|
Post by faune on Oct 16, 2014 23:32:01 GMT -5
One thing I found rather intriguing in the Wiki reference was this section regarding the Gospel of Nicodemus, which gives us more detail relating to the crucifixion of Jesus and Pilate granting the request of Joseph of Armathea, a ruling member of the Sanhedrin, regarding the release of the body of Jesus for burial, which wasn't according to Roman custom, but an exception to the rule was made here. Again, we are told of other accounts that also speaks of the burial of Jesus within the rich man's tomb and what transpired afterwards, similar to the other gospel accounts.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_of_Arimathea
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 17, 2014 0:55:32 GMT -5
It wasn't about just "forced conversions." into Christianity.
It is the whole premise of Christianity itself; that if people don't' believe Jesus & his "resurrection" from the dead, they will go to hell!
Because of that premise, the NT doesn't give any better impression of God than the OT.
DMG ~ I don't deny that the resurrection and transfiguration of Jesus is the crux of Christianity.
If this event had not actually taken place and contributed to the gospel stories, than our faith would indeed be in vain.
However, I don't believe it has been proven either way according to modern day Bible scholars and historians; but rather assumptions have been made based upon customs during that time?
One of these assumptions has been that Jesus never was buried and that he was left on the cross to be devoured by scavenger birds and animals, since it was recorded to be Roman custom not to bury anybody accused of treason against the state.
The only exception was if the ruling governor agreed to such due to special request of the family.
In Luke's gospel, it speaks of Joseph of Armathea, a member of the Sanhedrin, making such a request of Pilate and having it granted and his laying Jesus' body within his own private tomb with the help of Nicodemius.
What's ironic here is that it was a majority decision of the members of the Sanhedrin to have Jesus arrested and crucified.
However, both Joseph of Armathea and Nicodemus were both members of the Sandhedrin?
In addition, the bodies of criminals and traitors were usually left to be devoured by the elements and decay upon the cross as an important lesson for others who might entertain the same intentions.
As an alternative to this concept, there was also the mass grave that convicted criminals were eventually tossed into when space was needed for more crucifixions.
It was not uncommon for the Romans to display these crosses with corpses still hanging on them along the main highway to Rome as a reminder to the people of their fate if they crossed the ruling powers of Rome.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_of_Arimathea
It really doesn't matter if anyone has tried to explain it!
Common sense tell a person that no one that is dead, -not just in a coma, but DEAD; simply doesn't come alive again & is then taken up bodily into the sky!
The "resurrection and transfiguration of Jesus is the crux of Christianity," but that doesn't make the story true!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 17, 2014 3:15:40 GMT -5
No, it is you that is talking about a dead human being who was resurrected. He can't be dead & do that. That is why I don't believe any of it.
So do you think he wasn't DEAD? How could he have been "resurrected," as I'm sure that you must believe, if he hadn't been dead to start with?
Look, Nathan, I know what you are trying to say but it just doesn't work.
It is nothing more than a belief at that time but we live in a time that we know that simply can't be true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 4:11:03 GMT -5
Keep pointing at other people, Faune! I think you gave yourself up! Rational ~ Now I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't the real Cmdr Val Thor, as you are very familiar with the alien storyline and the strange claims of our Dr. Frank Stranges? Honestly, I just took an interest when I came back on board and read that some thought I was the culprit. I'm no fan of science fiction, as Nathan well knows, and especially the Illuminati version of reptilians amongst us. By the way, I wonder if Cmdr Val Thor has those slanted eyes with slits, too? It seems about every world personality is now included in the legacy connected to this urban legend? Actually I think Cmdr Val Thor is the real Valiant Thor posting as Cmdr Val Thor!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 6:25:03 GMT -5
No, it is you that is talking about a dead human being who was resurrected. He can't be dead & do that. That is why I don't believe any of it.
So do you think he wasn't DEAD? How could he have been "resurrected," as I'm sure that you must believe, if he hadn't been dead to start with?
Look, Nathan, I know what you are trying to say but it just doesn't work.
It is nothing more than a belief at that time but we live in a time that we know that simply can't be true.
Dmichgood - science teaches you, or should teach you, that a - nothing is impossible b - if you think its impossible, you don't know science.
Just today I was reading that even what we call "length" might not be a fundamental after all (unlike "speed" which involves "fundamentals" of "distance" versus "time.") Frankly, we don't know anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 8:51:21 GMT -5
Actually I think Cmdr Val Thor is the real Valiant Thor posting as Cmdr Val Thor! The Cmdr VT on tmb... I asked him some questions about himself. He doesn't know he has or wife or the name of his own little girl. What kind of a husband and father is that? He didn't even know which year he came to America. I don't think he is a real deal. A fraud or wanabe.Possibly the Cmdr Val Thor on TMB IS the real Valiant Thor and that the other Valiant Thor is am impostor? Maybe they are both unreal?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Oct 17, 2014 10:07:57 GMT -5
Actually I think Cmdr Val Thor is the real Valiant Thor posting as Cmdr Val Thor! The Cmdr VT on tmb... I asked him some questions about himself. He doesn't know he has or wife or the name of his own little girl. What kind of a husband and father is that? He didn't even know which year he came to America. I don't think he is a real deal. A fraud or wanabe.Nathan ~ Wow, you are really up on your alien friend! However, I agree with you, our hero would remember if he was married and had a child, unless he wanted to forget all that? Also, when did this dude come to America, since I haven't really been following the storyline either and I've been picking up on bits and pieces recently?
In addition, how do you know for sure Cmdr Val Thor even existed, but for the numerous stories spun by of our Dr. Frank Stranges from the past, which seem to lack in apparent mention within Wiki references relating to UFO's, alien visitors, and the hollow earth theories? Perhaps the real fraud is Dr. Frank?
Another fact that confuses me is how these grey alien creatures actually reproduce, since they supposedly have no genitalia?
uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090208061546AAOoZkP
|
|
|
Post by faune on Oct 17, 2014 10:39:01 GMT -5
No, it is you that is talking about a dead human being who was resurrected. He can't be dead & do that. That is why I don't believe any of it.
So do you think he wasn't DEAD? How could he have been "resurrected," as I'm sure that you must believe, if he hadn't been dead to start with?
Look, Nathan, I know what you are trying to say but it just doesn't work.
It is nothing more than a belief at that time but we live in a time that we know that simply can't be true.
Jesus the son of man had been DEAD for 3 days! According to the Jewish law after 3 days and nights in the grave, the person has considered to be DEAD... the body starts to smell and decompose. Lazarus was sick and dying and the disciple told Jesus to hurry up! before it too late to help him once he was dead. Jesus took his time and made sure Lazarus had died for 3 days! then when He raised Jesus from the dead then the Jews would KNOW it was him who raised Lazarus from the dead. Jesus gave them a glimpse to His own resurrection! through the death of Lazarus.dmg, you are thinking from a human point of view and NOT from God's point of view, understanding, and POWER! human can't walk on water but Jesus/God did. You can't turn water into wine but Jesus/God did. You can't tell the storm sea, and wind to calm down but Jesus/God did. You can't raised the Dead but Jesus/God did. You can't raised or resurrected from the dead on your own will but Jesus/God did...... With a man or woman it's impossible things to do but with God/Jesus ALL things are Possible with Him. That is why God/Jesus is TWO kingdoms above you and me.Nathan ~ I agree. If a Creator God could bring the universe into being, I'm sure he could do these other impossible feats, too. Also, I noticed that DMG didn't refer to my new references regarding the Gospel of Nicodemus which circulated at one time during early Christianity and speaks of this Joseph of Arimathea member of the Sanhedrin who didn't share in the opinion of the rest, asking Pilate for the body of Jesus, so as he might bury it within his own [prepared tomb. I never read that story until yesterday and was impressed with the information provided, especially regarding two men who were sons of the high priest who were apparently resurrected in Matthew 27:52-53 and made themselves visible to others? This was the first explanation I ever heard relating to this incident, which I thought was added to the gospel story later on for effect. In relation to those who would even question whether Jesus was taken off the cross, this Gospel of Nicodemus seems to fill us in on some more details relating to what transpired after Jesus' death on the cross and regarding his burial in a prepared tomb. Since a special request by somebody of noteworthy standing with Pilate would be necessary to gain Jesus' body from off the cross, it seems that the Gospel of Nicodemus backs up the gospel accounts, too?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_of_Arimathea
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Oct 17, 2014 11:07:00 GMT -5
Snow ~ That was a very interesting video and that 13 year old boy made some really good sense, pointing out the differences between marriage rites in the Old Testament and today. Also, you cannot find any place within the gospels where Jesus made any statement specifically about homosexuality, especially when he spoke about divorce due to immorality in Matthew 19:3-12. However, since Jesus was a Jew, there's a strong possibility he shared the views of the day regarding teachings from the Torah? Although Jesus was talking about divorce between a man and his wife, presumably male and female, Matthew 19:12 might give us something to ponder further, especially the beginning reference to those who are born eunuchs and not suited for marriage due to this fact? Could it be that Jesus was actually referring to homosexuals in this reference to those born eunuchs? However, the verse continues to speak about those who are made eunuchs by men along with those who choose the lifestyle due to practice of celibacy in ministry.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A3-12 Matthew 19:3-12
biblehub.com/matthew/19-12.htm Matthew 19:12
I believe Jesus was speaking in regards to those who could make themselves "eunuchs for the sake of the gospel" just as he said! He did not go on to any other reason for eunuchs....... We can believe that eunuchs carried a very favored position in their master's house....they were set to take care of the wife(s) and children when the rich master was doing the bacon and breads routine! It doesn't speak of concubines in the NT, however it doesn't say that they were done away with either....so it seems lifestyles went on pretty much as they had some 2000 yrs before, etc! Eunuchs often were the revered counselors to the master of the house and eunuchs who valued position, they would give their lives to their master.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Oct 17, 2014 11:33:45 GMT -5
Snow ~ That was a very interesting video and that 13 year old boy made some really good sense, pointing out the differences between marriage rites in the Old Testament and today. Also, you cannot find any place within the gospels where Jesus made any statement specifically about homosexuality, especially when he spoke about divorce due to immorality in Matthew 19:3-12. However, since Jesus was a Jew, there's a strong possibility he shared the views of the day regarding teachings from the Torah? Although Jesus was talking about divorce between a man and his wife, presumably male and female, Matthew 19:12 might give us something to ponder further, especially the beginning reference to those who are born eunuchs and not suited for marriage due to this fact? Could it be that Jesus was actually referring to homosexuals in this reference to those born eunuchs? However, the verse continues to speak about those who are made eunuchs by men along with those who choose the lifestyle due to practice of celibacy in ministry.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A3-12 Matthew 19:3-12
biblehub.com/matthew/19-12.htm Matthew 19:12
I believe Jesus was speaking in regards to those who could make themselves "eunuchs for the sake of the gospel" just as he said! He did not go on to any other reason for eunuchs....... We can believe that eunuchs carried a very favored position in their master's house....they were set to take care of the wife(s) and children when the rich master was doing the bacon and breads routine! It doesn't speak of concubines in the NT, however it doesn't say that they were done away with either....so it seems lifestyles went on pretty much as they had some 2000 yrs before, etc! Eunuchs often were the revered counselors to the master of the house and eunuchs who valued position, they would give their lives to their master. STR ~ It appears you may be describing the last two classifications of eunuchs above? However, I was referring specifically to the first description given in Matthew 19:12 ~ namely, those born eunuchs from their mother's womb, who weren't cut out for marriage, with no alterations afterwards to make them incapable of fathering children. I believe it's a good possibility that Jesus was speaking about some being born homosexual in regards to this first group? After all, homosexuals have been around for centuries and surely existed during Roman times, too, when Jesus walked the earth. Although there may be some who choose a different sexual lifestyle out of choice, I feel the majority have a genetic inheritance that make them that way. Recent scientific evidence has also gave the same impression regarding sexual gender identification. That's one reason why I feel it is unjust to use Old Testament barbaric times and specific rulings as some sort of standard regarding treatment of homosexuals. If you remember, it also suggests within Levitical Law that rebellious teenagers also be stoned to death along with other unjust treatments of women, slaves, and the disabled. Not exactly a pretty picture either!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Oct 17, 2014 11:42:31 GMT -5
Nathan ~ Do you have any idea how ridiculous the stories about the greys appear to people in the real world? The whole storyline sounds like something concocted by science fiction writers, which makes it hard to take serious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 11:46:20 GMT -5
Nathan, America didn't fight the NAZIS until late 1941, and more properly into 1942. Like WW I there was a possibility that the Americans might enter the war on the side of Germany. It is more likely that Valiant Thor was a NAZI and was trying to encourage the USA to attack Great Britain. Valiant Thor was likely around in the late 1770s and 1812ish for the same purpose when he had more success.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Oct 17, 2014 16:27:49 GMT -5
Nathan ~ I realize that President Ronald Reagan started the concept of Star Wars in a nuclear arms race back in time, but all this alien talk seems so much over the top and very hard to take serious. Also, any reference to Dr. Frank Stranges seems to pull up all these "strange" videos on You-tube that you have referenced in the past. Can you actually give me one credible secular article that references Dr. Frank as being some expert in this field, beside his own voice tooting his horn? In fact, this article was the only one I could find as to giving some history, but it's the product of Dr. Frank himself.
www.bibliotecapleyades.net/bb/stranges.htm
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Oct 17, 2014 18:06:51 GMT -5
People who are born eunuchs cannot have sex - that is with male or female.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Oct 17, 2014 18:47:19 GMT -5
People who are born eunuchs cannot have sex - that is with male or female. Mary ~ Not necessarily so according to this article regarding eunuchs during Roman times and when Jesus walked this earth. This article provides some basic knowledge regarding those who were "born eunuchs" in ancient times that might surprise you?
www.hiddenmeanings.com/gaysJesus2.htm
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Oct 17, 2014 18:59:04 GMT -5
Read it. Regardless of what he says a eunch is impotent and/or celibate. Read the meaning of the word for yourself. Enuchs do not have sex.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 17, 2014 22:39:27 GMT -5
Read it. Regardless of what he says a eunch is impotent and/or celibate. Read the meaning of the word for yourself. Enuchs do not have sex. I believe this not globally true. Some castrated men can still have sex. However, they were unable to have offspring so the kings/owners of harems did not have to worry that the offspring that resulted was not theirs. The sex drive for a eunuchs when there were no testosterone injections would have been less but a eunuch could certainly have had an erection, be orgasmic, and ejaculate during coitus.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Oct 17, 2014 22:54:56 GMT -5
What would the point of someone being a enuch for the kingdoms sake if they could still have sex? Is it so that they can have sex but can't have children/ I do not think that is the case.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 17, 2014 23:15:36 GMT -5
Nathan ~ Do you have any idea how ridiculous the stories about the greys appear to people in the real world? The whole storyline sounds like something concocted by science fiction writers, which makes it hard to take serious. It is written by science fiction writers, faune!
They just won't admit it!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 17, 2014 23:26:55 GMT -5
People who are born eunuchs cannot have sex - that is with male or female. Mary ~ Not necessarily so according to this article regarding eunuchs during Roman times and when Jesus walked this earth. This article provides some basic knowledge regarding those who were "born eunuchs" in ancient times that might surprise you?
www.hiddenmeanings.com/gaysJesus2.htm Faune, who is the founder of that website, www.hiddenmeanings.com/gaysJesus2.htm?
I could not find who put that site up, and you know me.
I need to know who is stating something before I can take it as a legitimate!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 18, 2014 0:44:12 GMT -5
What would the point of someone being a enuch for the kingdoms sake if they could still have sex? Is it so that they can have sex but can't have children/ I do not think that is the case. I was responding to your post: Read it. Regardless of what he says a eunch is impotent and/or celibate. Read the meaning of the word for yourself. Enuchs do not have sex. Which contains the following errors: 1) "...a eunch is impotent and/or celibate." A castrated male is a eunuch and may not be impotent and may not be celibate. 2) "Enuchs do not have sex." Some eunuchs do have sex. The only difference in the act is that the male is not contributing sperm. You asked: What would the point of someone being a enuch for the kingdoms sake if they could still have sex?I actually can't think of a really good and logically sound reason. I could hazard that perhaps they were castrated to retain their voice with which they could sing praises to their god. Their god has long been very concerned with the genitalia of humans and who put what parts together for what reason. But let me ask you - What would be the point of them being a eunuch for the kingdom's sake if they could not have sex?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Oct 18, 2014 2:25:03 GMT -5
They chose to become eunuchs ie.not have sex - for the kingdom's sake.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Oct 18, 2014 7:54:11 GMT -5
The "eunuch" argument strikes me as a thinly-veiled rationalization for "bestowing" second-class citizenship on gay people.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Oct 18, 2014 10:33:59 GMT -5
Read it. Regardless of what he says a eunch is impotent and/or celibate. Read the meaning of the word for yourself. Enuchs do not have sex. Mary ~ Did you notice that within the article where the conversation that Jesus was having with his followers switched from reasons for divorce to why some men did not marry when he begins to talk about "eunuchs" back in ancient times? You must also remember that the descriptive words of gays or homosexuals were not used back in Roman time and that "eunuchs" was the terminology used here instead. Jesus begins about talking about heterosexual men being guilty of adultery and then starts on another subject altogether regarding why some men should not marry due to their lifestyle. He also said that some would not receive this saying, which is also true today, IMHO.
www.hiddenmeanings.com/gaysJesus2.htm
|
|
|
Post by faune on Oct 18, 2014 11:00:47 GMT -5
Mary ~ Not necessarily so according to this article regarding eunuchs during Roman times and when Jesus walked this earth. This article provides some basic knowledge regarding those who were "born eunuchs" in ancient times that might surprise you?
www.hiddenmeanings.com/gaysJesus2.htm Faune, who is the founder of that website, www.hiddenmeanings.com/gaysJesus2.htm?
I could not find who put that site up, and you know me.
I need to know who is stating something before I can take it as a legitimate!DMG ~ Maybe this will help you discover the founder of www.hiddenmeanings.com and the many subjects he covers on his website of which gays and Jesus' comments regarding their place within society is just one area addressed here. There are numerous topics to explore, too, as well as his personal blog, if you are interested? You might checkout his personal blog for contact information in the area where it says, "About Me" on the right hand side under membership? I personally enjoyed his recent entry on his blog today. It makes good sense to me!
www.hiddenmeanings.com/ Hidden Meanings Website
njleftside.blogspot.com/ Hidden Meanings Blog
Edit added: Bill Donahue is the author of this website. Here's an archives of his various talks on You-tube. I will let you draw your own opinions about his leanings. However, this second link gives a clue as to his opinion regarding the origins of Christianity.
www.prometheanreach.com/billdonahue
www.prometheanreach.com/archives/7879 Bill Donahue – Christianity From Ancient Cults [HD]
|
|
|
Post by faune on Oct 18, 2014 12:55:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 19, 2014 8:47:56 GMT -5
They chose to become eunuchs ie.not have sex - for the kingdom's sake. How does that help the kingdom? Look at a different biological function. They hold their breath for the kingdom's sake. They eat no protein for the kingdom's sake.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Oct 19, 2014 11:05:55 GMT -5
The "eunuch" argument strikes me as a thinly-veiled rationalization for "bestowing" second-class citizenship on gay people. Matisse ~ The opening paragraph of this thread first alluded to the "eunuch argument" in support of the fact that Jesus did make a statement regarding homosexuality, which has existed for centuries even before Jesus was born. I simply decided to explore the idea of the eunuch to see if it took in homosexuality, which appears to be the case in those born from the mother's womb as natural eunuchs as Jesus brings out. Apparently, Jesus didn't discriminate against people who are born homosexuals and neither should we judge them for their lifestyle. Also, modern day scientific discovery has concluded the same. Therefore, such pseudoscience as conversion therapy, which tries to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals, seems pretty ridiculous in light of these findings. Personally, I feel people need to just accept people the way they're born and not judge them for it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
|
|