Skip to main content

88 replies

Something of a Revelation

S soul_doctor73A3
A Sword of Peace


From this point on, your beliefs are irrelevant. Nothing of what you believe is relevant except for your belief in God. There is no question that God exists. There is no question that a ˜higher power' is in control of man's destiny. But there is a question about the religions concerned with the worshiping God: specifically Christianity, Judaism, and to a lesser degree, Islam. Among the three of these there is a common connection: Abraham and the Holy One of Israel. These three religions worship the ˜same' God but in differing ways and to different degrees. The delimitating factors of which are their cultural beliefs.

Before I go further, you must be prepared to read information that will change your perspective and your beliefs. It is something that cannot be ˜unread', rejected as improbable, or discounted as ˜theory'. Modern theology has discounted much of what I am about to tell you. Not that it has been investigated, it has not. But most of this has been relegated to myth, and as such nonsense. But what theologians put forth as ˜true', has long been a lie. Even in Jesus' time the people were unaware of the massive secret I am about the reveal.

The first five books of the Old Testament are attributed to Moses, and in the centuries since these were first set down, the ˜man' Moses has been relegated to legendary status. He commands more respect than Jesus himself when one considered the fact that there is little question of his existence or his authority, but before the books of Moses there is nothing. The first books begins with his retelling of the creation, the flood, and the descendants of Abraham leading up to Egypt and his leading Abraham's descendants out of it. There is a curious fact concerning the name ˜Moses' and it is this, the name literally translates to ˜born of'. The story of Moses' birth, and his being placed in a reed basket does not belong to Moses at all but to King Sargon I of Akkade in 2300 BC, more than a thousand years before. Using ˜Moses' as a name is like dropping the ˜donald' from MacDonald, and only using ˜Mac' as a name.

Before I go any further, I want to impress upon you the reasons for this bit of deceit, because the reason behind it reveals the reason why ˜God' is a ˜he' instead of an androgynous God. It is amusing to note that all the characters of the Books of Moses die before reaching the promised land. Aaron, Miriam, and ˜Moses' himself all die before actually fulfilling the purpose God set forth. Joshua, the first fully male personage lacking a female influence, ends up actually leading the Children to the promised land. The books which follow Deuteronomy are specifically and purposefully male in orientation whereas the Books of Moses are almost completely absent of gender reference.

The reason for this ties into the Name of God, The name ˜YHWH' is the well known TETRAGRAMMATON substituting the name of God. The reason for this, we have been told, is because the name of God is too powerful to be spoken out loud, as the power it contains could inadvertently cause destruction. The only way to make sense of this is to suppose that the ˜power' the name of God is said to ˜contain' is not restricted by the bounds of evil or good, but can be controlled by anyone who knows it. At least this would be a logical conclusion if one was to accept the reason for replacing the name of the Lord God of Israel with YHWH. The letters are Latin, which when replaced with their true letters revert to the following: I E V E. Throughout the old Testament we find YWHW replacing the name of God, or I EVE, where ever it is used. In many places they allowed the other names and titles of God to remain. These are the clues that will establish beyond doubt the identity of the Lord God of Israel, thus establishing the gender of the God who first called Abraham from Ur, in Sumer. The origins of Abraham are key to establishing the link between the Lord God of Israel and the Sumerian history now considered myth.

In Isaiah 43: 3 "For I am the LORD your God, the Holy One Of Israel, your Savoir. I give Egypt as your ransom, Ethiopia and Seba in exchange for you."

The preceding passage is taken word for word, to specifically reveal to the blind the identity of the Lord God they worship and serve. The stand-in name of YHWH for God has been revealed as female in origin: I EVE. The Name ˜Holy One', as a title is innocent when God uses the term, but taken in context with what I revealed before, and what I will reveal later, will settle the question for one and for all. The name ˜Holy One' has been applied in the Old Testament to God, but outside of the bible, it applies to a female deity by the name of Isis. This is important because it further establishes the reason for exchanging the name of the God of Israel to YHWH, the for letters match exact the name ISIS. The first two letters of which we find in both ISrael and in IShmael, the ISlamic patriarch born to Abraham.

The title ˜Holy One' has applied to the Lady of Heaven for almost as long as she has been worshiped. The name ˜Isis' can be traced all the way back to the Sumerian pre-flood period. The ˜mother goddess' has been known by many names in many cultures from Ishtar to Ashera, from Venus to Innana. The deity each of these names refer to is the same ˜person' worshiped, respected, and feared as goddess. What separates the different aspects of the goddess is the different beliefs that have been established in order to worship her.

Each of the ˜myths' of the gods relay a cultural impression of a history that has been passed down for millennia. The names change, and sometimes the roles the ˜gods' played, as is the case with Ishtar/Innana. But from the earliest times of history, the Mesopotamian ˜gods' have lasted over the ages intact, with merely a change of name, and sometimes a service. In modern times, we find the same ancient Sumerian goddess Innana, in a somewhat distorted, and completely gender reversed role as the male god Yahweh/Jehovah. These names are rendered by translating the TETRAGRAMMATON into modern English. YHWH represents the name of God, which has been revealed to be female in gender, and likely used to replace the name ISIS, which would be familiar to Egyptian and Ethiopian religions. Which leads into these countries and their significance.

In ancient times, Egypt was ruled by the Pharaoh, who was said to derive his power from the Goddess, in this case Isis, who was represented by the temple High Priestess. When Miriam, high priestess of Isis, and not Moses, was directed to remove the descendants of Abraham from Egypt, she was taking the power of the goddess with her; resulting in an impotent Pharaoh, abandoned by the power that established him.

As for Ethiopia, the Queen of Sheba, shows up in both the bible and the Qu'ran. What is significant here is that Ethiopia, as Egypt, worshiped the same goddess, but by a different name. Sheba, Egypt, and Nubia all worshiped the ˜mother goddess' also known as the ˜Great I AM'. The following is a quote taken from a text called ˜The Thunder: Perfect Mind' found in the Nag Hammadi Codices:

"I was sent forth from God's power, and I have come to those who reflect on me, and have been found, among those who seek after me. Look upon me you, you who reflect upon me, and you hearers, hear me. You who are waiting for me, take me to yourselves. And do not banish me from your sight. And do not make your voice hate me, nor your hearing. Do not be ignorant of me anywhere or at any time. Be on your guard! Do not be ignorant of me. For I AM the first and the last. I AM the Honored One and the Scorned One. I AM the Whore and the Holy One. I AM the Wife and the VIRGIN. I AM the Mother and the Daughter. I AM barren and many are my SONS. I AM she whose wedding is great, and I have not taken a husband. I AM the solace of my labor pains. I AM the BRIDE and the BRIDEGROOM. I AM she whose image is great in Egypt. "


Isaiah: 15: I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King."

This scripture is illuminating in light of what I just revealed to you. Understanding that we are speaking of a female deity as the God of Israel, the above sentence is a suitable ending for this section. Translated according to the way I have shown you it reads:

"I am ISIS, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your Queen."

Which is beyond speculation and doubt. In Genesis, the creation account is from two different perspectives. In the first: ˜male and female God created them' In the second, the LORD God puts Adam to ˜sleep' during which a rib is taken and a female mate is created for him. In the first account of the creation, God creates everything first, leaving man for the Sixth day, at which point both man and woman were created simultaneously. Judaism has tried to explain away this ˜first' woman as a demon called ˜Lilith'. She was supposed to be the first wife of Adam, as the first creation account reveals Adam had a woman created with him. The second account shows a woman created from the rib of Adam and given to him as wife: Eve. This second creation account is the reason why Israel has a ˜creator', because it is here that the Name of ISIS was first replaced with that of YWHW.

From Genesis chapter one verse one ˜God' is the exclusive designation in the retelling. In the fourth verse of chapter two, YHWH is first used to represent the ˜name' of the God of Israel. It is after this point, from the second creation account, that every trace of a female presence was replaced with a male one. The result is hideously obvious when the facts are pointed out. The period in history that may have provided for such deception of this magnitude can be found during the Hasmoneans dynasty, better known as the Maccabee Bothers, after Judas ˜the Hammer' (or Maccabee). These are accused of having appointed themselves High Priest, beginning with Judas Maccabee. The story of the Maccabees is contained in four separate books and were excluded from the KJV bible during its translation by church authority. The Hasmoneans are viewed in two perspectives depending on one's opinion: as abominations or as heroes. In this case, they are the only ˜outside' influence that could have resulted in the massive modification to the religious system of Israel.

This has been hidden for so long that it is hard to believe, but the facts presented here are hard to deny. But even as hard to believe as this may be, what I reveal next will be even more incredulous. I understand how hard this will be to adjust to at first, but the only concept that must be recognized is that the Lord God is merely female and not male. Nothing more is different, the Lord God is the same formidable Savoir. The same One who will avenge the wrongs done to Israel. I wrote this to prepare you for the real shock to follow, while adjusting, do not fail to seek guidance and understanding. The Lord God has not abandoned those who turn return to the Law and Commandments.

Peace be unto all.
May the Lord God strengthen you.
More to follow.

Isaiah 1;2-3
"Hear, O heavens, and listen, O earth; for the LORD has spoken: I reared up children and brought them up, but they have rebelled agaist me. The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master's crib; but Israel does not know, My people do not understand."
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

S soul_doctor73A3
Part II

I began the previous section with a gender revelation concerning the Lord God of Israel. For many of you this was and will be hard to stomach. Why would I upset the apple cart by telling the world that the ˜God' most of them believe is Female and not Male as they all believe? What purpose does it serve? The purpose was to show you that what you believe, what you have been taught, what you have been reading and believing about your bibles was altered long ago. Even before the time of Jesus, the female ˜deity' of Israel was changed into a male one. The entire bible has been modified to maintain the pretense of a male presence. Even the Jesus story has been modified to match the male perspective of those who presented the bible to you. As was the case with ˜Moses', much of what Jesus did and said was changed to remove the gender of those who traveled with him and of the woman he favored above all. ˜The Way' reveals these facts in a much more precise way than I have time for here.

As for what the remainder of this section deals with, a bit of a primer is necessary. Since we were kids, the idea of aliens either fascinated or frightened us. As adults, the question of their existence is still evident by means of the focus placed on UFOs and alien encounters. There is enough evidence to prevent the subject from being discounted as altogether improbable. Crop circles, lights in the sky, eye witness accounts, and the periodic foreign materials recovered from crash ˜investigations' are just a few examples. The UFO phenomenon has been covered from every angle except an objective one. Even those who ˜doubt' do not question the eyewitnesses, even if they do believe them to be hallucinating. The multiple number over the last 50 years is a testament that is hard to deny. Aliens are presumed to be ˜real' by all accounts, but the answers end there.

The last 50 years are the modern equivalent of a two hour movie when compared with the historical sightings of UFOs over the history of man. There are UFOs in famous art depictions, there are spacemen in cave drawings, and there are fascinating accounts of eyewitness sightings in the Old Testament, often referred to as ˜Chariots of the Gods'. It is taken for granted the age of the documents contained within the bible, and much of the descriptions provided consist of the basic interpretations the individuals could come up with. Imagine being in prehistoric times, the only ˜light' know to exist is that from the heavens, fire, or some other natural phenomena. An artificial light source as complicated as today's electric lamp would astound any bible personality.

It would be, from their point of view, an absolutely fantastic sight. Now consider the same person trying to comprehend, and relate to his friends, a television. Imagine having the task of trying to explain a television, or better yet a movie projector, to someone from 8 thousand years ago. Imagine approaching someone on a modern day vehicle of simple construction, say a motorbike, dressed as one would be dressed to ride such a vehicle, and after dismounting, beginning to speak to the first person you see. What would most likely be the result? It would be incomprehensible. Which is what ˜aliens and ufos' are to us now, and even more so then. But *we* are not in the Stone Age; these are modern time. We would recognize a interstellar vehicle landing in front of us and not be reduced to an unconscious heap. The fact of it *landing* in plain sight would be surprising, and the lights and flame of propulsion system would amaze and fascinate us. Such a sight would not be ˜out of place' in our reality, as it was in ancient times; which brings us to the Elohim and the ˜Watchers' of the bible.

Genesis 6:4 NRSV "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterwards-when the Sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown."

The word ˜Elohim' is plural for ˜lords or gods'. The Egyptians refered to their ˜gods' as ˜Ntr' meaning ˜Watcher or Guardian'. The Sumerian called them ˜Annunaki', which means ˜those who from Heaven to Earth came'. In the bible, the word ˜Nephilim' is used, which in Hebrew means ˜those Who Have Come Down, from the Heavens to Earth.' The giants of the bible who were destroyed by the flood are the ˜gods' of the Sumerians who ˜came down to earth from heaven'. In the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha ˜Book of Enoch' the details of the Watchers are expanded upon in great detail:

I Enoch 7: ˜And they took wives unto themselves, and everyone (respectively) chose one woman for himself, and they began to go unto them. And they taught them magical medicine, incantations, the cutting of roots, and taught them about plants.'

8: ˜And Azaz'el taught the people the art of making swords and knives, and shields, and breastsplates...; Amasras taught incantation and the cutting of roots; and Armaros the resolving of incantations; and Baraqiyal astrology, and Kokarer'el the knowledge of the signs, and Tam'el taught the seeing of the stars, and Asder'el taught the course of the moon as well as the deception of man.'

What remains of the antediluvian period are the stories now relegated to myth and fantasy, and in a few cases, retold in our religious origins. The Gods of Mythology, the Nephilim of the bible, the Ntr of the Egyptians, the Annunaki of the Sumerians were the Watchers destroyed by the flood. Physical beings of flesh and blood that came to this planet and introduced to the ancient humans of prehistory the intelligence and knowledge that boggles the minds of modern day archeologists. These are the sources of our alien visits, abductions, historical oddities, and confusing aspects of the physical world. These beings were seen as ˜gods' in their times because the possessed abilities that would seem ˜godlike' even by modern standards. The story of their arrival on earth has been passed down for thousands of years as the story of the ˜gods' or ˜sons of God' who came down from heaven to earth.

The ˜Elohim', however, are a different class altogether. Elohim is most closely rendered as ˜Gods' plural , but I mention this again because modern translators render this word as ˜El' or ˜God' ˜singular' in many places in the bible. The spirit we perceive of as ˜god' is the ˜Elohim' of our planet. The ˜Elohim' of Genesis, the ˜Elohim' of Israel. In this case, the Elohim of Israel, Isis, the Holy One, the Mother Goddess, Gaia, Mother Nature, Ishtar, Astarte, Innana, or any other number of her ancient ˜pagan' names by which she was called, is the same Elohim of Genesis. I stress the difference between Elohim and Nephilim to differentiate between ˜gods' and ˜Gods', or in this case Goddesses. ALLAH, ONE GOD: above all, through all, in all: is beyond mortal comprehension. The Nephilim are physical beings of advanced capability and reason: our aliens of history and modern times.

The role the Elohim play is to set forth for mankind the manner in which man is to abide amongst man in respect and love; to present to them ˜The Way ˜(Acts 24:14), as it is often called, of spiritual advancement. The ˜Nephilim' disrupted the ˜Eden' of prehistory with their arrival upon the earth; bringing knowledge ancient man was not spiritually equipped for. These Nephilim are the false gods of the antediluvian period and the post apocalyptic demon spirits now prevalent throughout religious history. Their fame turned to myths, their legends turned to pagan religions.

The religions of the world are the tools of the immortal Elohim to guide the growth and advancement of their mortal ˜offspring'. Religion existed before knowledge to bridle the passionate nature of humanity, but after knowledge has come there is no longer any need for ˜religion'. The belief in Allah, One God, exists among the Elohim as it does among mortal humans. But the relationship between us and the Elohim of Israel is as a mother unto child. In the places of the bible we read where ˜god' has a ˜soul' and desires and feels much as we humans do. Elohim are ˜gods' because we are mortal and they are immortal; we are physical and they are spiritual. They are Elohim because of Allah.


When a point is reached in the development of a people, ˜belief' no longer suffices where knowledge is present. The time for blindly accepting what you are told and believing ˜historical' accounts as fact is over. Now you recognize the reasons for our religions; now you recognize the corruption the Roman Church has perpetrated in the guise of Christianity; now you are you no longer blind or deaf unless you chose to remain so. What is upon us now is the future of mankind. A future in which we are no longer dragged along by blind belief and ˜faith' in a religion. We are no longer incomprehensible children unable to entertain the idea of spiritual beings and higher intelligences as anything other than ˜gods'. We pride ourselves in our knowledge, yet we refuse to relinquish the infantile support of our religious systems. God is a spirit, and spirits exist. Aliens are physical and they exist. We are also physical and mortal. Life is not about wealth and riches. It is not about preparing ones body for luxury in this material world, it is about preparing ones soul for the next immaterial spiritual one. We are still the mortal ˜sons of Adam' to whom the immortal Elohim long ago brought the knowledge of God. Our future is their present. We are destined to be the sons and daughters of God; Elohim of Allah, of whom only the righteous are called.

I have presented to you Peace. Wars over religious beliefs are murders over the petty opinions of selfish men. The disputes between doctrinal beliefs merely a means to nurture hate. Religion has served to separate the cultures of mankind into warring factions of brothers and sisters descended from common ancestors. Because of personal beliefs and individual perceptions. The peace gained from this knowledge is that life is not merely about suffering and confusion. There is reason and purpose to this existence, but the truth has been so long hidden from that even the wise are ignorant concerning it. Ignorance is dead. Let knowledge prevail.

Peace to all.
May the Lord God strengthen you.
More to follow.

Isaiah 1;2-3
"Hear, O heavens, and listen, O earth; for the LORD has spoken: I reared up children and brought them up, but they have rebelled agaist me. The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master's crib; but Israel does not know, My people do not understand."
VoxVoxA1
Poor Soul Doctor.

First, it's not a "stunning revelation" at all that a female deity is said to have been worshipped before the current male one. The goddess known, depending on where, as Astarte, Ishtar, Eostre (from whence we get the word "Easter"), Oshun, etc. was the predominant God of the pre-Judaism ancient world, and ultimately ended up as a member of polytheistic pantheons worldwide.

But you should know, your linguistic "evidence" is actually pretty poor. YHWH were consonants. The Latin transliteration doesn't make the sounds you're giving it. "I" only makes the "eye" sound in English; no other language. "E" is a vowel and doesn't represent the Hebrew letter that the H represents. And even if it did, there's no silent "E" in these languages, so to translate YHWH as I Eve is pretty fanciful. And "Isis" was just the Greek translation of Auset, the proper Egyptian name.

As you do more studying and learning, you'll discover that the male God of the Hebrews was intended to replace the female God of the pre-Hebrews. They railed against worship of Astarte, and this conflict is in several places in the Bible. They clearly thought of them as separate entities, not as the same.

No disrespect, just sharing.
M MelesiA1
Soul Doctor,

Your posts are interesting as the British officer was said to be when his superior wrote of him, "His men would follow him anywhere, if only out of curiosity."

Your deductions about God's name are interesting only because they are so wrong. "YHWH" is not a "substitute." It's a form of the verb "to be" in Hebrew. It comes from Exodus 3:14, where God, having been asked what his name is, replies, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh." (the second "e's" are a little different in the two words, otherwise, they are the same). If you knew about Hebrew word-forms, you'd know that these are based on the YHWH, the word God uses to name himself.

It is therefore not a "substitute," and it has no relationship to anything called "I EVE." Where did you get that, anyway?

You are doing very badly in your linguistic analysis. It leads you a long way astray.
S soul_doctor73A3
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
Poor Soul Doctor.

First, it's not a "stunning revelation" at all that a female deity is said to have been worshipped before the current male one. The goddess known, depending on where, as Astarte, Ishtar, Eostre (from whence we get the word "Easter"), Oshun, etc. was the predominant God of the pre-Judaism ancient world, and ultimately ended up as a member of polytheistic pantheons worldwide.

But you should know, your linguistic "evidence" is actually pretty poor. YHWH were consonants. The Latin transliteration doesn't make the sounds you're giving it. "I" only makes the "eye" sound in English; no other language. "E" is a vowel and doesn't represent the Hebrew letter that the H represents. And even if it did, there's no silent "E" in these languages, so to translate YHWH as I Eve is pretty fanciful. And "Isis" was just the Greek translation of Auset, the proper Egyptian name.

As you do more studying and learning, you'll discover that the male God of the Hebrews was intended to replace the female God of the pre-Hebrews. They railed against worship of Astarte, and this conflict is in several places in the Bible. They clearly thought of them as separate entities, not as the same.

No disrespect, just sharing.


None taken. I see you chose not to include Elohim in your description. If you would incorporate this aspect of my post into your reply, then we could get down to business.

Isaiah 1;2-3
"Hear, O heavens, and listen, O earth; for the LORD has spoken: I reared up children and brought them up, but they have rebelled agaist me. The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master's crib; but Israel does not know, My people do not understand."
S soul_doctor73A3
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
Soul Doctor,

Your posts are interesting as the British officer was said to be when his superior wrote of him, "His men would follow him anywhere, if only out of curiosity."

Your deductions about God's name are interesting only because they are so wrong. "YHWH" is not a "substitute." It's a form of the verb "to be" in Hebrew. It comes from Exodus 3:14, where God, having been asked what his name is, replies, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh." (the second "e's" are a little different in the two words, otherwise, they are the same). If you knew about Hebrew word-forms, you'd know that these are based on the YHWH, the word God uses to name himself.

It is therefore not a "substitute," and it has no relationship to anything called "I EVE." Where did you get that, anyway?

You are doing very badly in your linguistic analysis. It leads you a long way astray.


Are you jewish or an adherant to Judaism? Your perspective would make sense that way. If it is not apparent, this is not about religion, and a religious perspective on religious history is called bias.

Reading this post objectively is the key.

Isaiah 1;2-3
"Hear, O heavens, and listen, O earth; for the LORD has spoken: I reared up children and brought them up, but they have rebelled agaist me. The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master's crib; but Israel does not know, My people do not understand."
M MelesiA1
souldoctor,

No, I'm not a Jew nor do I follow Judaism. One does not have to be Jewish in order to understand the meaning of the Hebrew. All one has to do is to actually study the language, which I have done and do, as I do with Greek (I read these languages, not speak them), Irish (which I speak but do not read because it's rules seem really really odd to me), and Lingala, a Bantu language that is the home-language of my ancestors.

As you can see, I just like languages.

You did not say just why you think that my being a Jew or believing in Judaism would be the only reasons that I said what I did about your post. In fact, you didn't say much at all. There is no answer, no reason, no rebuttal in your post of the 22nd. Only the statement that implies that I need to read your original post "objectively."

But I did. What I said is plain and easy to anyone who reads Hebrew and the Bible. So far you have not shown that I am wrong. Have you checked out what I said about the name of God? Have you checked out what Vox said to you about the letters of the tetragrammaton? What you did to Vox was to change the subject. He spoke of the tetragrammaton, and you mentioned "Elohim." But that's beside the point of his post. He spoke of a point that you raised, and you refused to address his argument.

You also refused to address mine. I think we can see a pattern here.

Now, since you went to all the trouble of posting your original message, I would believe that this subject means enough to you that you would at least think about other people's responses to your post and reply to them meaningfully. But so far you haven't done that. You've only indicated that you don't want to think about what other people say. I hope that I am wrong about that, but so far that's what you've done.

So let's talk about it now. I say that you are wrong, that your lingusitic analysis is faulty, that your conclusions are wrong, and that your logic has holes and lapses in it that lead you to the wrong conclusion. In my previous post I showed why I say that.

Now it's your turn. What do you say?
S soul_doctor73A3
Whether you like languages or not is besides the point. What you dismiss as 'bad linguistic analysis' is your failure to account for the historical development of Isreal.

'Tetragramatron' is Greek for "four letters" just like 'bible' is Greek for "little books". They are Greek because the Romans were Greek. The NT is written in 'Greek' whereas the Old was Hebrew, and your perspective assumes a modern 'Greek' translation on ancient Hebrew documents.

It is no wonder to me that you cannot fathom how ISIS might be Israel's Elohim. I would direct you to Egypt, but you may miss the point. You did not read my post objectively as evidenced by your most recent reply. Vox did the same thing.

He did not know how to tackle the 'Elohim' angle. You seem to have forgotten the historical one. What I mean by 'historic', I presented to you clearly in my post.

How the 'English' letters 'YHWH' came to 'sound' like 'Jehovah' in English or be rendered 'Yahweh' in Judiasm is by Greek translation, exclusive of historical accuracy. Even the Jews use the same explaination you do because they themselves were taught it by after the Romans had put forth the current standard.

Which, incedentally, is the perspective you used. Mine goes further back a few thousand years. Now, what do *you* say?



Isaiah 1;2-3
"Hear, O heavens, and listen, O earth; for the LORD has spoken: I reared up children and brought them up, but they have rebelled agaist me. The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master's crib; but Israel does not know, My people do not understand."

[This message was edited by soul_doctor73 on September 28, 2003 at 06:08 PM.]
M MelesiA1
No, not beside the point. Not in itself important, certainly, but to the point in that it shows that I in fact may know what I'm talking about.

"What you dismiss as 'bad linguistic analysis' is your failure to account for the historical development if Israel."

Now, that IS beside the point. Linguistic analysis has nothing to do with history. It's an analysis of the use of language here an dnow. How it got to what it is is another subject.

As I said before, you have a way of avoiding the subject by chaniging it. You just did it again.

"Bible" does NOT mean "little books." It's not even plural. It's second declension masculine singular, a memeber of the class of nouns that ends in "os." In Greek it's "Biblos," and it means "book."

The Romans were Greek only in a certain sense. The people themselves started out as a tribe of Italians and expanded citizenship for certain accomplishments, but being Roman was a bit different from being a Roman citizen. Greeks were a conquered people and considered a bit effeminate by the run-of-the-mill Roman.

They did speak Greek as the lingua franca of the empire for some centuries, since it was a ready-made language of the area thanks to Alexander the Great. So they "spoke" Greek, but they "were" not Greek.

The New Testament is a Greek document by and large. Parts of it were origianlly written in Aramaic or Hebrew, or were written in Greek by those for whom Greek was a second language, because there are obvious Hebraisms in it. Except for Luke-Acts and Hebrews, for example.

The Old Testament was translated from the Hebrew into Greek about the year 200 bc by Jews in most likely Alexandria, Egypt, because most of the Jews spoke and read Greek. So they did the translating themselves. As a result, we can pretty well trust the Septuagint, but it's better to go to the older MSS in Hebrew.

As a result, I read Hebrew, too. NOt as quickly as I do Greek, but I have studied it for years and read it regularly.

So don't assume that I "assume a modern 'Greek' perspective on the Hebrew documents," ok? On Hebrew documents I go to the Hebrew. On the Greek documents I go to the Greek.

I think that it's even more interesting that when people disagree with you you immediately conclude that it's because they did did not read your post "objectively."

That's a cop-out. It prevents you from engaging their objections objectively. You do want to be objective, don't you? Then stop making excuses for not thinking about what they say to you and really deal with the objections.

Since neither Vox nor I dealt with "Isis-Elohim" is a subject that we can take up if you wish, but given the limitations of time, we simply did not do so. A bulletin board is not a place for a dissertation. Let's take one or two issues and deal with those, and if we must, then we can go on to another. Right now we're dealing with your lingistic anaylsis. You're doing better with this post, but you still have a problem with your analysis.

It is not "Greek translation" that transformed YHWH into "Jehovah." Since the Greek language doesn't have a "v" in it it couldn't do that. It is a problem with English transliterations, not with Greek.

You see, since Jews took very seriously the command not to take God's name in vain, they decided that they would say God's name at all in order to assure that they wouldn't take it in vain. So they used the letters YHWH of the name but appended the vowels of "adonai" to it. The effect of this is startling to new readers of Hebrew, because the word cannot be pronounced. It breaks the rules of Hebrew pronunciation. So the reader is brought up completely short by this word as a signal that YHWH is not to be read, but the title "adonai" is to be read instead.

OK, this leaves us with an interesting word that is in some older English translations written "Jehovah," but really isn't that at all. That's why it is sometimes written in all capital letters in the King James Version.

This form, "Jehovah," first appears in the 12th century AD, some time after Greek ceased to be a common tongue in most of the western world.

As a result, I still say that your linguistic analysis is faulty.
S soul_doctor73A3
I can see the angle you're taking, but you forget, before all this modern transformation, before the 'Romans' defeated the effeminate 'Greeks', there was Egypt.

From what I hear, Egypt is 'Greek' for 'black', no need to specualte as to 'why'. If we take your modern perspective, going back as far as you did, 200 bc, around the time of the Hasmoneans or the Maccabee Brothers. Have you heard of them? Do you know their story or read the *four* books of the Maccabees?

Prior to them, during Solomon's reign, the Ethiopians got involved. Did you know they have a difference 'biblos'? It carries the First book of Enoch, of three total. By the 12th century, AD, The Catholics were in full swing, the Crusaders were tallying up heathen kills. No hope for those who disagree on interpretaion there.

We can discuss semantics all day long, Melesi, but it won't settle the issue I have with evident lies, tampering, and misdirection concerning the bible and it's history. The Egyptians, or blacks if you so chose, worshipped a female deity, and Israel came up out of Egypt. Prior to these things taking place, Israel worshipped as Egypt did. Any idea what that means?

What I'm getting at here is that facts determine the outcome for me. Not faith or belief. Your standpoint accepts what has been presented to you unaltered. I know better. What I meant by Greek is what I see, if the Romans didn't decend from 'Greeks', they absorbed them and became them by taking on their belief system, which they used to promote Jesus as 'cristos'.

Either way, it appears you're trying to salvage what I intend to destroy. Modern thinking or literal etomology makes aboslutely no differece to me. A lie is a lie. No matter the color one attempts to paint it or how one tries to hide it.

Isaiah 1;2-3
"Hear, O heavens, and listen, O earth; for the LORD has spoken: I reared up children and brought them up, but they have rebelled agaist me. The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master's crib; but Israel does not know, My people do not understand."
M MelesiA1
soul_doctor,

You've changed the subject again.

The "angle" I'm "taking" is about the angle you presented. You started with some faulty analysis which led you to faulty conclusions. You're still not addressing that analysis, and as as a result you're avoiding the faulty conclusion. I can only assume that this is so you do not have to change your mind about what you're getting wrong.

Since you've dropped the subject of "Jehovah," may I conclude that you have conceded the point, that you were wrong about your original presentation about that name?

And since you were wrong about my being a Jew, do you concede that one does not have to be Jewish to hold the beliefs that I do?

And why do you insist--it's a species of your belief that only those who do not read your post "objectively" will disagree with you--that I am accepting beliefs "unaltered"? What proof do you have of that?

YOu have a tendency to place motives in those with whom you disagree. Perhaps you should be more careful than to do that. YOu don't have a very good record in doing so with me. You've gotten all my motives wrong so far.

You are almost right in your history o the name "Egypt." It is not a Greek word at all. The Greek word for "black" is "mauros."

"Egypt" is the English version of the Greek version ('Aegyptos") of the Egyptian name for the land, "hwt-ka-ptah". Try again with your liguistic analysis.

Have I read the BOoks of the Maccabees? I own the Septuagint in Greek. I've read the books of the Maccabees in the original.

Your mentioning of the Book of Enoch went no where and appears to be to no point. Did you have a reason for saying anything about it?

If these things are "smeantics" (they aren't), then you're the one who brought them up and dealt with them badly. Don't blame me for that.

I bleieve that I have addressed this issue with facts. Woudl you be so kind as to point out for me just where I haven't, where I have worked only with "belief" or "faith"? If you cannot, then your statement was irrelevant.

What exactly has been presented to me that I have accepted "unaltered"?

And just what is it that you intend to "destroy"?
S soul_doctor73A3
If my linguistic analysis is your motivation then you are barking up the wrong tree. However you intend to promote your intellectual prowess means very little to me. It makes no difference to me what you believe concerning my post. I did say 'objectively', need I define the word? You are *still* talking of lingustics. Proof positive that this is above your current spiritual comprehension.

You are wasting my time with these comedic antics to buff your ego. And you are further waisting your time thinking that you are accomplishing something here.

As for what you accepted unaltered: what was the subject matter of my post from the beginning? Have you not notice that you didn't discuss it at *all*? Just the parts you can handle, mainly the 'lingusitics'.

Now, if you are current with Enochian prophecy, then why I brought it up should be obvious. But since you asked, I am under the impression that it is not. You have the 'septuagint' in greek. Let me ask: why? It's a rhetorical question. Point being, it has served you no purpose save to allow your mind to value your linguistic abilities as something 'noteworthy'. This is entirely in your own mind as you have attempted in each reply to display your literal accumen. This is no place for egos.

Did I change the subject? No. You did. You've been talking about your lingistic capabilities since you first started talking, firmly entrenched in the last 1700 year history of the catholic bible. This is dirt to me. Not worth getting my hands dirty. But I did, just to see what your angle was.

This is probably my last post in these forums. I'm too frustrated with immature spiritual perspectives. But just in case you want to 'talk' again, I'll check back for your reply. Hopefully, it is something of substance this time.
M MelesiA1
soul_doctor,

If this is no place for egos, then you certainly do need to go somewhere else, for yours is as self-inflated as any I've seen.

YOu start your original post with the statement that anything that any of your readers now believes "is irrelevant." That's a pretty presumptuous statement, really, indicative of an ego instead of a mind. But you are a single-minded evangelist on a mission, and nothing so little as the truth will stand in your way. YOu ahve all the truth that anyone needs, and all they have to do is to listen to you and read your post.

Whew. That's a pretty big belief yourself, there.

Then you place linguistics and words at the center of your argument starting with your paragraph 5. Then you talk about them for about seven to ten paragraphs--depending on how you want to count them--using extremely specious arguments and impossible connections to try to prove the femaleness of the God of Israel, who is Isis, which is supposed to have some connection to the YHWH of Israel.

It can't, of course, and there's no way that you can prove that it can, so you lapse into anger instead of bringing proof.

Now, instead of admitting that linguistics were the center of your whole argument--which they were and are, for without them your whole argument falls apart even worse than it does under investigation--you seem to think now that linguistics is of little value, yet that's what you started with, that silly "I EVE" statement and "ISIS," and then with your patent misunderstandings of "bible," "Jehovah," and "Egypt."

With these things so wrong, most if not all of the rest of your proclamations on this subject are wrong, too. That's what happens when you get the linguistics wrong.

Since words are what we think in, if we get the words wrong, the thoughts are wrong. So don't desparage linguistics so easily, especially when you're the one who brought them up to begin with.

"Above your current spiritual comprehension," I have noticed that when someone wants to sound better than he can think, he uses words like "higher" or "above" without defining them. You just did that, you know. You would do better to describe what you mean rather than to use cliches and jargon that hide ignorance.

These are not "comedic antics." They are important enough that you use them as part of your argument. If I follow your lead in an argument, then your criticism of the subject I choose is a criticism of the subject you started with.

But of course you won't say that in your criticism. It would come too near the truth.

I told you that we can discuss any subject you wish. It would make the posts far too long and wearisome if every wrong thing you said in your original post were to be refuted, so I took one subject, and still it turns out to be a subject that you refuse to address. All you've done so far is to bring up additional misinformation that needs to be refuted, and when you have no answer, to affect a superior anger that still refuses to answer the objections.

If you don't want to discuss linguistics, then you shouldn't have repeatedly brought them up.

I notice that you still don't have an answer for my objections to your false statements, only a pretended indignation. That's not an answer. I would conclude from that that you have no answer.

Did I ask you about "Enochian prophecy"? Can you find any reference to it in my posts? No? Then why do you say that I "brought it up"? I didn't.

You asked if I have read the Books of the Maccabees. I said "yes,' and that in fact I have read them in their original Greek. That seems to have deflated you and left you without an answer, so you turn to anger and indignation. Well, gee, I'm sorry that you didn't like my answer, but I really don't think that I am to blame for that.

Your problem is that you simply cannot support your thesis with facts. I give you facts and you say that you are "frustrated." Even though I give you the opportunity to explain your reasons and position (What are you trying to "destroy"?), you instead give up simply because someone disagrees with you over the substance of your statements.

By the way, I kept having to drag you back to the subject because you kept changing it.

I have not been talking about my linguisitc abilities, I've been talking about the linguistic analysis that you used. You were simply wrong about every definition and meaning that you posted, and you are welcome to check the facts on those. If showing you that you are wrong is talking about linguistic abilities, then I plead guilty, but it isn't. I said that I am good enough at these languages to know what I was talking about and you apparently are not, for you were wrong about them all.

Sorry that that angered you, but that's not my fault or decision. It's yours.

And I am not "firmly entrenched in the last 1700 years" (we did talk about the meaning and origin of the name "Egypt," after all). It's simply that you were talking about things that deal with that time period. Again, you are griping about something that is your own fault.

I have never dealt with the Catholic Bible in all our posts. Where did I mention the Duay-Rhiems Bible? Where did I quote from it? Your bringing it up is another instance of inventing motives and changing the subject, an avoidance of the issue that you are very good at.

And you never said what it is that you are out to "destroy." Instead, you just hid.
VoxVoxA1
Melesi is right, Soul Doctor. You're the one who stands your arguments on these ridiculously poor linguistic analyses, and when they are exposed as false, you then try to deny any importance to the linguistic analyses.

Ultimately, our beliefs are our own. For example, as far as I can tell, there was no such real people as Adam and Eve. So a lot of the stuff you proceed to, there's no need for me to comment on (Enoch, for example), because they're part of a belief system that I flatly reject as unsupportable. But those aspects of your argument that are factual and objectively verifiable, all of them are objectively debunked instead. That's all I need to see. Take your beliefs and live with them as you will. And I'll do the same with mine, as Melesi will with his.
M MelesiA1
Vox,

An interesting point that Adam and Eve were not exactly real. It took me a long time to come to that conclusion myself, that the early chapters of Genesis are allegorical description--and intended to be--and not history. I think that I can see now how that would be, and the more that I look at the subject, the more convinced I am that it is a beautiful allegory, a description of our natures (Cain building a city in the Land of Wandering is a poetic touch worthy of the best poets in history), and not ever intended to be a day-to-day ledger account of the creation and early years of the earth.

Which probably influences my acceptance of evolution (don't tell my fundamentalist friends, OK?). I don't see the conflict between science and religion anywhere. In fact it all seems too bright and adventurous to conflict. I like them both.
S soul_doctor73A3
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
Melesi is right, Soul Doctor. You're the one who stands your arguments on these ridiculously poor linguistic analyses, and when they are exposed as false, you then try to deny any importance to the linguistic analyses.

Ultimately, our beliefs are our own. For example, as far as I can tell, there was no such real people as Adam and Eve. So a lot of the stuff you proceed to, there's no need for me to comment on (Enoch, for example), because they're part of a belief system that I flatly reject as unsupportable. But those aspects of your argument that are factual and objectively verifiable, all of them are objectively debunked instead. That's all I need to see. Take your beliefs and live with them as you will. And I'll do the same with mine, as Melesi will with his.


If you took the time to actually use your brain, to do some research, you would find out that it doesn' matter if Eve, Adam, Enoch or even Abraham lived. I'll go you one further, if you were using your brain, you would find that it doesn't even matter if there was an Israel, a Twleve Tribes, Elohim, or even a Jesus. Truth be told, no religious holy book on the face of this planet would be relevant to you. If you were using your brain.

Maybe you can't comprehend that. Maybe Melesi can't either. Maybe none of you can. You keep looking at me like some religious zealot or fanatic, but you can't see me for what I really am. You guys are still playing in the sand box and you have absolutely no clue.

But time will reveal it to you. Like a bolt of lightning hitting you with thunder resounding in your soul. It'll be that unmistakable.

Incedentally, time is what we all have very little of. Planning for retirement? Don't count those chickens just yet. Smile

As for what I believe, I believe in divine intervention. I can't 'prove' that just yet. But *I* have personal experiences to 'believe'. As for you all, believe what you will. For now, I am no longer concerned. In time, it will no longer be a concern for very many at all.


Sound cryptic? Am I speaking in parables or just some insane gibberish? Like I said, no relevance whatsoever. Believe what you want to.

Peace To All.
S soul_doctor73A3
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
Vox,

An interesting point that Adam and Eve were not exactly real. It took me a long time to come to that conclusion myself, that the early chapters of Genesis are allegorical description--and intended to be--and not history. I think that I can see now how that would be, and the more that I look at the subject, the more convinced I am that it is a beautiful allegory, a description of our natures (Cain building a city in the Land of Wandering is a poetic touch worthy of the best poets in history), and not ever intended to be a day-to-day ledger account of the creation and early years of the earth.

Which probably influences my acceptance of evolution (don't tell my fundamentalist friends, OK?). I don't see the conflict between science and religion anywhere. In fact it all seems too bright and adventurous to conflict. I like them both.


What Melisi? Don't have Genesis in Coptic or original Hebrew? I figured you would have done your own lingusitical analysis on the creation account of Genesis to see if the translations were 'accurate'. Many people 'believe' creation was 7 'days' or seven thousands years long, but that's because they are reading the translation of a translation of a translation of a line of translations. I would have thought you, of all people, would understand *that*.

My mistake.

Isaiah 1;2-3
"Hear, O heavens, and listen, O earth; for the LORD has spoken: I reared up children and brought them up, but they have rebelled agaist me. The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master's crib; but Israel does not know, My people do not understand."
S soul_doctor73A3
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
soul_doctor, You start your original post with the statement that anything that any of your readers now believes "is irrelevant." That's a pretty presumptuous statement, really, indicative of an ego instead of a mind. But you are a single-minded evangelist on a mission, and nothing so little as the truth will stand in your way. YOu ahve all the truth that anyone needs, and all they have to do is to listen to you and read your post.


Presumptuous, yes. Intentional actually, but at the time the futility wasn't apparent to me. You have me just about pegged: single-minded and on a mission, but no evangelist. The 'gospels' are all, for the most part, fiction. You will not find me preaching 'Jesus saves'. But of course, evangelist is your opinion, and I understand that. But you did grasp the elements of my 'mission' as you call it. Pretty perceptive.

quote:
Then you place linguistics and words at the center of your argument starting with your paragraph 5. Then you talk about them for about seven to ten paragraphs--depending on how you want to count them--using extremely specious arguments and impossible connections to try to prove the femaleness of the God of Israel, who is Isis, which is supposed to have some connection to the YHWH of Israel.


No. *You* placed linguistics and words at the center of *your* argument. I have no argument. I call it a revelation, or did you not notice? As for YHWH, 'it' is fictitious too. But *you* happen to 'believe' it, hence *your* 'argument'.

quote:
Now, instead of admitting that linguistics were the center of your whole argument--which they were and are, for without them your whole argument falls apart even worse than it does under investigation--you seem to think now that linguistics is of little value, yet that's what you started with, that silly "I EVE" statement and "ISIS," and then with your patent misunderstandings of "bible," "Jehovah," and "Egypt."


'Patent misunderstandings'? You imply that everyone is a religious scholar or a linguistic expert like yourself. You believe linguistics to be the center of my argument, but you fail to see that you are standing outside of my mind and have no idea what is within. My knowledge is not 'obvious' nor is the source of my information, but *your* assumptions are obvious. You see an 'argument'. I do not.

quote:
With these things so wrong, most if not all of the rest of your proclamations on this subject are wrong, too. That's what happens when you get the linguistics wrong.


This is what happens when a person thinks they know more than they actually do. *You* think you argue for truth and 'linguistics', you are aruging for fables and lies, and your ignorance blinds you.

quote:
"Above your current spiritual comprehension," I have noticed that when someone wants to sound better than he can think, he uses words like "higher" or "above" without defining them. You just did that, you know. You would do better to describe what you mean rather than to use cliches and jargon that hide ignorance.


It is quite easy to find an excuse for spiritual lack while trying to equivocate your existence as something more than mundane. You would do better to stick with lingusitics and leave the spirituality to me.

quote:
I told you that we can discuss any subject you wish. It would make the posts far too long and wearisome if every wrong thing you said in your original post were to be refuted, so I took one subject, and still it turns out to be a subject that you refuse to address. All you've done so far is to bring up additional misinformation that needs to be refuted, and when you have no answer, to affect a superior anger that still refuses to answer the objections.


Any subject? You haven't even addressed my original one. You think your lingusitcs are of value here because you 'believe' the information concerning YHWH to be accurate. This is *your* ignorance, not mine.

quote:
Did I ask you about "Enochian prophecy"? Can you find any reference to it in my posts? No? Then why do you say that I "brought it up"? I didn't.


If you would read that reply again, you would fine that it was I who 'brought it up'. I also said if you were 'familair' with Enochian prophecy you would understand why.

quote:
You asked if I have read the Books of the Maccabees. I said "yes,' and that in fact I have read them in their original Greek. That seems to have deflated you and left you without an answer, so you turn to anger and indignation. Well, gee, I'm sorry that you didn't like my answer, but I really don't think that I am to blame for that.


Do you know why I brought up the Books of the Maccabees? Because their 'history' being absent from the bible is part the beginning of the lie. What lie? You wouldn't know, it has nothing to do with linguistcs. Which is why my post is a revelation and not an 'argument'. You only perceive it to be as you believe yourself to have a superior understanding on this subject.

quote:
Your problem is that you simply cannot support your thesis with facts. I give you facts and you say that you are "frustrated." Even though I give you the opportunity to explain your reasons and position (What are you trying to "destroy"?), you instead give up simply because someone disagrees with you over the substance of your statements.


Thesis? Again your argument. You approach this like a textbook debate. You are woefully unprepared as I have repeatedly shown your entire 'argument' to be baseless.

quote:
I have not been talking about my linguisitc abilities, I've been talking about the linguistic analysis that you used. You were simply wrong about every definition and meaning that you posted, and you are welcome to check the facts on those. If showing you that you are wrong is talking about linguistic abilities, then I plead guilty, but it isn't. I said that I am good enough at these languages to know what I was talking about and you apparently are not, for you were wrong about them all.


What you fail to see is that your facts are not 'facts' at all but historical perspectives from an extremely biased point of view. Yet you are ignorant of this because, as I have said before, you 'believe' your information to be trustworthy.

quote:
And I am not "firmly entrenched in the last 1700 years" (we did talk about the meaning and origin of the name "Egypt," after all). It's simply that you were talking about things that deal with that time period. Again, you are griping about something that is your own fault.


It is simply that you perceive me to be talking about things that deal with that time period. It was only the foundation. Your lingustic analysis is entirely constructed of the last 1700 years of religious history, but with a focus on modern interpretation. Or am I wrong?

quote:
I have never dealt with the Catholic Bible in all our posts. Where did I mention the Duay-Rhiems Bible? Where did I quote from it? Your bringing it up is another instance of inventing motives and changing the subject, an avoidance of the issue that you are very good at. And you never said what it is that you are out to "destroy." Instead, you just hid.


Don't make me laugh. What 'bible' is not 'catholic'? Too funny. As for what I intend to destroy: Religion. Starting with Christianity. I hope to see the churches burn personally. Afterwhich I set my sights on 'loftier' goals. You only 'believe' me to be angry. There is no point in getting angry with you. Frustrated, oh yes, but not angry. It would be a waste of emotion.

Isaiah 1;2-3
"Hear, O heavens, and listen, O earth; for the LORD has spoken: I reared up children and brought them up, but they have rebelled agaist me. The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master's crib; but Israel does not know, My people do not understand."
M MelesiA1
soul-doctor,

You really do need to improve your understanding of the language you use. "Evangelist" is not just one who prosyletizes to Christianity, but rather one who preaches a truth to get people to change their minds about it. It comes from the Greek word "euaggelion" (The Greeks didn't have a separate letter "h," they used a kind of diacritical mark for it, but it's there. This word is pronounced "hyu-an-GEL-ee-on") which means, "good news" or "glad tidings." Anyone who pronounces good news for others to believe is an "evangelist." You are an evangelist to this Enochian stuff, apparently.

You do in fact have an argument, and it's that you are right anf those who disagree with you are wrong. You argued your point in your original post, and if you will go back to read what you wrote and count the paragraphs in which linguistics firgured centrally, you will find that I am right about that. Deny it if you will, but there it is for all to see...if only you would. You may have had some sort of "revelation" (from where?) but in your handsit has taken the form of an argument. There's nothing wrong with that and I'm not sure why you would now wish to deny that you have done what you have done. I would first guess that it's becasue it makes what you wrote sound better than it really is, but that's a speculation. What we do know is that you have argued the point that you are right and anyone who does not agree with you is wrong. Call it whatever else you will, but an argument it is, and it is based on a faulty linguistic analysis and incorrect history of names and words:

"The reason for this ties into the name of God" you say at the start of your paragraph 5. You then go on to discuss the Tetragrammaton and the name Isis and "replacing the name of the Lord God with YHWH," and "I EVE" and such.

This was the first post on this issue, you made that post, therefore you cannot say that I "placed linguistics and words at the beginning" of the argument. You started it.

As for YHWH being "fictitious," you have not proven that. You've only shifted and replaced letters for no good reason, for your reasons are speculations and conditional. I do indeed argue that it is not fictitious, but you argue that it is. Not very well, but you do--because you did--argue the point.

I think that we do, in fact, know something about what is in your mind, since you wrote quite a bit of what's in it for all to see. If you did not want us to know what you are thinking--and therefore what's in your mind--you wouldn't have posted what you did. But you wrote as you did so that others would think about what you're thinking about and think as you do. So, yes, we do konw a bit about what you are thinking.

No, I do not imply that "everyone is a religious scholar or a linguistic expert like" myself. That is not an implication, it is your inference. All I said is that when it comes to Greek and Hebrew, I know what I'm taling about. If you think that that makes me imply that everyone should be an "expert like" me, then you have much to learn about the meanings of words. Mine mean what they say. I think you would do better if you allowed my words to mean what they say and not try to place alien meanings into them.

The misunderstanding is "patent" because the true meanings are clear for anyone curious enough to want to know the real meanings. A little study in a wider setting than you have evidently been willing to endure would have showed you how wrong you have been about these meanings and saved you a great deal of trouble. YOu would have seen that much of the ideas surrounding this so-called "revelation" are false, and you might have investigated this alleged truth a little more closely.

Sigh. It is very easy to assert that I believe "fables and lies," but it's not easy to prove. You certainly have not done so so far. Would you do me the favor of showing me just how what I believe is "fables and lies"? Please? Just saying that it's so doesn't make it so.

Your next statement about "true spirituality" is just silly. Again, you assert but do not prove. You haven't even defined "spirituality," so how do we know that either of us is spiritual at all, let alone who's better at it than the other.

Yes, any subject. What we're dealing with now is the subject that you originally brought up, so I am addressing your "original one." I fail to see what you hope to gain by denying that you wrote what you wrote. You are worng when you call what I wrote "my" linguistics, for they are not mine. They are easily seen by anyone who wishes to know the truth about the words that you first used. I have read rather widely on these words and the languages that gave them birth, and so I would suspect that the ignorance that you seem to accuse me of is not mine at all. But I also suspect that you have not read the authorities that I have. You have read, what one? Two? Which ones? At any rate, be careful about throwing around the charge of "ignorance" when you are guilty of the error yourself.

About mentioning the Book of Enoch. OK, here you have a point, but once again you misuderstand it. I asked why you brought up the Book of Enoch since I said, "Your mentioning of the Book of Enoch went no where and appears to be to no point. Did you have a reason for saying anything about it?" I was asking you not about hte content of the book but rather for your reason for mentioning it since you simply inserted the name of the book into your discussion but didn't say why you thought it worth mentioning. My question was about method and reason, not about content. AS the posts stand, however, you will see that I was also right in reminding you that you brought it up. You did, but not to any purpose. My question to you still stands.

The Books of the Maccabees are absent from the Protestant and the Hebrew Bibles, that is true, and the Catholic Bible considers only part of them canonical, but two of them are, and the Orthodox Church has at least one of them read in their liturgy.

How is this a "lie"? The books--all of them, except for the one that was burned many centuries ago--are available for all to read. Just because they are not in the Bible doesn't mean that the Church says that they shouldn't be read. It just means that it doesn't see them as Scripture. No one that I know of forbids their reading. So how is this some sort of "lie"?

I know the books of the Maccabees. As I said, I have read them in Greek, so perhaps after all linguistics is not all that I know. I think that I know some history. Your wish to be superior to those who disagree with you does limit your understanding of them and their arguments, it would seem.

And just how does whether I know only linguistics make your post a "revelation"? Here's what you said,

"...You wouldn't know, it has nothing to do with linguistics. Which is why my post is a revelation and not an 'argument'."

This is a non sequitur. Your post is a revelation for some reason, but not because you believe that I only know linguistics. The statement makes no sense.

And, no, I do not have a "superior understanding on this subject." I have never said that nor do I believe it. I only believe that my understanding is superior to yours, but that's not the same. I still have a long way to go. The difference between uus is that I ackowledge my ignorance and work to correct it.

Do not denigrate "textbook debates." They are more applicable than you seem to think. For example, I think you would benefit from learning how to find the truth through logic. How is this applicable to today's discussion? Textbooks have in them what they purport to be truth, just as you post what you purport to be truth. Textbooks deserve a careful and thorough discussion of the facts they contain, for if they are right we should agree with them. If what you say is right, we should agree with you, so your post deserves a careful and thorough debate.

Trouble is, you do not want to be anywhere near thorough. You just want people to agree with you. Obviouslyk, I do not, because your reasons are faulty, your history wrong.

You do have a thesis, which is "You must believe this because it is true." YOu also have an argument, "Here's why I say that: the name of God..."

I show you from the meanings of the words that you misunderstand and mistranslate that your reasons are not correct (and if the premise is wrong the conclusion is wrong), and you say that I am "woefully unprepared" for this argument? You have again only stated this but not shown how it is true. You have no support, no facts to back you up. Just saying that I am unprepared doesn't make me so.

YOu haven't shown my "entire argument to be baseless." You've not shown anything at all. You have tended to change the subject and to avoid adrressing issues and merely asserting without proof and then saying that you are "frustrated," but you haven't proven anyything. Not one thing. No facts from history and no facts from linguistics. So why should anyone believe you?

OK, WHY do you say that my facts are not facts? Why are they merely biased perspectives? You see, you have said that this is the case, but you haven't SHOWN that this is the case? Where am I wrong? Please show me.

About the 1700 year thing, yes, you are wrong. You brought up Greek ("biblos" meaning "little books" for example, when it isn't even a plural and doesn't mean "little. " In Koine Greek "little books" would have been "oi mikroi bibloi" or "oi bibloi oi mikroi." This is an elementary lesson in introductory Greek. You would have known this if you'd bothered to study the matter instead of merely taking the word of someone who didn't know what he was talking about). At any rate, this is what you started talking about. If you don't like that, then talk about something else.

"Frustration" is a form of anger. Do you not know what goes on in your own mind?

Well, so now we know. Your motive is hatred. Taht does explain your blindness and your stubborn refusal to study the truth. Truth has a way of taking our hatred from us, for it tends to show us just how like those we wish to call "enemies" we are.

Pity. Hatred is such a waste of a life. It also explains your quote from Isaiah. You might want to meditate on Isaiah 43, however. But then we all knew that God forgives much more easily than do those who think that they serve "truth." You want to see the churches burn? You are not the first. The others were tyrants, too.
M MelesiA1
Oh, and about your immeditately previous post (Oct. 2, 8:57 am):

This one is interesting. Where did you get the idea that I don't have Genesis in Hebrew? I have the entire Hebrew Bible within arm's reach of me as I type, in fact.

But it should be to you an illustration that I don't just believe what I have been taught. After I became a Christian I was taught the usual "7 days of creation and a young earth" belief by those who glowered at Darwin and all his children, and there was so much to learn about the Bible and about my own life that I didn't have the time to really investigate the question. When I did, I realized that I had been taught wrong, from the wrong motives. I no longer believe as some of my more fundamentalist friends believe.

H'm--I would have thought that the fact that I can change my mind would please you, since you seemed so incensed at my believing only what I had been taught. Silly me, I thought that the truth mattered to you. You have helped me to know better, though.

Another cherished misconception gone.
S soul_doctor73A3
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
soul-doctor,

You really do need to improve your understanding of the language you use. "Evangelist" is not just one who prosyletizes to Christianity, but rather one who preaches a truth to get people to change their minds about it. It comes from the Greek word "euaggelion" (The Greeks didn't have a separate letter "h," they used a kind of diacritical mark for it, but it's there. This word is pronounced "hyu-an-GEL-ee-on") which means, "good news" or "glad tidings." Anyone who pronounces good news for others to believe is an "evangelist." You are an evangelist to this Enochian stuff, apparently.


Since this is about as far as you got, this is as far as I'll read. Starting with your use of an evangelist. You think I am a bearer of 'glad tidings'? Or 'good news'? This is *your* opinion? Is this is what *you* happen to 'believe' of me?

I could be that, but not to you, and certainly not to very many reading my posts. To them, I am bad news. To the oppressed however, they may see me as the 'bearer of glad tidings' you speak of. You do realize that the oppressed don't have computers or internet access. I've never been talking to them.

But for those who 'do', for them I am a harbinger and no 'evangelist'. Since you have your bible near at hand, read Malachi, Chapter 4. It is the last 'book' of the biblical 'Old Testament'.

Do a bit of 'historical analysis'. What are the signs of the messiah of Israel? One of them will be the destruction of the wicked from the face of the earth. Another will be everlasting peace, and the cessation of war. But the main one is the destruction of the wicked. 2/3 of the population will be destroyed by fire.

Many people 'believe' Jesus is their messiah and as such do not 'believe' in a literal 'judgement day'. I pity them, but I only pity. Their fates are their own. As is yours.

Isaiah 1;2-3
"Hear, O heavens, and listen, O earth; for the LORD has spoken: I reared up children and brought them up, but they have rebelled agaist me. The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master's crib; but Israel does not know, My people do not understand."
S soul_doctor73A3
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
Oh, and about your immeditately previous post (Oct. 2, 8:57 am):

This one is interesting. Where did you get the idea that I don't have Genesis in Hebrew? I have the entire Hebrew Bible within arm's reach of me as I type, in fact.

But it should be to you an illustration that I don't just believe what I have been taught. After I became a Christian I was taught the usual "7 days of creation and a young earth" belief by those who glowered at Darwin and all his children, and there was so much to learn about the Bible and about my own life that I didn't have the time to really investigate the question. When I did, I realized that I had been taught wrong, from the wrong motives. I no longer believe as some of my more fundamentalist friends believe.

H'm--I would have thought that the fact that I can change my mind would please you, since you seemed so incensed at my believing only what I had been taught. Silly me, I thought that the truth mattered to you. You have helped me to know better, though.

Another cherished misconception gone.


You still attach the moniker of 'christian' to your name. You have not changed enough of your mind. Nor have you realized or fully comprehended your spirituality. The misconception of yours is that christianity is valid. You believe it to be, I have no misconceptions about that at all.

I mentioned Genesis because one word in there could be translated as 'became' instead of 'was'. Then the fossil records would make perfect sense, and be reconciled with the idea of 'God' at the same time.

Since you're well read: give us a linguistical analysis on 'Elohim'. I happen to know who, what, and the 'how' of Elohim. But this secret is not present in your bible, nor is it common knowledge. But then, very few have the first clue as to what 'Elohim' actually *means*. I suspect that you do.

And if you do, the plurality of the word is a further clue. Are you awake yet? Eyes open? Ears hearing?

I despise christianity, Melisi. And not just because I used to be one for more than 20 years, and if I told you why, I'd be expressing my anger, and as a 'christian' yourself, you'd be quite offended. Fundamentalist or no, there is nothing, and I mean nothing about christianity I can abide to call it 'good'. But I digress. We aren't discussing christians, just religion.

Religion is just a sickness. Christianity is bloody murder.

PS: my quote of Isaiah is because the 'Lord' of Israel, in all her Female Glory, is not known by her people. As a matter of fact, the 12 tribes of Israel are still scattered since the destruction of the second temple. There has been no 'ingathering' of the dispersed of Israel from all the corners of the earth. But where is Israel? The world believes them to be modern day 'jews'. And so:

Isaiah 1;2-3
"Hear, O heavens, and listen, O earth; for the LORD has spoken: I reared up children and brought them up, but they have rebelled agaist me. The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master's crib; but Israel does not know, My people do not understand."

[This message was edited by soul_doctor73 on October 02, 2003 at 04:40 PM.]
M MelesiA1
Apparently you are not interested in discussion and exchange, only in conversion. Fine. Convert away.

We have heard of the end of the earth enough times to know that when it comes God is still in control and he will take care of his people. So I don't worry about it. It'll happen when it happens in the way it'll happen, and until then we have enough to do just learning how to live as God would have us do.

That means loving your enemies, too, and not hating them and waiting for their destruction. I hope you find an alternative to your current mission. This one just isn't doing anyone any good.

I will accept my fate. Christ says that it won't be all that bad.

How about a slightly different thought:

What is good about your belief system? What do you like best about it?
S soul_doctor73A3
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
Apparently you are not interested in discussion and exchange, only in conversion. Fine. Convert away.

We have heard of the end of the earth enough times to know that when it comes God is still in control and he will take care of his people. So I don't worry about it. It'll happen when it happens in the way it'll happen, and until then we have enough to do just learning how to live as God would have us do.

That means loving your enemies, too, and not hating them and waiting for their destruction. I hope you find an alternative to your current mission. This one just isn't doing anyone any good.

I will accept my fate. Christ says that it won't be all that bad.

How about a slightly different thought:

What is good about your belief system? What do you like best about it?


The fact that I don't have to 'believe' anything nor must I have faith in any doctrine. I walk in knowledge and not afer the 'belief' of a thing.
S soul_doctor73A3
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
Apparently you are not interested in discussion and exchange, only in conversion. Fine. Convert away.

We have heard of the end of the earth enough times to know that when it comes God is still in control and he will take care of his people. So I don't worry about it. It'll happen when it happens in the way it'll happen, and until then we have enough to do just learning how to live as God would have us do.

That means loving your enemies, too, and not hating them and waiting for their destruction. I hope you find an alternative to your current mission. This one just isn't doing anyone any good.

I will accept my fate. Christ says that it won't be all that bad.

How about a slightly different thought:

What is good about your belief system? What do you like best about it?


I am *only* interested in exchange and discussion, but not in a subject I no longer see as valuable. But in the exchange and discussion of truth and not propaganda. Religion is propaganda 101.

Isaiah 1;2-3
"Hear, O heavens, and listen, O earth; for the LORD has spoken: I reared up children and brought them up, but they have rebelled agaist me. The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master's crib; but Israel does not know, My people do not understand."
S soul_doctor73A3
The definition of 'propaganda' is why religion is '101'. Every religious doctrine has its own propaganda. Christianity has the bible, Islam has the Quran, Judaism has the the 'Old Testament', and on and on it goes. Each type of 'religious worshiper' is indoctrinated with a different type of propaganda, which they recite as 'truth', because they 'believe' it be 'true'.
M MelesiA1
soul_doctor,

But that kind of propaganda is only harmful if it if false. Propaganda technically is merely the dissemination of ideas or information for the purpose of aiding or harming some institution or person or program.

Lots of propagandas are abroad in the world--yours, for instance. Your original post was aimed at injuring the Church. That makes what you wrote propaganda.

Propaganda is bad or harmful only if if the institution, person, or program were false or harmful.

Your plan is harmful, wishing to destroy religion and churches and such, and it is based on falsehoods (as we have seen in your use of faulty reasoning). That makes your propaganda bad.

So your posts have been Propaganda 201?

Well, I would say, of course, that you have misunderstood the Church and the Bible just as you have misunderstood historical words and therefore historical thoughts.

The Church is an interesting place in that it is made up of people in all manner or conditions with all kinds of thought-processes. Some are weak and unstable, trying to find their way in life, some are new and ignorant, others can be old and narrow-minded, still others are stable and devout, self-giving and self-denying followers of Christ.

Which is the real "Church"? All of it is, for all who follow Christ or want to enough that they actually do something abou tit are part of his body, part of his family. All of them belong to him and to each other.

This is what the Church says and does--not perfectly, for perfection is very hard to come by on this earth--and does it by the leading tof the spirit and the Bible.

The Bible is merely God's Word written, a record of the occurances and actions of people under the guidance of God. Sometimes the people listen and sometimes they don't. The Bible doesn't usually tell us when soemone is sinning, it simply presents his actions and expects us to use our heads about his works.
But it reminds us that God is greater than we are and that we need to surrendur to him--all of us, including the leaders of the Church.

This does not to my way of thinking qualify the Church as needing to be burned down.

This is a general and brief description of how I see the Bible and the Church. You have a response, of course. What do you say?
S soul_doctor73A3
Let me tell you why I despise christianity. Aproximately 2 billion people consider themselves 'christian'. That's 1/3 of the world's population. One third of the world's people believe in the compassion of Jesus and the selflessness of Godly Love.

How many national leaders consider themselves 'christian'? How many puplic officials consider themselves 'christian'? How many of the rich and famous believe in the 'christian god', bearing a cross as a representation of their 'faith'?

I despise *christians* because there are two billion of them in a world suffering from hunger, poverty, and lack. Oh there are 'christian' efforts to 'help' the needy. They beg 'non-christians' and christians alike to do 'their part' while these 'christians' get rich. Show me a wealthy christian and I will show you the very embodyment of everything I HATE. A liar and a thief rolled up in one.

I see people like TD Jakes begging for money to help his 'mission'. But he's dressed in thousand dollar suits!? How many 'christian' beggars say 'just 72 cents a day helps feed a child'? It takes hundreds of millions of dollars to OPERATE the entertainment empire TD Jakes has built from nothing and he is proud of his accomplishment!? What arrogance! What stupidity.

How many people could have been spared a suffering death had he spent those hundred of millions on the starving and suffering? How many lives could have been changed? How many children could still have their parents? How many parents would still have their children? If this 'preacher' of love and compassion had, instead of making a name for himself, spent all his money on feeding the hungry and housing the homeless?

Do you think that just because he has set aside a bit of money to do exactly these things in his 'organization' that he has provided for his neighbor? This is why christians are filth to me. Their ignorance is intolerable. Your ignornace is intolerable. You and every single christian like you. Your homes full of worthless wealth. Driving expensive cars and living in expensive homes simply because you can 'afford' it. How do you sleep at night? I have no money and I CANNOT!

What will you fools do with it all when you die? Where will the money in your bank account go? Who will get your home full of inanimate objects? Who will wear your expensive clothes? Your family? Seeing to the needs of your family is obligation. Providing for the needs of your neighbor above your *wants* is Godly.

I hate it when a 'christian' opens their mouth to talk 'god' to me. Nothing offends me more. Over the American continent there are tens of thousands of churches with tens of millions of 'christian' members. How much could be changed if American Christians suddenly became selfless and renounced their worldly possesions by giving thier wealth to the hungry, homeless, and impoverished?

Too much would be changed. People would realize just how much of a charade christianity is and just how fake christians can be. You christians are all talk and no action. All 'faith' and no work. Lukewarm. Worthless. Chaff. You christians are the sorriest examples of human spirituality. And that is because you have none. You only have religion.

Don't waste my time by replying with your typical christian dogma of Jesus, the bible, and your ignorant claims of 'christian compassion'. Take that rubbish somewhere else. This one is no fool.


Cry FREEDOM

Freedom Revolution to Establish the Egalitarian Deporment Of Mankind.

[This message was edited by soul_doctor73 on October 03, 2003 at 01:02 PM.]


[This message was edited by soul_doctor73 on October 03, 2003 at 01:18 PM.]
S soul_doctor73A3
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Soul Doctor, you mentioned prophetic relevations and there is not being much time until they are realized, what exactly are these relevations, what has already come to pass, and where do they come from?


Maybe you should instead be asking me 'why' all 'this'. One word: christians.

There are 'signs and wonders' all over the place but the blind and deaf are all over the place too. How long have people been seeing 'signs' in the sky? How long have there been 'wonders' in the 'heavens'? How long have their been Wars and Rumors of wars? How long has there been earthquakes in 'divers' places? How many suffering deaths from Famine? Pestilence? Starvation?

The answers to your questions are right before you, but you are going to have to close your eyes to see them.

In otherwords, everything you see has to be unseen, everything you have been taught has to be unlearned. You have to truly become as a little child to comprehend the darkness all around us. Most adults are so used to seeing fornication on TV that it no longer occurs to them that fornication is wrong. That premarital sex is immoral. That provacative dress incites lust.

You have to unbecome the way you are in order to see the reality of the world as it is.

Cry FREEDOM

Freedom Revolution to Establish the Egalitarian Deporment Of Mankind.
M MelesiA1
soul_doctor,

Well, finally something that we agree on. It's also something that Jesus said along time ago, so for all your hatred of Christians--and not all misplaced, by the way--in some ways you are actually agreeing with Jesus.

Should you want to destroy that which agrees with you?

Now, I think that you are a little broad with your brush-strokes, for the problems that you mention are not caused by Christianity but by humanity. To get rid of the problems, you'll have to get rid of people.

Here's why I say that.

Of those two billion who consider themselves Christian, how many of them consider themselves Christian enough to actually read what it means to be one and think about it enough to actually do something about it? I have known many who called themselves Christian but to all intents and purposes were not. Jesus spoke against such people, telling them things like, "Why do you call me 'Lord' but don't do what I say?" "If you do just what everybody else does, what reward will you have?" "Deny yourself, take up your cross daily, and follow me." And so on. the book of James is an extended command to obey. All the New Tesstament has hard and harsh things to say about the rich, not because they make money, but because of what they do--or don't do--with it. The problem is obedience. It always is.

This is a problem not just in religion but in every part of human life. Philosophers have long known how hard it is to actually follow the life that they have set down as good. When the emotions run high, we tend to relapse into the savage, for the savage is in each and every human being.

And power and money make the emotions run high.

So how many of those two billion are actually representatives of the Christian faith? Not many. Power has a way of making a person choose between it and the cross, and most people choose power. That's why in 1 Corinthians 1 Paul reminds the Church in Corinth that when they were called, there were not many noble or wise or rich among them. Those people usually do not follow Jesus or deny themselves as he requires us to do in order to truly help one another.

So how many public officials are Christians? Not many. You can probably count them on your fingers. As a result, you cannot judge a whole class of people or their beliefs based on the lives of those who do not do what those beliefs say they should. Hypocrites do not disprove that which they do not follow.

The problem is in the belief we have. It's one thing to "believe in" something like God's love. It's another thing entirely to actually believe it. Not many do that.

But is that the fault of Christianity? No, no more than it's your mother's fault that you did not do all that she required of you.

Have these powerful and influential church leaders done wrong? Sure they have, and they still do. That's been a problem with people all through our history. People take oaths to "uphold" this or that, and they don't do it. But that's not the fault of the oath or of the government. No, that's their fault and their sin. We don't say that we should destroy the nation because people don't obey its laws. we say that the criminals should be jailed.

TDJakes is not the only one who's done what he should not, but he is one, and you are right to be angry at him for it. He has no biblical right to those suits or that big house and the car(s).

But that's not Christ's fault. It's his. And there are many Christians who do not follow his example. Our pastor drives an old Ford Tempo. His wife has the "good" car, a 1993 Mercury Sable. He does all the work on the cars himself becasue they can't afford to take them to the mechanic. I helped him rebuild the engine in his Tempo, because he'd rather drive that longer than buy a new car. He gives away too much of his money to do that. He refuses to take an offering during the service. If people want to give, the offering boxes are on the back wall and they are welcome to contribute, but he will not preach about giving (well, not much, anyway. Since it is taught in the very words of Jesus he will say something about it now and then, but he does not beg for money. Ever). His suits are off the rack from Sears or something, and he gives at least ten percent of what he makes--and that isn't much. A church elder once said that he does a full-time job on a part-time salary. The money of the church goes into missions and ministry, not his pocket. He wants nothing to do with the money of the church. He can't even sign a church check. That's the way he wants it.

What is his worth set beside TD Jakes'? What difference does this make to your estimation of Christianity? and if you are still angry at Christianity, why is Jakes' more important in your eyes than this pastor is? The one life is just as important as the other.

So set the two examples against each other. One follows the words of Jesus and one does not. Jesus condemns one and praises the other. This is one of those "every single christian like you" that you mention. You would condemn him and see his church burn?

There have been others who have burned black churches. They had the same motive--hate.

No one is accusing you of being a fool, only of being blind. You hate so much that you despise the good with the bad. It does even you no good to do that.
K Kweli4RealA1
I, and any Christian, would readily acknowledge that there are plenty of charlatans preaching false doctrine, while enriching themselves. There always has been and always will be those that will cloak themselves in whatever belief system that they believe will get them rich. But those are not Christians of truth and faith. Those are thieves, who will get their's in the end. As you note, at death wealth and riches are of no import.

You simply can't lump those that claim christianity, in order to perpetuate a fraud, with those that live the Christian life, for the sake of living an upstanding life. There are more Christians living lives of compassion, service to humanity and moderation than those TV entertainers that you cite.

Morally, you can't hate the many for the acts of a few; anymore than, hating all Germans for the attrocities of the holocaust.

Just my humble opinion.

Regarding my earlier question, I thought you were referring to specific signs of the "End Times." Personally, I don't believe that the "End Times" can be predicted; we'll just have to live, hopefully upright lives, and wait for the thief to come in the night.

Prognasticators have been trying to guess since day 2. In fact, there is a whole industry based on that today. Remember the Millenium/Y2K predications and before that the group that castrated themselves while waiting for the mothership to deliver them, and Jim Jones before that and Nostradomis before that. Well, they all were proved wrong.

I just wanted to get your specific signs and/or picture of "what, when and how."
S soul_doctor73A3
Melesi: If Christianity were not over 1700 years old, everything you said would be moot. There would be no argument. But you miss the point. Your church and your pastor settles nothing for me. My grandfather is a pastor and my father is his assitant. I grew up in that church. I grew up in a christian family and they are all still christians. They are typical christians. Full of talk. No action. And that is the problem with christians, they just talk.

It's not Jesus' fault. It's not the church's fault. It's not christianity's fault, it's humanity's fault. It's man's fault! Just who do you think makes up the memberships of these churches? 'Non-human' beings?

Kweli4real: Christianity is typical of all religions. Muslims and Jews are no different. All the powerful of the developed world are religious of somety pe, and no more pious that the Pharisees.

I don't hate these people. That is what you and Melesi don't understand. That is why you don't recognize the sign of the times. I don't see the individuals until they are within my eyesight. I am speaking about the christian population in general.

Did you hear CNN announce a comet that had a 1 in 900,000 chance of hitting earth in 2012? Three days later, a show called Bible Codes came on Discovery Channel. They discovered a code in the bible that predicts the very same event, in the very same year. There is a sign for you. Now in astronomical terms, 1 in 900,000 is 'highly likely' when a 'minute possibility' would be something like 1 in 900,000,000. Think on it. Millions upon billions of empty miles of space between us and this comet. It'll take nine years for it to reach us, during which time we, the earth, will be a *constantly* moving target. And scientist, according to CNN, say there is a 1 in 900,000 *chance* that it *will* hit us.

Now let me ask you, what are the chances of a 'hole in one'? Winning a *state* lotterly? A multi-state lotterly like Powerball? Way up in the 'highly unlikely' numbers, and we are talking high concentrations of people all doing the same thing: trying to win, and the 'chance of success' does not increase dramatically with the amount of players.

This comet and our planet are just two parts in this equation and '1 in 900,000' is like an almost certainty. The comet has a better chance of hitting us that anyone person has at making a hole in one. Consider this even, with such a high chance as 900,000, this must mean that the metor or comet will come very close to us. And that means, even if it doesn't 'hit' us, it will *affect* us.

So in 2012 there is an almost certain chance of gravitational forces wreaking havoc on our planet even if it is merely a 1 in 900,000 'close call'. That stuff you see on TV about a meteor passing harmlessly by us is fiction. Abnormally large surges, eletromanetic disturbances, volcanic eruptions, even more earthquakes and the like will result. With a 1 in 900,000 chance of a hit, it won't matter if it hits us or not. We will feel it and even see it.

These 9 years will fly past. Not until then will people start to 'worry'. And I bet everyone will remember all the movies that predicted this: Armaggeddon anyone?

Cry FREEDOM

Freedom Revolution to Establish the Egalitarian Deporment Of Mankind.
M MelesiA1
soul_doctor,

Well, I'm not worried about an earth-grazing comet. Comets are too small and too low in density to have a significan gravity compared to the earth. One passing by cannot "wreak havoc" on the earth. Comets range in size from 1 to 100 kilometers (and there's only one of those that we know of--Chiron. A nucleus of 5 kilometers is on the large size for comets. Most of them are smaller than that) and their mass is something around tens to hundreds of billions of times less than that of the earth, with its mass of just over 6 sextillion tons.

Now, how big is the earth? Yet we can jump up against its gravity, drive up mountains against it's gravity, run up hills against its gravity, fly against its gravity, even go to the moon against it. A comet will have a gravity tens to hundreds of billions of times less than the earth's. If you jumped off a comet, you'd fly off into space never to be seen again. If you could get a good-enough foothold on the comet to jump at all. Comets are quite fragile. What with their composition of water and ammonia, they are much less dense than water and a fairly loose aggregate. You could break pieces off them with your hands. That's why Shoemaker-Levy broke apart in Jupiter's gravity long before it impacted the planet.

So I really don't think that we have anything to fear from a near-earth comet.

If a comet could "wreak havoc" with the earth, then Comet Halley would have destroyed the much-smaller probe Giotto when it cruised by the comet in 1986 at a distance of 370 miles. It didn't. The probe survived nicely, thank you.

I believe that you'd better rethink your Armageddon hypothesis.

And I never pay attention to anything called "Bible Codes." Since Jesus said that we will not know the time of the end, that everything will go on as it always has, then I take him at his word and do what needs to be done. The end will take care of itself.

Now, about your family and my pastor:

You mean that you'd rather have all the churches burn because you don't like the way that your family lived? Because Christians don't do everything that Jesus tells them to do?

They couldn't have been "all talk." Didn't they do anything good at all?

Question: when you spoke to them about this, what did they say?

Perhaps you should have some of them on this board so they can give their side of the story. Why do I have the feeling here that we're not getting the whole picture?

I know many Christians who are not "just talk." I know many who live in subsidized housing because that's where the poor are. I know many who gave up comfortable jobs and went to Africa and got their malaria so they could help them with their schools and wells and power plants and education and medicine. I have known medical missionaries who gave up practices here in the US to live in what was Zaire, to scrabble for medicines and to teach the people there how to be medics and EMTS and do diagnosis and treatment.

Albert Schweitzer was not "all talk."
David Brainerd was not "all talk."
The young seminary students of the "Haystack Meeting" were not "all talk."
Richard Wurmbrand was not "all talk." He was jailed because of his missionary work in a Soviet prison and tortured.
Corrie Ten Boom and her entire family were not "all talk." They defied the Nazis and harbored Jews, helping them to escape the concentration camps, and they were all put in a camp themselves, where her father, mother, and sister all died.
Nate Saint died because he went to teach people a way better than war. He was not "all talk."
Those Christians in the Roman Empire who became known as "Paraboli," "The Reckless Ones," were called so because in plague times they would take in people who had been left outside to die of exposure. Many of them died from the plague they contracted from their patients, yet they continued. They were not "all talk."
Christians then were known as those "who take care, not only of their own poor, but ours as well." They were not "all talk."
My pastor is not "all talk."

The trouble is, you will not take these facts at their own value. You will not see that, even though there are those who cloak themselves in the name of the Church in order to appear respectable, there are many who give their very lives to those Christ calls them to help.

Why do I believe that you care more for your anger than for these people's sacrifices and the truth that they gave themselves for?

If these facts do not change your mind, then you are not trying to find the truth. You're only looking for confirmation of your biases.

Your comment about "non-human beings" is absurd. You deliberately miss the point. When I say that it's a human error and fault, that means that it can't be the Church's fault because it happens in other places, too. ou know this, yet you do not want to destroy marriage because some people can't keep their wedding vows. You do not want to destroy Africa because Idi Amin ate other Africans and invaded Tanzania, or because the Hutus and Tutsis couldn't keep their hands off each other's throats, or that the civil war in Democratic Republic of Congo included roving bands of soldiers and rebels raiding, pillaging, cutting off children's arms with machetes, raping and killing at will. If you're angry about corruption, why aren't you angry about this? You just want to destroy religion because some people, like those in your own family, have offended your sensibilities. I seem to remember Freud saying something about people with your motivation.

No, it is a human problem, but instead of being consistent across all the conditions of human corruption, you pick on the Church.

at least the Church preaches the message of love and compassion, and sometimes--more often than you know because it's most often not done for show (that is a command of Jesus's too)--it actually lives up to it.

That's more than can be said for you. Burn the churches? You will harm many if you had your way. But I don't hear you considering that.
S soul_doctor73A3
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:soul_doctor, Well, I'm not worried about an earth-grazing comet. Comets are too small and too low in density to have a significan gravity compared to the earth. One passing by cannot "wreak havoc" on the earth. Comets range in size from 1 to 100 kilometers (and there's only one of those that we know of--Chiron. A nucleus of 5 kilometers is on the large size for comets. Most of them are smaller than that) and their mass is something around tens to hundreds of billions of times less than that of the earth, with its mass of just over 6 sextillion tons.
Now, how big is the earth? Yet we can jump up against its gravity, drive up mountains against it's gravity, run up hills against its gravity, fly against its gravity, even go to the moon against it. A comet will have a gravity tens to hundreds of billions of times less than the earth's. If you jumped off a comet, you'd fly off into space never to be seen again. If you could get a good-enough foothold on the comet to jump at all. Comets are quite fragile. What with their composition of water and ammonia, they are much less dense than water and a fairly loose aggregate. You could break pieces off them with your hands. That's why Shoemaker-Levy broke apart in Jupiter's gravity long before it impacted the planet.So I really don't think that we have anything to fear from a near-earth comet. If a comet could "wreak havoc" with the earth, then Comet Halley would have destroyed the much-smaller probe Giotto when it cruised by the comet in 1986 at a distance of 370 miles. It didn't. The probe survived nicely, thank you. I believe that you'd better rethink your Armageddon hypothesis. And I never pay attention to anything called "Bible Codes." Since Jesus said that we will not know the time of the end, that everything will go on as it always has, then I take him at his word and do what needs to be done. The end will take care of itself.


I also said 'meteor'. Where are you calculations for that? Further, I wasn't talking to *you* about this in the first place. Someone *asked* about 'signs'. I gave them one. As for 'bible codes' and what you 'refuse to believe', have you read the 'apocryphal Jesus'? Or do you 'refuse' to beleive that too because 'Jesus' didn't say they were *his* words? Or do you refuse to believe it because the catholics didn't put it in your christian bible? Stick to *your* own subject, Melesi, this one is out of your area of expertise.

quote:
Now, about your family and my pastor: You mean that you'd rather have all the churches burn because you don't like the way that your family lived? Because Christians don't do everything that Jesus tells them to do?


This is exaclty why. Because christians don't do everything that Jesus tells them to. Because if they did there would be Utopia on this planet. But it's not, or do you adhere to the 'second coming' theory? lol

quote:
They couldn't have been "all talk." Didn't they do anything good at all?


How do you define 'good'? I define 'good' as taking a homeless person and housing them. Or going out of your way to do something for someone *else* out of compassion. I define that as good. Notice it has no doctrine attached to it.

quote:
Question: when you spoke to them about this, what did they say?


Basically the same thing you are saying: 'I've been a christian all my life, how could I *possibly* be wrong? I'm not that ignorant.'

quote:
Perhaps you should have some of them on this board so they can give their side of the story. Why do I have the feeling here that we're not getting the whole picture?


Because you are expressing *your* opinion concerning christians, and I am expressing *mine*. You disagree, and because of this, there must be some 'bias'. But you are quite ignorant of your own.

quote:
I know many Christians who are not "just talk." I know many who live in subsidized housing because that's where the poor are. I know many who gave up comfortable jobs and went to Africa and got their malaria so they could help them with their schools and wells and power plants and education and medicine. I have known medical missionaries who gave up practices here in the US to live in what was Zaire, to scrabble for medicines and to teach the people there how to be medics and EMTS and do diagnosis and treatment.


I know many people who are not just talk either. But I call them compassionate. As for what they 'call' themselves, what they happen to 'believe', I don't care. If they can't help someone when they need to be helped, that is *all* I care about. If they were american indian and believed in their Great Spirit, it would make aboslutely no difference to me. You think those people were 'special because they were 'christian'? Please.

quote:
Albert Schweitzer was not "all talk."
David Brainerd was not "all talk."
The young seminary students of the "Haystack Meeting" were not "all talk."
Richard Wurmbrand was not "all talk." He was jailed because of his missionary work in a Soviet prison and tortured.
Corrie Ten Boom and her entire family were not "all talk." They defied the Nazis and harbored Jews, helping them to escape the concentration camps, and they were all put in a camp themselves, where her father, mother, and sister all died.
Nate Saint died because he went to teach people a way better than war. He was not "all talk."
Those Christians in the Roman Empire who became known as "Paraboli," "The Reckless Ones," were called so because in plague times they would take in people who had been left outside to die of exposure. Many of them died from the plague they contracted from their patients, yet they continued. They were not "all talk."
Christians then were known as those "who take care, not only of their own poor, but ours as well." They were not "all talk."
My pastor is not "all talk."


Do you believe all these people you name were motivated because of *your* christian values? How pompous. Do you believe they sarcaficed their lives or dedicated themselves to the service of their fellowman because they were 'christian' enough to do it? Do you think that these people expressed compassion and love for another soul *because* they were 'christian'? That's why you christians can't rise above your own ignornace. You think you become more than you are just because you 'believe' in something. Arrogance and ignornace.

quote:
The trouble is, you will not take these facts at their own value. You will not see that, even though there are those who cloak themselves in the name of the Church in order to appear respectable, there are many who give their very lives to those Christ calls them to help.


No problem here. I just don't see christianity having *anything* to do with the sevice of these people. 'Christ' doesn't 'call' anyone, but the bible teaches it, thus *you* believe it.

quote:
Why do I believe that you care more for your anger than for these people's sacrifices and the truth that they gave themselves for?


Truth? What truth do *you* see they strived for? Human compassion is no religion, Melesi, and 'christianity' doesn't not suddenly *make* you compassionate. That is Truth.

quote:
If these facts do not change your mind, then you are not trying to find the truth. You're only looking for confirmation of your biases.


Change my mind that christianity is a fraud and a failure? That christians are self-absorbed and too blind to see it? No. These 'facts' change nothing. Human compassion and 'christianity' are not one and the same. They are two completely different animals. The latter has murdered for their 'belief'. The former would never shed blood to promote 'theirs'. Christians lose again.

quote:
Your comment about "non-human beings" is absurd. You deliberately miss the point. When I say that it's a human error and fault, that means that it can't be the Church's fault because it happens in other places, too. ou know this, yet you do not want to destroy marriage because some people can't keep their wedding vows. You do not want to destroy Africa because Idi Amin ate other Africans and invaded Tanzania, or because the Hutus and Tutsis couldn't keep their hands off each other's throats, or that the civil war in Democratic Republic of Congo included roving bands of soldiers and rebels raiding, pillaging, cutting off children's arms with machetes, raping and killing at will. If you're angry about corruption, why aren't you angry about this? You just want to destroy religion because some people, like those in your own family, have offended your sensibilities. I seem to remember Freud saying something about people with your motivation.


No, I deliberately made the point. *You* deliberately ignored it. There would be no 'church', no 'christ', no 'christianity' if not for 'humans'. You can't ignore it. The failure of christianity is the failure of its adherants, yourself included. Certainly the things you mention make me angry, but I will address those in due time. But they are not claiming to be all loving and compassionate like you christians are. They are not claiming to be shepherds of the people like you christians do. They are not claiming to love their neighbors as they love themselves like you despicable christians always claim. This doesn't make me angry, it absolutely *infuriates* me. If freud was a christian, it's no wonder he was so popular. He didn't have to prove a thing he said.

quote:
No, it is a human problem, but instead of being consistent across all the conditions of human corruption, you pick on the Church. at least the Church preaches the message of love and compassion, and sometimes--more often than you know because it's most often not done for show (that is a command of Jesus's too)--it actually lives up to it. That's more than can be said for you. Burn the churches? You will harm many if you had your way. But I don't hear you considering that.


It is a human problem and the church is full of humans. Two billion in fact. And they are humanly corrupted. Their 'christian' title merely proves my point. Sure 'the church' teaches love and compassion, but how many loving and compassionate christians do you meet in a day? Show me such a person who still calls themselves 'christian' and I will show you someone just waiting to be told the Truth: *You* are 'Jesus'. As for harm, the churches would be empty unless some fool decides to run inside to preserve a building of brick and stone. All the people christianity has harmed over these last two millenian did not have that choice. They were harmed *regardless*.

The rest of you need to stop living a lie and wake up to the truth.

Cry FREEDOM

Freedom Revolution to Establish the Egalitarian Deporment Of Mankind.
M MelesiA1
soul_doctor,

You said "comet" five times to your "meteor" twice. Can I be blamed for concentrating on what you concentrated on?

As for mass of the meteor and the "havoc" its gravity would "wreak" on the earth, it would have to be several times larger than the moon and pass closer than the quart-million miles the moon is from the earth to do what you say it will do. I don't hear anybody saying that a meteor of that size is headed our way. Neither did you. So I'm still not worried.

I told you that you wouldn't care about the truth. Those people I named, they said that they were what they were and did what they did because of their Christian values.

Christian values are not "mine." They are Christ's. I just live by them as best I can, just as they did. But you do not want to admit that, for doing so would show you how badly flawed your argument is. But you will not see it.

Very well. There is no reasoning with you, for you will not reason. You only rant.
S soul_doctor73A3
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
soul_doctor,

You said "comet" five times to your "meteor" twice. Can I be blamed for concentrating on what you concentrated on?

As for mass of the meteor and the "havoc" its gravity would "wreak" on the earth, it would have to be several times larger than the moon and pass closer than the quart-million miles the moon is from the earth to do what you say it will do. I don't hear anybody saying that a meteor of that size is headed our way. Neither did you. So I'm still not worried.

I told you that you wouldn't care about the truth. Those people I named, they said that they were what they were and did what they did because of their Christian values.

Christian values are not "mine." They are Christ's. I just live by them as best I can, just as they did. But you do not want to admit that, for doing so would show you how badly flawed your argument is. But you will not see it.

Very well. There is no reasoning with you, for you will not reason. You only rant.


Who's determining blame? That particular piece was meant for someone else, as I said. Besides, comet or meteor, it's the least of planet Earth's worries. The very least.

As for Truth, you cannot see your predisposition towards christian concepts. I cannot 'reason' with you concerning your christian thinking. You believe it to be of value to you, I do not. What is there to reason? Now if you wanted to discuss human compassion or something besides the intollerable topic of christianity, we would 'reason' fine.

However you perceive me, I perceive you as clinging to a dead thing, trying to convice me that it is alive. Melesi, you 'believe' what you want. I'll deal with what is logical, factual, or at the very least discernable through spiritual means. What I mean by 'spiritual discernment' is when it 'feels' right or 'enlightenment'. Not what is 'thought' or 'believed' to be right.

The thing is, I don't want to discuss christian anything, period. Unless it is 'why' it is such a failure and a fraud. Otherwise, I can find nothing praiseworthy and very little of note to speak of concerning christianity.

There is no reasoning with me concerning christianity at all. I had almost 29 years of christianty. I've had my fill. As for living by the words of 'cristos', why not try the knowledge that was instilled in you by the Most High? Fully understanding the difference between good and evil will serve you better than believing the words of your christ will.

That is what you are *here* for, you know. To avoid the bad and keep to the good. You were not born to this Eearth to find a deity of your choosing to 'worship'. You were not born to believe in a 'god'. You were born to become one.

Jesus doesn't provide that service.

Cry FREEDOM

Freedom Revolution to Establish the Egalitarian Deporment Of Mankind.
Next

Add Reply

Post

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×