true, the mammoth was 26K years old when he died. Meaning, that the mammoth was 4.6 times as old as the soil.

First of all, you focus on short-term dating methods and cherry pick two possible miscalculations out of the hundreds of thousands of accurate dating method successes. Second, you only use two dating methods, when in fact there are more than a dozen ways of long-term fossil dating methods, all which have an accuracy rating of +/- five percent rating. Third, you cite 30 and 40 year old articles that have long been outdated. Fourth, you show no evidence of the bible making any claim that the earth is six or seven thousand years old.

Any how, the following should put this case to rest:

Under the heading:
(Dalrymple, 1991, p.384)

Thus, we have something missing and something extra, and the two are only sensibly linked by radioactive decay! Iodine-129, which would have been created side by side with its chemical twin, iodine-127, had long ago decayed away, and xenon-129 is a daughter product of that decay.

With a half-life of 16.4 million years, 99.97% of that iodine-129 would still exist if our earth were only 7000 years old! Since it's all gone, save that produced by atomic bombs and in tellurium ores, Earth is at least 300 million years old.

When we consider the above table of nuclides as a whole, we find that the earth is more than a few but less than about 10 billion years of age (Dalrymple, 1991, p.387). For a variety of reasons this approach can only give us a rough estimate, but it's enough to easily put away the young earth claims.

Out of sheer desperation, creationists often challenge the constancy of the decay rates. Maybe radioactive elements decayed much faster in the past! However, neither theory nor laboratory experience offers any hope for them (see topic R2). That fact, of course, hasn't prevented creationists from taking flights of fantasy via their homespun theories about the universe. They simply toss Einstein's relativity, quantum mechanics, and any other inconvenient bit of science into the trash bin!
--------------------------------------

(Dalrymple, 1991, p.384)
Finally, to add insult to injury, we find compelling evidence that some of the shortlived nuclides really did exist in our solar system once upon a time! Take aluminum-26, for example, which has a half-life of 716,000 years.

The fact that our solar system lacks aluminum-26 suggests that it is at least 15 million years old. That's about how long it would take for all the aluminum-26 to decay away. Mother Nature certainly knows how to make it; there's no problem in that department. With the help of the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, which was placed into orbit in 1991 by the space shuttle Atlantis, we now know that our galaxy is full of aluminum-26 (Gehrels et al, 1993). Most of it lies along the galactic plane as would be expected if it were produced by supernovae from time to time.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_isotopes.html

 

[JayRob]

I have no problem with the information getting the flock. They are not stupid. The will follow the links and see the same things that I did. I have every confidence that they will reach the same conclusions. It was like finding a turd in a punchbowl: it stinks, you know what it is, and you know you don't want any of it.

How can you sit here and call Hinduism demonism when Christianity has been shown to have derived from Hinduism? Since that is the case, what bowl have you been drinking from for all these years and continue to drink from?

In all actuality, I KNEW beforehand that you'd respond to this exactly as you did, but I sent it anyhow knowing that, but remember, you did ask for it.
I also knew you'd link it to demonism and some evil force just like ignorant tribesmen link certain things to evil spirits.
This is why I presented a site that has nothing to do with any religion, for that very reason.

When a religious person can't explain something that's not appropriately explained in their bible, they immediately tend to label it to be of the devil or demonic and ignorantly run from it WITHOUT giving it due justice by researching the subject and then making an informed consent. Instead, the leaders teach them how to make uninformed decisions.

The minds of religious folks have been so closed and blinded by their leaders that they'll look a gift horse and an obvious blessing in the mouth and give it right back, while all the time VAINLY and haughtily thinking they're doing something smart. If that's the attitude, then sadly many are destined to wallow in unnessary suffering, pain and eventual death. Shame, shame, shame.

 

[JayRob]

In your opinion does God exist?

In my opinion, the god of the bible is no more real than the Hindu gods.

God does not have to prove that He exist, you have to prove that He does not exist.

I didn't ask "god" to prove that he exists, I asked YOU to do it. So far, you've run from the question time and again.

Also, explain how you know that out of the thousands of gods mentioned throughout history, "how do you know that your biblical god is the ONE true god?"

But you still fail to explain your existance are you the product of Creation or Evolution?

You answer the questions I asked, I'll be more than happy to AGAIN answer that simple question.

This is funny, in a way
You speak of the record keeping of the Egyptians. It's strance they do not have records how they built the Pyramids or the Sphinx. Where are those records?

The building of pyramids is not the issue and is irrelevant, but nice try again at diversion. The issue is "why didn't the Egyptians record a worldwide flood claimed by the bible?" Not only that, "why didn't other cultures in existence at that time record any worldwide flood?"

If these questions are too difficult for you, just say so. I'll understand. If you don't answer them, then I'll take it as fact that they ARE too difficult for you to answer.

 

[JayRob]

Dacon, now that you've run from obvious alternative healing methods, I didn't mean to run you away from Post #38.

Originally Posted by dacontinent

[*]From the 14 century to the 1970's, gay meant merry, bright, lively. It was commonly used in poetry and song lyrics to promote that connotation. Now? Hardly.
Shaddai is used by pagans for some goddess and that is fine and dandy. It takes nothing away from El Shaddai. It's no different than referring homosexuals as gay. Homosexuality will always be dark and never gay.
The Amorite city by that name was established during the Bronze Age, a little AFTER the time of Abraham.

Fact of the matter is that the biblical authors KNOWINGLY stole the name of an ancient pagan god and used it as their own. They didn't even bother to change the name for crying out loud. Again, this lends further proof to the fact that biblical authors concocted a religion based on other religions they labelled as pagan. You can try and deny, but you keep coming up short.

The pagans loved this goddess so much that they named a city after this goddess, but still, this didn't stop the Israelites from stealing and using for their own purposes the name "Shaddai".

Correction:
The rabbis teach that about El Shaddai from the Torah, not the Talmud.

You can try and change it but it's too late. Many rabbis know where their religion originated. It's the many christians who are still in the dark thanks to their leaders who seem not to have a clue as to where there own religion originated.

[*]I don't ignore 1 Cor 11:7-9. Woman is never depicted less than being in the image of God and is heralded as the glory of man. Just like I said. Thanks for posting with emphasis.

You can keep ignoring Paul until the cows come home, but you can't erase what's in black and white. Paul clearly said that "man was created in the image of the biblical god". He says something completely different about women. In all actuality, this Paul person is a sexist to the core.

[*]The Nephilim did not survive the flood...but they were interjected after the creation of man. That being the case, they could be interjected again AFTER the flood.

Nephilim didn't survive the flood, but they COULD be interjected? Interjected by whom? What will they be interjected with and WHAT gender will be interjected by them?
Nothing more than mere fiction with no proof to support it.

[*]Just women mentioned in the Bible? No real power over men??!! How sexist and unread!
Rahab was one of 4 Gentile women in the ancestry of Jesus.
Almost every time Ruth's name is mentioned, she is identified as a Moabitess.
Michal was Saul's daughter who despised David as her husband.
The Queen of Sheba is directly responsible for the spread of Judaism in Africa. Gentiles have geneology, too.
Mary's geneology is to David through Nathan.
The woman at the well had one of the most important conversations recorded in all of scripture and it had geneology at it root.
The syrophoenecian woman's critical conversation had to do with who she wasn't by genealogy.
Just throw Esther in there for good measure.

Again, you list the same women and the same lack of power any of them had. The listing of names had no effect on geneology, inheritance or priesthood access. Those names prove very little.

You're doing everything you can to portray women as having power/equality in the bible. You can keep looking but you won't find it.

[*]Jacob/Heli like Jethro/Reuel. Stay close.

Again, how can Joseph have TWO fathers? This just goes to show you that the new testament geneology is totally unreliable.

[*]You mention kingship and Num 1 in the same sentence...and kingship isn't mentioned until 1 Samuel. Run, don't walk, back to Sunday School. Inheritance and responsibility passed through males and tribal affiliation.
Num 26, 34, 35; Joshua 14-19. Pay particular attention to Josh 17:4. Look at which tribes were placed where and why. Come on, bruh.[*]What law was given in Numbers 1? God told Moses to assemble and count all of the tribes EXCEPT the Levites. Would you like to share with us why the 11 tribes were counted? How about why the Levites were not counted? Maybe then you will understand why there was no law to continue in Numbers 1.

And which of those verses mention power for women? None.
Which of those verses granted women a spot in the priesthood? Which grants them a physical inheritance? None.

Now. Here is what 1 Chronicles 7:17-18 really says.
1 Chron 7:17-18
17 And the sons of Ulam; Bedan. These were the sons of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh.
18 And his sister Hammoleketh bare Ishod, and Abiezer, and Mahalah.

Again, which verses grants women an inheritance? Which grants them a place in the priesthood? None and none. No need to try and divert. Stay focused here.

[*]Perhaps you are reading something that I am not reading. In 1 Kings 9 God informs Solomon of the conditions of having His support for Solomon's reign, as he promised to David. By 1 Kings 11, Solomon is already involved in Ashtoreth and the scripture tells us that Solomon starts to lose some of the kingdom while God still remembers His promise to David. How does that not match?

Isn't Joseph a descendant of Solomon? It's obvious that Solomon's children were STILL part of the line of Joseph.
Your sky god's conditional promises weren't conditional at all because Solomon's seed was supposed to have been disqualified, according to your "conditional" theory.
According to you, Solomon's line wasn't supposed to have anything to do with the messiah. His line was supposed to have been disqualified, however the geneology shows otherwise.
You were wrong and so is your theory of a conditional promise as it relates to this messiah figure.

[*]I understand very well that all kinds of people from a myriad of belief systems are healed everyday. No, I don't read where the gods of their belief systems gave them promises and prescribed methods for them to follow. If you want to point them out or point me to such documentation, I would be glad to consider it and learn more. So, no, I cannot explain why they have such experiences since I don't hear about them. Sickness is real and so is healing.

If you know there are people being healed of horrible diseases, why aren't you as a guide and leader pointing them to other ways?
I'm convinced that many Christians die horrible and unnecessary PAINFUL deaths due to illnesses that could be healed by using other methods.
It's ashamed they are forbidden access to such methods by their ministers and bible.
Thousands and thousands have died waiting on some god to heal them, not realizing that they had the power within themselves all along to be healed without the aid of any god or spirit being.

One of those methods is through "energy healing".
http://healing.about.com/od/energyhe...gy_Healing.htm

It requires no prayers to any god and it requires no faith in any god. It's completely natural and has nothing to do with demon possession. this is what most christians seem to fear. Nevertheless, that fear oftentimes leads them down the path of excruciating pain, suffering and eventually to death. I've seen it firsthand time and time again. I can almost bet that you have too.

Now, the point that you made previously was about the things that Jesus did (miracles, healing, etc.) that would make Him known to Saul. My point in response to that is that those wonderful things still occur yet we do not know the people through whom they are done. That is so and you agree; but you find it difficult to understand that someone in Jesus' day would not know Him. Again, I distinguish knowing someone from knowing about that person.

What wonderful things still occur? You know in your mind that if a man raised up a three day old dead man, not to mention healing the blind, feeding multiple on a few fish and loaves. This person would gain worldwide attention overnight,
You actually claim that people are doing this today? Surely you jest.

[*]Just say that you didn't really mean that. Say that something like you said before ... that Paul did not mention any encounters that he had with Jesus prior to his conversion. I just don't believe that the above is what you meant to say.

Like I said earlier, if this Jesus person had actually performed the miracles mentioned in the new testament, there's no way Paul wouldn't have known him, especially since both were alive at the same time and both lived in the same area.

[*]Do angels have sex organs? I don't know. I have never seen one that was not clothed. Jesus tell us that they don't have sex. Here on earth we have humans that live all of their lives with sex organs but they don't have. They are eunuchs.

So why even mention Genesis 6 and these nephilim (sons of god)? If these sons of god are the seed of satan from Genesis 3:15, how can they mate with women if they have no sex organs? This admittance by you of them not having sex organs totally dissolves your theory of the nephilim.

 

[Dr H..]

In your opinion the God of the Bible does not exist.


Ok, then explain your existance, how did you get here! God, said He created "you" via Adam and Eve. Do you have any other belief as to the creation of mankind, there are only two ways.

1. Creation
2. Evolution

Help me to understand, the existance of JR and the other billions of "humans, animals. insects etc, etc. who are we and where did we come from. Are just a figment of each others imagination. Are we real or are we just images.

Has anyone else step up and said "I created you"

Since you do not beleive in the God of the Bible, therefore, you beleive in the Theory of Evolution.

Are we the by-brodyct of evolution, if so please explain. Since we have fossils of dinos, insect and other "creations" that lived long ago. Why is it archologist has not found the "missing link (s)" that shows mankind phases of development to "Modern Day Mankind"

Let's focus on the above for a moment

I was looking at a program about Noah Ark, all the scientest said "It's impossible for Noah to build an Ark and it floated" they build models out of wood and sure enough they would sink. But, one part of the scriptures the forgot, was God told Noah to seal the Ark with "pitch" or tar. By, doing this the Ark would be water proof.

Did the the good old scientist forgot to put tar on their models (yea right)

 

[JayRob]

In your opinion the God of the Bible does not exist.

Ok, then explain your existance, how did you get here! God, said He created "you" via Adam and Eve. Do you have any other belief as to the creation of mankind, there are only two ways.

1. Creation
2. Evolution

Help me to understand, the existance of JR and the other billions of "humans, animals. insects etc, etc. who are we and where did we come from. Are just a figment of each others imagination. Are we real or are we just images.

Has anyone else step up and said "I created you"

Since you do not beleive in the God of the Bible, therefore, you beleive in the Theory of Evolution.

Why you insist on asking the same questions over and over again is beyond me. Until you explain the following questions, don't expect me to answer your question, eventhough I've done so several times. "How do you KNOW that your biblical sky god, out of the thousands of man-made gods, is the ONE TRUE GOD?"
Second, "where did this god come from and who created him?"

You answer those two, then I'll answer yours.

Are we the by-brodyct of evolution, if so please explain. Since we have fossils of dinos, insect and other "creations" that lived long ago. Why is it archologist has not found the "missing link (s)" that shows mankind phases of development to "Modern Day Mankind"

Let's focus on the above for a moment

No, let's focus on those two questions I asked you.

I was looking at a program about Noah Ark, all the scientest said "It's impossible for Noah to build an Ark and it floated" they build models out of wood and sure enough they would sink. But, one part of the scriptures the forgot, was God told Noah to seal the Ark with "pitch" or tar. By, doing this the Ark would be water proof.

Did the the good old scientist forgot to put tar on their models (yea right)

Dude, you can't be serious. So tar is supposed to be the deciding factor as to whether or not there was a noah's ark, nevermind the lack of evidence for a worldwide flood?! Hahahahahaha. This is getting funnier and sadder by the post.

 

[dacontinent]

• There are some similarities between Christianity and Hinduism, but nothing to even suggest that one derived from the other. Besides, Christianity is derived from Judaism...but we have discussed all of this in other threads. So, it is very easy to understand why I call Hinduism (and Buddhism) demonised.
• Again, thanks for the link. That site said nothing about religion nor about the concepts that it introduced. So, wanting to know more, I followed the links that explained those concepts and where they came from...Hinduism and Buddhism. You put it on the plate and offered it to me.
• When a Bible student finds elements that are identified in the scripture as serving other gods, he labels it as the Bible does: demonic. It has already been given its justice thousands of years ago.
• It would be stupid for a physician to identify some curable disease in you but decide to play around with your immunity rather than giving you the vaccine that is readily available. There are plenty of people - plenty of Christians - who dabble in things that they already know are contradictory to the Word of God. They get caught up in things that they were warned about and then begin to question God. If those people are not going to obey what they know will lead them to destruction, it is rather stupid to complain about the results.

 

[JayRob]

[*]There are some similarities between Christianity and Hinduism, but nothing to even suggest that one derived from the other.

At least you're admitting that much. What are those similarities?

Besides, Christianity is derived from Judaism...but we have discussed all of this in other threads. So, it is very easy to understand why I call Hinduism (and Buddhism) demonised.

Christianity is derived from a number of religions, including Zoroatranism, Mithraism, Egyptian religions, Judaic, Hinduism and others. If you're going to label Hinduism as being demonised, Christianity needs to be put on that list too. It would be hypocritical to blame one and not the other.

Judaism is derived from several religions as well, especially Egyptian and Canaanite religions.

If one studies the history of religions , especially in philosophy classes, it would all become clear that religions are derived from other religions. Ask any university philosopher worth his weight in honesty, how each religion came on the scene. Really, all one has to do is study with an open mind for himself and he'll find out how true it is.

Other religions, quite similar to Christianity were in existence long before Christianity came on the scene. Authors of the new testament merely copied stories, changed names, added a few pieces here and there, then "POOF".....a new religion was formed. It's just as simple as that. Religion has nothing to do with any "sky" god coming down to earth and speaking great things to humans. It's all man-made.

[*]Again, thanks for the link. That site said nothing about religion nor about the concepts that it introduced. So, wanting to know more, I followed the links that explained those concepts and where they came from...Hinduism and Buddhism. You put it on the plate and offered it to me.

I'm going to say this again, this time s-l-o-w-l-y. Buddhism and Hinduism may have "put their name" on these natural laws, but these "natural energy laws" were in existence long before any of those religions came on the scene. They're merely using it for religious purposes and gaining converts this way. There's no need for one to have to dabble in any religion to gain access to the free laws of energy.
Science has already proven this time and time again.

The same goes for Christianity and the practice of "laying on of hands", which is supposedly the transference of energy from one person to another. There's no need for any "god" for that. People can and are doing that without praying to one.
This laying on of hands doctrine wasn't created by Christians. It was on the scene long before Christianity was ever thought of.
Humans have always had the power of healing. Religion just took it upon itself to claim it as it's own, just like the shaman has.
Natural healing is neutral, however religion in general has tried to claim it as being a product of religion. It's not.

[*]When a Bible student finds elements that are identified in the scripture as serving other gods, he labels it as the Bible does: demonic. It has already been given its justice thousands of years ago.

Eventhough you freely admit that the bible was taken from other religions, you claim that it's not demonic too? The bible cannot exist on it's own without having as it's foundation the core of other religions. It's just not possible.
Those who know the history of religions know exactly what I'm talking about. Those who don't can know if they want too.
Religions were copied from each other and transferred to various parts of the world. For instance, the Egyptian religion lead to Judaism, then Judaism to Christianity, then Christianity to Islam.
It's not that simple, but you get my point.

[*]It would be stupid for a physician to identify some curable disease in you but decide to play around with your immunity rather than giving you the vaccine that is readily available. There are plenty of people - plenty of Christians - who dabble in things that they already know are contradictory to the Word of God. They get caught up in things that they were warned about and then begin to question God. If those people are not going to obey what they know will lead them to destruction, it is rather stupid to complain about the results.

There are MANY Christians who refuse to acknowledge simple alternative ways of healing because of their deep beliefs in the bible. They'd rather suffer horrible pain, disease and death than even look into the matter.
Natural energy healing has been around before mankind. It's just a matter of mankind taking advantage of what's already here.
It's like ignorant nomads not knowing what electricity was for thousands and thousands of years. He couldn't take advantage of what he didn't know.
Now we KNOW that there are natural energy laws, but because of deep-seated religious beliefs, this knowledge is being withheld from mankind.

Humans are made of energy. That's how a doctor can look at an X-ray and tell if one has cancer. He's looking at our energy makeup. This is how mammograms work. It takes a reading of our energy levels. This is how acupuncture works. There are certain energy points in the human body that can be tapped to release that energy. The Asians have mastered these techiques and have no need for thousands and thousands of doctors like we have in the U.S.. We can call acupuncture demonic too, since it involves energy manipulation.

Humans are made of energy, so why wouldn't it be natural for us to utilize natural energy laws for healing. Oh, but NOOOOO, the Chrisitian religion says it's demonic, so stay away from it. Keep in mind that this is the same religion which said not one word about bacteria, viruses, electricity or microscopic germs. This is the SAME religion that taught that diseases are caused by evil spirits. We now know that this is one of the worst lies ever told.
Thousands of years later, we now know that bacteria and viruses cause diseases.

At least the Hindu and Buddhist religions have the sense to at least utilize natural energy healing, eventhough they may claim it as their own.
It belongs to everyone, not just them.

It would be stupid for a physician to identify some curable disease in you but decide to play around with your immunity rather than giving you the vaccine that is readily available.

Unfortunately, THIS is what has been happening to thousands and thousands. There are proven alternative ways of healing, yet people are playing around with religion that never heals. Most end up dying horrible, painful deaths waiting on something that never comes. It's sad that many never realized that they had the power within their own hands to heal themselves, but allowed deeply held religious beliefs to rip it away from them. THIS is what's so immoral about religion.

 

[Dr H..]

Why you insist on asking the same questions over and over again is beyond me.

It’s simple, you continue to have diarrhea of the mouth. However, you said that “There is no God” but you cannot explain your existence “without Him”. Someone had to create you, to say that you were not created by God, is to say that you do not exist. If you say you are a by-product of evolution does not hold water. To say that you are the by-product of lower form of life violates the laws of Biogenesis “That life come from life and that living things can only produce after its own kind, which is in agreement Genesis Chapter 1:11.

You cannot prove that God does not exist, no matter how you research or philosophy. He {God} said in the beginning …… I created / made….” Can you prove that He did not! He said He did, and we visually see it, can you prove that He did not!

Forget, your opinion. It’s like you are speeding and the police issue you a speeding ticket. You go t court and the judge say‘s Mr. JR were you speeding and you say no. The policeman steps up and says, I clock you at 55 in a 15, and here is the proof, can you deny this? Now it’s up to you to prove that you were not speeding. But, if the evidence is there you cannot dispute the proof, regardless of your personal opinion. God said made the grass, stars, heavens and humans, things we see and experience every day.

Now prove that He did not, if you cannot, you do not have a case.


Where did God come from?

First you have to understand that “God” is not His real name. the title was adopted via translations. Moses, asked this Spiritual Being, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And “God” [Ehyeh] said “ I am that I am [Ehyeh asher ehyeh -I-shall-be that I-shall-be ] / "tetragrammaton" (four-letter name) YHWH or YHVH.

"The answer Moses receives is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a name. It is an assertion of authority, a confession of an essential reality, and thus an entirely appropriate response to the question Moses poses.

Can you explain “Jehovah / YHWH” absolutely not, because of who He is, that’s why the Hebrews had many names for Him attempting to explain His existence. The Apostle Paul said it best in Acts 17:14 etc., meaning that God cannot be contained or described.

What it means to me, that’s between me and “God / YHWH / Ehyeh”

You cannot explain God no more than you can explain the existence of the wind, light or air. You can only describe the end results of each. Can you explain life and what makes you live and the source of your life.

“Focus’

Why not answer my questions; you appear to be a man with all the answers. Are you a coward hiding behind a bunch of electronic gadgets? How did the fish fossils get on the mountains or the coal deposits in places where trees do not grow because of the climatic conditions? How is it that oil is found [by-products of vegetation] over five miles deep and not on the surface. How vegetation move from the surface to be deposited at the bottom of the ocean and later be cover by oceanic material.

Noah Ark,

Have you ever used “Tar” to seal wood or patch a hole in a roof. Then are you serious, it was the design ratio of the Ark [30:5:3] the same ratio is used today for a majority of the seaworthy ships. “It works” during one segment researchers built a scale model and it “floated” the model die not have a problem maintaining its stability, until they removed the top, then water was able to splash inside and it sinked as would any vessel.

Humans are made of energy. Please explain.

 

[dacontinent]

• Both Christianity and Hinduism have a messiah.
• Christianity is derived from Judaism in that Christ was a Jew and fulfilled the law. Judaism came from instruction by God. Whether other religions had some similar elements has nothing to do with the origin of Judaism and Christianity.

• Buddhism and Hinduism may have "put their name" on these natural laws,...

  Or someone may come along and try to take their names off these unnatural laws.
• The Christian practice of laying on of hands IS NOT a transference of energy from one person to another. Your ignorance and lack of experience with things spiritual is showing here.
• As far as I can remember, JayRob is the only poster in these thread to contend that the bible was taken from other religions. I, most certainly, have said nor agreed to anything of the sort. In fact, I have vehemently contended just the opposite.
  
  However, if you really believe that religions are copied from each other, please tell us the sources of JayRobbing.

 

[Dr H..]

The Christian practice of laying on of hands IS NOT a transference of energy from one person to another.

Where did that come from!

Transferring energy from one person to another - Sounds like Star Trek.

 

[JayRob]

Why you insist on asking the same questions over and over again is beyond me.

It’s simple, you continue to have diarrhea of the mouth. However, you said that “There is no God” but you cannot explain your existence “without Him”. Someone had to create you, to say that you were not created by God, is to say that you do not exist. If you say you are a by-product of evolution does not hold water. To say that you are the by-product of lower form of life violates the laws of Biogenesis “That life come from life and that living things can only produce after its own kind, which is in agreement Genesis Chapter 1:11.

Correction: I stated that the sky god of the bible is fictional, as are most of the biblical stories. I based my opinion on guess what?! The bible.

I keep giving you the opportunity to convince me that he does, but you keep running from it.
I asked several times for you to do so. "Out of the thousands of gods throughout mankinds history, HOW DO YOU KNOW FOR A FACT THAT YOUR GOD IS THE ONE TRUE GOD?"
That's a fair enough question isn't it?

You cannot prove that God does not exist, no matter how you research or philosophy. He {God} said in the beginning …… I created / made….” Can you prove that He did not! He said He did, and we visually see it, can you prove that He did not!

Forget, your opinion. It’s like you are speeding and the police issue you a speeding ticket. You go t court and the judge say‘s Mr. JR were you speeding and you say no. The policeman steps up and says, I clock you at 55 in a 15, and here is the proof, can you deny this? Now it’s up to you to prove that you were not speeding. But, if the evidence is there you cannot dispute the proof, regardless of your personal opinion. God said made the grass, stars, heavens and humans, things we see and experience every day.

Now prove that He did not, if you cannot, you do not have a case.

Again, more filibustering. If you can't answer the question, just admit it so we can move on.
As far as me proving that your biblical sky god doesn't exist, i shown you why I think he doesn't over and over again, so many times that you should have it memorized by now.

Where did God come from?

First you have to understand that “God” is not His real name. the title was adopted via translations. Moses, asked this Spiritual Being, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And “God” [Ehyeh] said “ I am that I am [Ehyeh asher ehyeh -I-shall-be that I-shall-be ] / "tetragrammaton" (four-letter name) YHWH or YHVH.

"The answer Moses receives is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a name. It is an assertion of authority, a confession of an essential reality, and thus an entirely appropriate response to the question Moses poses.

Can you explain “Jehovah / YHWH” absolutely not, because of who He is, that’s why the Hebrews had many names for Him attempting to explain His existence. The Apostle Paul said it best in Acts 17:14 etc., meaning that God cannot be contained or described.

Yes, show where he came from. You, like others, claim to know his will. You claim that he speaks to you. You claim that you have an intimate relationship with him. You claim that he's your father. You claim that he's your creator. You claim to know how to interpret his word. You claim that he has a plan for you, yet you don't know where he came from?

If he's all these things to you and more, shouldn't you at least know where he came from? Shouldn't you know who created him?
Again, where did he come from and who created him?

What it means to me, that’s between me and “God / YHWH / Ehyeh”

You cannot explain God no more than you can explain the existence of the wind, light or air. You can only describe the end results of each. Can you explain life and what makes you live and the source of your life.

I can explain the biblical god very well, based on his supposed writings. I need go no further than the unfilled prophecies, the false historical accounts, the unscientific statements, the nonsensical fictionalized miracles, the many biblical contradictions and the plagiarized writings taken from other religions. From that, I can explain your sky god very well, and I have.

“Focus’

Why not answer my questions; you appear to be a man with all the answers. Are you a coward hiding behind a bunch of electronic gadgets? How did the fish fossils get on the mountains or the coal deposits in places where trees do not grow because of the climatic conditions? How is it that oil is found [by-products of vegetation] over five miles deep and not on the surface. How vegetation move from the surface to be deposited at the bottom of the ocean and later be cover by oceanic material.

I've answered those questions. I even was nice enough to direct you to an informative website explaining your questions in detail.
On the other hand, you continue to dodge and divert from three simple questions: "Who created your biblical god?"; "where did he come from?" and "how do you know that, out of the thousands of ancient gods, YOUR biblical sky god is the one TRUE god?" You can run but you can't hide.

Noah Ark,

Have you ever used “Tar” to seal wood or patch a hole in a roof. Then are you serious, it was the design ratio of the Ark [30:5:3] the same ratio is used today for a majority of the seaworthy ships. “It works” during one segment researchers built a scale model and it “floated” the model die not have a problem maintaining its stability, until they removed the top, then water was able to splash inside and it sinked as would any vessel.

First of all, in order for there to be a noah's ark, there had to be a flood. You've yet to provide sufficient evidence for a flood. You're putting the cart before the horse. Once you provide sufficient evidence for a flood, then I'll touch on the ark.

Humans are made of energy. Please explain.

“According to Dr. Robert O. Becker in his book “The Body Electric,” the human body has an electrical frequency and that much about a person’s health can be determined by it. Frequency is the measurable rate of electrical energy flow that is constant between any two points. Everything has frequency.”(including diseases which are comprised of viruses).

“Dr. Royal R. Rife found that every disease has a frequency. He has found that certain frequencies can prevent the development of disease and that others would destroy diseases. Substances of higher frequency will destroy diseases of lower frequency.”

Human beings are made of atoms, comprised of electrons, and molecules. The human body has a certain frequency.
An electrocardiogram (EKG) measures the heart rates. Our heart rate is electrical and has a certain frequency. This is how doctors can resuscitate a heart that's stopped. They give it a certain energy frequency boost causing it to start back.

The EEG is a test that records the electrical activity in the brain. The brain is made up of electrical pulses and energy.

There are many researches have been done recently trying to discover the mystery of ‘healthy frequencies’.

In his article ‘The Human Body Frequency’ Brian Ramis says: ‘Living organisms have measurable frequencies on various levels from the entire body down to the cellular level. That fact has enabled scientist to conduct researches on humans and map their frequencies. It turned out quite clearly that there are frequency differences in healthy humans in comparison to ill ones.

More over scientists discovered that each illness has different frequency that is always within a definite range.

http://www.life-for-life.com/frequency-defines-our-health/

 

[dacontinent]

Fact of the matter is that the biblical authors KNOWINGLY stole the name of an ancient pagan god and used it as their own. ...

I eagerly await your proof of this "fact". I am a reasonably patient guy.

You can keep ignoring Paul until the cows come home, but you can't erase what's in black and white. Paul clearly said that "man was created in the image of the biblical god". He says something completely different about women. In all actuality, this Paul person is a sexist to the core...

Paul says ONLY that woman is the GLORY of man. It is right there in black and white.

Nephilim didn't survive the flood, but they COULD be interjected? Interjected by whom? What will they be interjected with and WHAT gender will be interjected by them?
Nothing more than mere fiction with no proof to support it.

The same as they were the first time.

Again, you list the same women and the same lack of power any of them had. The listing of names had no effect on geneology, inheritance or priesthood access. Those names prove very little.

No effect on geneology? Aren't you the one who argued that Ruth being in the line of Jesus disqualified Him as Messiah? Make up your mind, bruh.

Again, how can Joseph have TWO fathers? This just goes to show you that the new testament geneology is totally unreliable.

He didn't have two fathers. He had one, just like all of the rest of us.

Shadrach/Meshach/Abednego => Ahaziah/Azariah/Mishael. Same people.

Saul of Tarsus/Paul. Same Person.

Simon / Peter. Same Person

Buddy / Willie (my dad). Same person.

Jacob / (H)Eli. Same person.

• You mention kingship and Num 1 in the same sentence...and kingship isn't mentioned until 1 Samuel. Run, don't walk, back to Sunday School. Inheritance and responsibility passed through males and tribal affiliation.
  Num 26, 34, 35; Joshua 14-19. Pay particular attention to Josh 17:4. Look at which tribes were placed where and why. Come on, bruh.
• What law was given in Numbers 1? God told Moses to assemble and count all of the tribes EXCEPT the Levites. Would you like to share with us why the 11 tribes were counted? How about why the Levites were not counted? Maybe then you will understand why there was no law to continue in Numbers 1.

And which of those verses mention power for women? None.
Which of those verses granted women a spot in the priesthood? Which grants them a physical inheritance? None.

None of these verses mention power for women.

Josh 17:3-4
3 But Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters: and these are the names of his daughters, Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. 4 And they came near before Eleazar the priest, and before Joshua the son of Nun, and before the princes, saying, The Lord commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brethren. Therefore according to the commandment of the Lord he gave them an inheritance among the brethren of their father.

You asked. There it is. The only verse in all of scripture where inheritance passes through females.

Isn't Joseph a descendant of Solomon? It's obvious that Solomon's children were STILL part of the line of Joseph.
Your sky god's conditional promises weren't conditional at all because Solomon's seed was supposed to have been disqualified, according to your "conditional" theory.
According to you, Solomon's line wasn't supposed to have anything to do with the messiah. His line was supposed to have been disqualified, however the geneology shows otherwise.
You were wrong and so is your theory of a conditional promise as it relates to this messiah figure.

You are incorrect. According to me, Solomon's line would not retain the throne...and it did not. Solomon's line on the throne ends with Zedekiah some 600 years B.C. ... yet Solomon's line certainly continued to Joseph, just as Nathan's line continued to Mary. What was conditional was the line being on the throne, just as I showed in the earlier post.

What wonderful things still occur? You know in your mind that if a man raised up a three day old dead man, not to mention healing the blind, feeding multiple on a few fish and loaves. This person would gain worldwide attention overnight,
You actually claim that people are doing this today? Surely you jest.

After meeting Pastor Daniel and his wife, surely I don't jest. This kind of wonderful thing.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SroD02bP120&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/SroD02bP120&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BY7wTz0mw24&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/BY7wTz0mw24&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/z932KbU9TrY&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/z932KbU9TrY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ApaJ-9CMIUY&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/ApaJ-9CMIUY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fn2SU3P3nFk&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/fn2SU3P3nFk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EbysGEW5vec&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/EbysGEW5vec&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Like I said earlier, if this Jesus person had actually performed the miracles mentioned in the new testament, there's no way Paul wouldn't have known him, especially since both were alive at the same time and both lived in the same area.

I suppose that means that we should trust your guess about that. No facts; just what JayRob thinks. Sounds religious. Pass the Kool-aid.

So why even mention Genesis 6 and these nephilim (sons of god)? If these sons of god are the seed of satan from Genesis 3:15, how can they mate with women if they have no sex organs? This admittance by you of them not having sex organs totally dissolves your theory of the nephilim.

How did you reach the conclusion that they have no sex organs? Or that they are incapable of having sex? They ARE angels.

 

[JayRob]

• Both Christianity and Hinduism have a messiah.

• 
  
  Christianity has dozens and dozens and dozens more similarities to Hinduism. There are hundreds of similarities.
  
  

  [*]Christianity is derived from Judaism in that Christ was a Jew and fulfilled the law. Judaism came from instruction by God. Whether other religions had some similar elements has nothing to do with the origin of Judaism and Christianity.

  
  Christianity's entire foundation comes from Judaism, starting with Genesis, Exodus and Deuteronomy.
  Other religions have everything to do with similar elements due to the fact that those same elements found in other religions were and are present in Judaism and Christianity due to plagiarism. This is a known fact undeniable by recorded history.
  
  

  [*]Or someone may come along and try to take their names off these unnatural laws.

  
  Perhaps this objective and informative site will ease your convictions. It's non-religious and totally backs up what I've been saying about energy healing.
  
  http://www.life-for-life.com/frequency-defines-our-health/
  
  “Dr. Royal R. Rife found that every disease has a frequency. He has found that certain frequencies can prevent the development of disease and that others would destroy diseases. Substances of higher frequency will destroy diseases of lower frequency.â€￾
  
  “In 1992, Bruce Taino of Taino Technology, an independent division of Eastern State University in Cheny, Washington, built the first frequency monitor in the world. Taino has determined that the average frequency of a healthy human body during the daytime is 62 to 68 Hz. When the frequency drops, the immune system is compromised. If the frequency drops to 58 Hz, cold and flu symptoms appear; at 55 Hz, diseases like Candida take hold; at 52 Hz, Epstein Bar and at 42 Hz, Cancer. Taino’s machine was certified as 100 percent accurate and is currently being used in the agricultural field today.â€￾
  
  

  [*]The Christian practice of laying on of hands IS NOT a transference of energy from one person to another. Your ignorance and lack of experience with things spiritual is showing here.

  
  It's quite apparent that you don't know the history of religion and spiritualism.
  If it's not an energy transference, why does one need to touch the other person? Why not just pray without touching and be through with it?
  
  The laying on of hands doctrine is taken from other cultures who practiced the art long before Christianity stole/borrowed it.
  It has several meanings, but the fact of the matter is that it did not originate in Christianity.
  
  

  [*]As far as I can remember, JayRob is the only poster in these thread to contend that the bible was taken from other religions. I, most certainly, have said nor agreed to anything of the sort. In fact, I have vehemently contended just the opposite.

  
  I've continued to offer the challenge to anyone to prove me wrong in this matter, including yourself. If there are no takers, it's not my fault.
  I welcome someone, anyone to prove me wrong in this matter.
  
  

  However, if you really believe that religions are copied from each other, please tell us the sources of JayRobbing.

  
  I've given you a listing more than one time. You and "H" continue to request information you know I've posted time and time again. You can review my posts and find it.
  
  Anyhow, here's one or two sites out of perhaps dozens and dozens clearly proving that Christianity is one of many religions that were copied, plagiarized and then pawned off to the public as being the ONLY one of it's kind.
  
  http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/links/16-saviours-5.htm#346
  
  346 Striking Analogies Between Christ and Krishna
  THEIR MIRACULOUS HISTORY AND LEADING PRINCIPLES
  
  http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/links/16-saviours-1.htm
  Sixteen Crucified Saviours
  (Christianity Before Christ, by Kersey Graves. 1875)

 

[JayRob]

I eagerly await your proof of this "fact". I am a reasonably patient guy.

You didn't have to wait long.

http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/...ours-5.htm#346

346 Striking Analogies Between Christ and Krishna
THEIR MIRACULOUS HISTORY AND LEADING PRINCIPLES

http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/...saviours-1.htm
Sixteen Crucified Saviours
(Christianity Before Christ, by Kersey Graves. 1875)

Paul says ONLY that woman is the GLORY of man. It is right there in black and white.

Stay in denial and dishonesty if that helps. You're merely calling Paul and whomever supposedly inspired him a liar when you do.

The same as they were the first time.

You forgot to answer the questions. Interjected by whom the first time? What will they be interjected with and WHAT gender will be interjected by them?

No effect on geneology? Aren't you the one who argued that Ruth being in the line of Jesus disqualified Him as Messiah? Make up your mind, bruh.

The woman's geneology was merely a sidebar note. It held no real importance in the scheme of things. What effect did it have on inheritance and priesthood rights? None.

He didn't have two fathers. He had one, just like all of the rest of us.

Shadrach/Meshach/Abednego => Ahaziah/Azariah/Mishael. Same people.

Saul of Tarsus/Paul. Same Person.

Simon / Peter. Same Person

Buddy / Willie (my dad). Same person.

Jacob / (H)Eli. Same person.

Where are the verses supporting such a theory? Here you go again just making up stuff as you go along. LOL!!

None of these verses mention power for women.

Josh 17:3-4
3 But Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters: and these are the names of his daughters, Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. 4 And they came near before Eleazar the priest, and before Joshua the son of Nun, and before the princes, saying, The Lord commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brethren. Therefore according to the commandment of the Lord he gave them an inheritance among the brethren of their father.

You asked. There it is. The only verse in all of scripture where inheritance passes through females.

Again, where are the inheritance and priesthood blessings for the listed women IN THE GENEOLOGY LISTED in Matthew and Luke? Don't play dumb. You know which women I was referring to. None of the women had any power of inheritance or priesthood.
Not one of those women in the geneology had any power like the men. They're merely names and nothing else.

You are incorrect. According to me, Solomon's line would not retain the throne...and it did not. Solomon's line on the throne ends with Zedekiah some 600 years B.C. ... yet Solomon's line certainly continued to Joseph, just as Nathan's line continued to Mary. What was conditional was the line being on the throne, just as I showed in the earlier post.

You're contradicting yourself in your own writings. How can this Jesus person be a descendant of Solomon, yet still be in line to hold the throne? A total contradiction and no fulfillment of the conditions you claimed.
Another false prophecy has been spotted. How can the line be taken from Solomon's descendants, then turn around and be given right back to one of his descendants? LOL!!
That's neither here nor there because the maternal line is never counted. The paternal line is what has always been counted. For you to try and suddenly count the maternal line is biblically dishonest and deceptive. You know that no maternal line is ever considered in choosing the king or priest. In desperation, you MUST do this in order to make it fit into the Messianic prophecies of the Judaic religion in order for this Jesus character to be considered the messiah. If not, then your messiah will dissolve into thin air. LOL!!
It's interesting that MOST Jews don't consider this Jesus person a messiah because of the VERY reason I mentioned above. Just shows how Christians have to twist and twist scripture to make it somehow fit their theories at all cost. Shame, shame, shame.

After meeting Pastor Daniel and his wife, surely I don't jest. This kind of wonderful thing.

Surely you're not believing this nonsense are you? This Bonnke guy is another list of religious frauds pawned off on an unknowing and gullible public. I'm shocked that you'd even fall for this nonsense. I thought your were above folks like RB and "H", two people who fell into a similar trap and had to be corrected.

This guy was interviewed by HBO a while back and was found to be fraudulent. LOL!!

See the following:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...einhard+bonnke+false&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Bonnke Beliefs

"Bonnke claims that "miracles are proof of the presence of the power of God".10That may or may not be true. They can just as easily be proof of a manipulation, a scam or demonic activity. The problem comes when Bonnke is asked to produce proof of true miracles.

"Respectable medical people examined one of the miracles from Bonnke and found there was little help. The problem is ... the public is presented with cases of people who were not previously diagnosed and the former health status is unknown ..." 11

"Bonnke's healings are naturally highly disputed. ... there were no legs growing longer and none smaller ... the glorification of miracles which are often not checked or are not medically provable, is to be rejected as irresponsible ..." 12

The HBO special also detailed a number of healings by Bonnke that were clearly not healings at all. He was asked to provide documentation to HBO but no medical documentation was provided as far as we know. This is par for the course with faith healers.

Though I am not aware that Bonnke has claimed He is Christ as has Benny Hinn on numerous occasions, he has definitely claimed he has the same power as God to speak healing into existence. Listen to his testimony at Brownsville Assembly Of God, Pensacola, FL where he has been invited more than once to speak......"

And YOU thought this fraudulent man raised somebody from the dead?! WOW!!!

I suppose that means that we should trust your guess about that. No facts; just what JayRob thinks. Sounds religious. Pass the Kool-aid.

Just as your posting of a false preacher who lies about healing made no sense, neither does it make any sense for Paul not to have known the greatest man said to be on earth at that time. Keep your head in the sand if that helps ease the denial.

How did you reach the conclusion that they have no sex organs? Or that they are incapable of having sex? They ARE angels.

How did you reach the conclusion that the "they" you're referring too even existed? It matters not if they have any sex organs if you can't prove that they are REAL to begin with. How do you know they're real? Now you pass the kool-aid.

 

[dacontinent]

You didn't have to wait long.

http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/...ours-5.htm#346

346 Striking Analogies Between Christ and Krishna
THEIR MIRACULOUS HISTORY AND LEADING PRINCIPLES

http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/...saviours-1.htm
Sixteen Crucified Saviours
(Christianity Before Christ, by Kersey Graves. 1875)

The links don't work, so I am still waiting.

You forgot to answer the questions. Interjected by whom the first time? What will they be interjected with and WHAT gender will be interjected by them?

They interjected themselves. As spirits they can manifest in any living form.

The woman's geneology was merely a sidebar note. It held no real importance in the scheme of things. What effect did it have on inheritance and priesthood rights? None.

First you say that Ruth being in the line of Jesus disqualified him from being Messiah - High Priest Forever. Then, you say it was a sidebar and immediately ask about the effect on priesthood rights of the High Priest. You seem to be confused.

Again, where are the inheritance and priesthood blessings for the listed women IN THE GENEOLOGY LISTED in Matthew and Luke? Don't play dumb. You know which women I was referring to. None of the women had any power of inheritance or priesthood.
Not one of those women in the geneology had any power like the men. They're merely names and nothing else.

This is the only one.

Heb 11:31
31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.

No priesthood. Just inheritance.

You're contradicting yourself in your own writings. How can this Jesus person be a descendant of Solomon, yet still be in line to hold the throne? A total contradiction and no fulfillment of the conditions you claimed.
Another false prophecy has been spotted. How can the line be taken from Solomon's descendants, then turn around and be given right back to one of his descendants? LOL!!
That's neither here nor there because the maternal line is never counted. The paternal line is what has always been counted. For you to try and suddenly count the maternal line is biblically dishonest and deceptive. You know that no maternal line is ever considered in choosing the king or priest. In desperation, you MUST do this in order to make it fit into the Messianic prophecies of the Judaic religion in order for this Jesus character to be considered the messiah. If not, then your messiah will dissolve into thin air. LOL!!
It's interesting that MOST Jews don't consider this Jesus person a messiah because of the VERY reason I mentioned above. Just shows how Christians have to twist and twist scripture to make it somehow fit their theories at all cost. Shame, shame, shame.

How can you be that dense? The throne of Israel was taken from Solomon's line just like I referenced. That did not negate the promise that God made to David. David had other lines, one of which was Nathan. Simple.

Surely you're not believing this nonsense are you? This Bonnke guy is another list of religious frauds pawned off on an unknowing and gullible public. I'm shocked that you'd even fall for this nonsense. I thought your were above folks like RB and "H", two people who fell into a similar trap and had to be corrected.

This guy was interviewed by HBO a while back and was found to be fraudulent. LOL!!

See the following:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...einhard+bonnke+false&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
...
Just as your posting of a false preacher who lies about healing made no sense, neither does it make any sense for Paul not to have known the greatest man said to be on earth at that time. Keep your head in the sand if that helps ease the denial.

I followed the link and read a review of Sandy Simpson's opinions of Bonnke's associates. He mentions the HBO special, but I cannot find any clips on the web. I found the beginnings of a transcript in the CNN archives. But that it all.

The partial transcript that I found says that the documentary found nothing that was fake or fraudulent. They questioned why some of the healings were not lasting and that there was not much medical documentation made available for many of the persons who claimed healing. If you watched the clips that I posted, you know that is not true of Pastor Daniel. He was very much in 2006 when he visited the Gulf Coast of Florida - 5 years after he was raised from the dead. By the way, this incident occurred the same year as the HBO documentary.

I guess you did not watch the clips or you would heard that mortician's declaration of death, that Pastor Daniel was dead 3 days, and your would have known that Bonnke was not the one who ministered to Pastor Daniel.

How did you reach the conclusion that the "they" you're referring too even existed? It matters not if they have any sex organs if you can't prove that they are REAL to begin with. How do you know they're real? Now you pass the kool-aid.

I know by the most convincing ways to know anything: scriptural account and experience.

 

[JayRob]

The links don't work, so I am still waiting.

Sorry about that, but this is perhaps a BETTER site because it lists not only the similar saviors, it lists the history or lack thereof of this Jesus character.
Study the entire article (if you dare), but the portion I'm referring to is under the heading:
The Characters
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/the-historiocity-of-christ---acharya-s

The site is VERY informative on the entire history of Christianity.
I recommend you refer it to your Sunday school class and for that matter, your entire denomination.

They interjected themselves. As spirits they can manifest in any living form.

Where's your proof of any such spirits? You have no more proof of this than the Jack and the Beanstalk type fictional stories. Where's your evidence of such spirits?

First you say that Ruth being in the line of Jesus disqualified him from being Messiah - High Priest Forever. Then, you say it was a sidebar and immediately ask about the effect on priesthood rights of the High Priest. You seem to be confused.

The priesthood had nothing to do with any of the women mentioned in the geneologies of Luke and Matthew, neither did they have anything to do with inheritance.
You seem to be the one confused. First you claimed that geneologies only applied to men, but when it was pointed out to you that Mary's geneology would determine Jesus's messiahship, you flipped the script and included her geneology, knowing that the maternal line was never considered.

This is the only one.

Heb 11:31
31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.
No priesthood. Just inheritance.

What physical inheritance did Rahab receive? Not one shred of an inheritance. Now you want to switch to a "spiritual" inheritance?
This is nothing more than an admittance that there is no inheritance.
None of the women in the geneologies received an inheritance nor priesthood privileges. At least you admitted that much.

How can you be that dense? The throne of Israel was taken from Solomon's line just like I referenced. That did not negate the promise that God made to David. David had other lines, one of which was Nathan. Simple.

Oh, I'm the one that's dense because I stated the following? "For you to try and suddenly count the maternal line is biblically dishonest and deceptive. You know that no maternal line is ever considered in choosing the king or priest. In desperation, you MUST do this in order to make it fit into the Messianic prophecies of the Judaic religion in order for this Jesus character to be considered the messiah. If not, then your messiah will dissolve into thin air. LOL!!
It's interesting that MOST Jews don't consider this Jesus person a messiah because of the VERY reason I mentioned above. Just shows how some Christians have to twist and twist scripture to make it somehow fit their theories at all cost. That's not honest at all. If it's not true, why not admit it and seek the real truth instead of making up more false stories?"

You reject the very history of Jews who would know better than ANY group if this Jesus character fulfilled the messianic prophecies. Most Jews say he didn't, while most Christians say he did. History is clearly on the side of the Jews. The geneologies in Matthew and Luke support them.

I followed the link and read a review of Sandy Simpson's opinions of Bonnke's associates. He mentions the HBO special, but I cannot find any clips on the web. I found the beginnings of a transcript in the CNN archives. But that it all.

The partial transcript that I found says that the documentary found nothing that was fake or fraudulent. They questioned why some of the healings were not lasting and that there was not much medical documentation made available for many of the persons who claimed healing. If you watched the clips that I posted, you know that is not true of Pastor Daniel. He was very much in 2006 when he visited the Gulf Coast of Florida - 5 years after he was raised from the dead. By the way, this incident occurred the same year as the HBO documentary.

I guess you did not watch the clips or you would heard that mortician's declaration of death, that Pastor Daniel was dead 3 days, and your would have known that Bonnke was not the one who ministered to Pastor Daniel.

You believed a mortician from out of nowhere? All the false minister had to do was produce medical documentation stating that the man was dead for three days. You took some random case and ran with it. The case was based solely on hearsay. No medical evidence, no proof of any healings, no nothing. This is how many of the African people and others, are deceived and misled into believing fakeries to no end. It's interesting that he had to go half way around the world to a third world nation of mostly uneducated folks to raise the dead? This guy wouldn't dare pull this stunt in the U.S. because he would be forced to produce medical evidence that the man was dead in the first place.
Again, I'm shocked that you'd gullibly accept such nonsense without actual evidence. Your credibility in my book just took a big hit.

I know by the most convincing ways to know anything: scriptural account and experience.

Just like I figured, no evidence. It amazes me that some folks ask for evidence from other beliefs, but when it comes to their own religion, they don't require it.
All I asked was for you to produce physical evidence of these nephilim beings who are to have sex with women. I continue to ask and you continue to come up short.

 

[dacontinent]

Sorry about that, but this is perhaps a BETTER site because it lists not only the similar saviors, it lists the history or lack thereof of this Jesus character.
Study the entire article (if you dare), but the portion I'm referring to is under the heading:
The Characters
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/the-historiocity-of-christ---acharya-s

The site is VERY informative on the entire history of Christianity.
I recommend you refer it to your Sunday school class and for that matter, your entire denomination.

Interesting reading but very incomplete and underwhelming.

• Wheless is cited repeatedly for quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia about the gospels. The only trouble is that the citings are in reference to "gospels" that were REJECTED by both Catholics and Gnostics.
• There are many references to quotes of others who quoted others...who quoted others...who provide no evidence. You would not accept that from me but you seem to from this website and viewpoint.
• Nice theories about the zodiac et. al., but still no proof.

98+% of it is completely conjecture. You don't accept that from Christians or any other religion except atheism.

Where's your proof of any such spirits? You have no more proof of this than the Jack and the Beanstalk type fictional stories. Where's your evidence of such spirits?
...

Just like I figured, no evidence. It amazes me that some folks ask for evidence from other beliefs, but when it comes to their own religion, they don't require it.
All I asked was for you to produce physical evidence of these nephilim beings who are to have sex with women. I continue to ask and you continue to come up short.

If you would like to go and talk to some people in MS who have been inhabited by such spirits, I can give you some referrals in your PM. They will be glad to enlighten you.

The priesthood had nothing to do with any of the women mentioned in the geneologies of Luke and Matthew, neither did they have anything to do with inheritance.
You seem to be the one confused. First you claimed that geneologies only applied to men, but when it was pointed out to you that Mary's geneology would determine Jesus's messiahship, you flipped the script and included her geneology, knowing that the maternal line was never considered.
...
Oh, I'm the one that's dense because I stated the following? "For you to try and suddenly count the maternal line is biblically dishonest and deceptive. You know that no maternal line is ever considered in choosing the king or priest. In desperation, you MUST do this in order to make it fit into the Messianic prophecies of the Judaic religion in order for this Jesus character to be considered the messiah. If not, then your messiah will dissolve into thin air. LOL!!
...
It's interesting that MOST Jews don't consider this Jesus person a messiah because of the VERY reason I mentioned above. Just shows how some Christians have to twist and twist scripture to make it somehow fit their theories at all cost. That's not honest at all. If it's not true, why not admit it and seek the real truth instead of making up more false stories?"

You reject the very history of Jews who would know better than ANY group if this Jesus character fulfilled the messianic prophecies. Most Jews say he didn't, while most Christians say he did. History is clearly on the side of the Jews. The geneologies in Matthew and Luke support them.

Actually, I told you that INHERITANCE (the passage of property and wealth) passed through men in Jewish heritage with one notable exception noted in Joshua. I also told you that God made a promise to David regarding the Messiah and the throne and that the extension was made to Solomon conditionally. I showed you the scriptures for that, Solomon's failure, the break in the line and the promise still kept that was made to David. You're dense for looking right past that.

You believed a mortician from out of nowhere? All the false minister had to do was produce medical documentation stating that the man was dead for three days. You took some random case and ran with it. The case was based solely on hearsay. No medical evidence, no proof of any healings, no nothing. This is how many of the African people and others, are deceived and misled into believing fakeries to no end. It's interesting that he had to go half way around the world to a third world nation of mostly uneducated folks to raise the dead? This guy wouldn't dare pull this stunt in the U.S. because he would be forced to produce medical evidence that the man was dead in the first place.
Again, I'm shocked that you'd gullibly accept such nonsense without actual evidence. Your credibility in my book just took a big hit.

You reject hundreds of eyewitnesses and their testimony and walking and talking evidence of resurrection and consider me gullible and lacking in credibility. Right.

 

[JayRob]

Interesting reading but very incomplete and underwhelming.

• 
  
  Dude, you are completely in denial. This site is one of the most complete and detailed sites known on this subject. It has dozens of credible references. For you to claim otherwise is not true at all. No matter what credibility this site might have, you'd reject it just for the sake of rejecting it because it completely reveals the truth about where Christianity came from.
  
  Here are some of the credible references:
  Ancient History of the God Jesus by Edouard Dujardin
  Antiquities Unveiled by JM Roberts, Esq.
  Apollonius the Nazarene by Raymond Bernard, PhD
  A Short History of the Bible by Bronson C. Keeler
  Christianity Before Christ by John G. Jackson
  Christianity: The Last Great Creation of the Pagan World by Vernal Holley
  Deceptions and Myths of the Bible by Lloyd Graham
  Did Jesus Exist? by GA Wells
  Forgery in Christianity by Joseph Wheless, Esq.
  Gnostic and Historic Christianity by Gerald Massey
  Isis Unveiled by Helena Blavatsky
  Pagan and Christian Creeds by Edward Carpenter
  Pagan Christs by JM Roberts
  The Bible in India by Louis Jacolliot
  The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read by Tim C. Leedom
  The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth by John Allegro
  The Diegesis by Rev. Robert Taylor
  The Egyptian Book of the Dead by Gerald Massey
  "The Great Myth of the Sun-Gods" by Alvin Boyd Kuhn, PhD
  The Gospels and the Gospel by G.R.S. Mead
  The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ by Gerald Massey
  The Historical Evidence for Jesus by GA Wells
  "The Naked Truth" video series
  The Origin and Evolution of Religion by Albert Churchward
  "The Truth about Jesus," lecture by M. Mangasarian
  The Woman's Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects by Barbara Walker
  The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets by Barbara Walker
  The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves
  
  

  [*]Wheless is cited repeatedly for quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia about the gospels. The only trouble is that the citings are in reference to "gospels" that were REJECTED by both Catholics and Gnostics.

  
  The Catholic church was the very church to choose which of the books were to be placed in the bible. The Catholic church controlled all of that.
  This is why the Catholic church is cited in the first place.
  
  In addition to that, the Catholic encyclopedia is one of the most concise and detailed set of books there is on the history of various religions.
  For you to even hint that it's not complete is not accurate to say the least.
  
  In addition to that, parts of the Christian religion was taken from the Gnostics as well. The Catholic church at least is honest and open about that much. Seems like you want them to cover that bit of history up.
  You're trying to ignore actual history simply because you don't like it. It is what it is.
  
  

  [*]There are many references to quotes of others who quoted others...who quoted others...who provide no evidence. You would not accept that from me but you seem to from this website and viewpoint.
  98+% of it is completely conjecture. You don't accept that from Christians or any other religion except atheism.
  Nice theories about the zodiac et. al., but still no proof.

  
  I just listed the many, many references including the Catholic encyclopedia, yet you still reject it simply out of stubborness and denial.
  
  You provide no evidence as to who wrote the bible, no evidence of whether a John, Peter, Ezekiel or any of the named people wrote the bible, yet you accept it with no evidence whatsoever.
  
  

  If you would like to go and talk to some people in MS who have been inhabited by such spirits, I can give you some referrals in your PM. They will be glad to enlighten you.

  
  So the nephilim spirits you talk about are able to have sex with humans?
  
  

  Actually, I told you that INHERITANCE (the passage of property and wealth) passed through men in Jewish heritage with one notable exception noted in Joshua. I also told you that God made a promise to David regarding the Messiah and the throne and that the extension was made to Solomon conditionally. I showed you the scriptures for that, Solomon's failure, the break in the line and the promise still kept that was made to David. You're dense for looking right past that.

  
  You showed me verses, but those verses didn't add up to what you were saying. You stated that the messianic promise was kept through David's line via Nathan, but I stated that the nessianic prophecy couldn't have come through Nathan due to the fact that the woman's geneology is never used to denote inheritance or kingship or priesthood.
  You continue to try and fit these verses into the messianic prophecy regarding the Jesus character. I keep showing you that this prophecy does not fit and never will be able to fit, thus making the Jesus character a non-messianic figure.
  
  

  You reject hundreds of eyewitnesses and their testimony and walking and talking evidence of resurrection and consider me gullible and lacking in credibility. Right.

  
  What hundreds of eyewitnesses? The eyewitnesses of the bible are the ONLY witnesses noted. There are no recordings of a mass resurrection of dead people rising up from their graves during this Jesus character's death. There are no credible documentation whatsoever.
  
  Outside of the bible, there are few, if any contemporary writers who speak about a resurrection of this Jesus character.
  No writer or historian living in that area at the time would've failed to write about such an event.

 

[dacontinent]

What hundreds of eyewitnesses? The eyewitnesses of the bible are the ONLY witnesses noted. There are no recordings of a mass resurrection of dead people rising up from their graves during this Jesus character's death. There are no credible documentation whatsoever.

Outside of the bible, there are few, if any contemporary writers who speak about a resurrection of this Jesus character.
No writer or historian living in that area at the time would've failed to write about such an event.

There I go being unclear again.

You believed a mortician from out of nowhere? All the false minister had to do was produce medical documentation stating that the man was dead for three days. You took some random case and ran with it. The case was based solely on hearsay. No medical evidence, no proof of any healings, no nothing. This is how many of the African people and others, are deceived and misled into believing fakeries to no end. It's interesting that he had to go half way around the world to a third world nation of mostly uneducated folks to raise the dead? This guy wouldn't dare pull this stunt in the U.S. because he would be forced to produce medical evidence that the man was dead in the first place.

Again, I'm shocked that you'd gullibly accept such nonsense without actual evidence. Your credibility in my book just took a big hit.

You reject hundreds of eyewitnesses and their testimony and walking and talking evidence of resurrection and consider me gullible and lacking in credibility. Right.

I wasn't referring to Jesus. I was referring to the video evidence of Pastor Daniel and the fact that he remained alive at least 5 years after being raised from the dead ... and the fact that Bonnke had no active role in his resurrection.