|
Post by nathan on Apr 1, 2020 13:26:37 GMT -5
Why does a serpent represent what Jesus did on the cross?
This episode is related in the book of Numbers. The Israelites are traveling through the wilderness and they start complaining about the very manna that God has been providing miraculously to feed them in the desert. (They say, “We detest this miserable food!”) As a punishment for their ingratitude, God sends poisonous snakes among them and many of the Israelites start dying from snake bites. So they come to Moses and admit, “We sinned when we spoke against the Lord and against you.” They ask him to “pray that the Lord will take the snakes away from us.” God forgives the people and tells Moses to make a bronze snake and put it up on a pole.” God promises, “Anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.”In other words, an admission of sin and a response of hopeful faith, looking to the means God provided for deliverance, was how the Israelites could be rescued from physical death in this instance. Jesus is telling Nicodemus that the same thing will be true, on a much grander scale in the spiritual realm, when he is “lifted up” onto the cross. Anyone who is sincerely sorry for the way they’ve disobeyed and offended God, and who looks in hopeful faith to Jesus’ death on the cross for their sake, will be rescued spiritually and given the chance to live anew. This is what it means to be “born again.”goodquestionblog.com/2014/01/27/why-does-a-serpent-represent-what-jesus-did-on-the-cross/ When your jesus quoted Numbers and the myth of the brass or bronze snake on the pole he showed he was completely batty. Snakes on poles cannot save people from snake bite. Never have done and never will. The poor chap was obviously deluded. You do seem to follow a lot of deluded people. Why is that? This is why you as unbeliever don't understand the relation of the two stories and hidden meaning behind it, Jesus Christ said to the unbelieving Jews in His days and today also. Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, LORD of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Apr 1, 2020 13:30:18 GMT -5
When your jesus quoted Numbers and the myth of the brass or bronze snake on the pole he showed he was completely batty. Snakes on poles cannot save people from snake bite. Never have done and never will. The poor chap was obviously deluded. You do seem to follow a lot of deluded people. Why is that? This is why you as unbeliever don't understand the relation of the two stories and hidden meaning behind it, Jesus Christ said to the unbelieving Jews in His days and today also. Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, LORD of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."
Once again Nathan. Snakes on poles do not cure anything. Men crucified do not cure anything. It's village idiot stuff.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Apr 1, 2020 13:41:00 GMT -5
This is why you as unbeliever don't understand the relation of the two stories and hidden meaning behind it, Jesus Christ said to the unbelieving Jews in His days and today also. Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, LORD of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."
Once again Nathan. Snakes on poles do not cure anything. Men crucified do not cure anything. It's village idiot stuff. Like Jesus has said to the UNBELIEVERS in his days, they will NOT understand these spiritual lessons. Mark 4:12 … Jesus said “The mystery of the kingdom of God has been given to you/believers, but to those on the outside everything is expressed in parables, so that, ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven.’” Then Jesus said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand any of the parables?…
King David wrote: The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt; their acts are vile. Ps. 41:1
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Apr 1, 2020 13:45:21 GMT -5
Once again Nathan. Snakes on poles do not cure anything. Men crucified do not cure anything. It's village idiot stuff. Like Jesus has said to the UNBELIEVERS in his days, they will NOT understand these spiritual lessons. Mark 4:12 … Jesus said “The mystery of the kingdom of God has been given to you/believers, but to those on the outside everything is expressed in parables, so that, ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven.’” Then Jesus said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand any of the parables?…
King David wrote: The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt; their acts are vile. Ps. 41:1
Nathan, have you ever questioned the likely hood of a snake on a pole curing anyone of snake bite? Or do you just blindly believe what ever you read in a book or see on a video?
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Apr 1, 2020 14:39:47 GMT -5
Like Jesus has said to the UNBELIEVERS in his days, they will NOT understand these spiritual lessons. Mark 4:12 … Jesus said “The mystery of the kingdom of God has been given to you/believers, but to those on the outside everything is expressed in parables, so that, ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven.’” Then Jesus said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand any of the parables?…
King David wrote: The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt; their acts are vile. Ps. 41:1
Nathan, have you ever questioned the likely hood of a snake on a pole curing anyone of snake bite? Or do you just blindly believe what ever you read in a book or see on a video? No, I can't explain How God's remedy for the children of children who were bitten by the poisonous snakes LIVE if they look up at a bronze serpent out of brass. That is what I call MIRACLE! God works in mysterious way... Those sinners didn't UNDERSTAND how could that be but they BELIEVED in God's cure if they just look up! Just like We/believers don't FULLY understand the Miracle of Calvary's Cross why, Jesus had to DIE for our sins is all about, we just BELIEVE in the remedy for ours sins/Death if we BELIEVE in Jesus for our ATONEMENT so, we can enter and live in heaven with God and Christ forever.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Apr 2, 2020 1:57:53 GMT -5
Like Jesus has said to the UNBELIEVERS in his days, they will NOT understand these spiritual lessons. Mark 4:12 … Jesus said “The mystery of the kingdom of God has been given to you/believers, but to those on the outside everything is expressed in parables, so that, ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven.’” Then Jesus said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand any of the parables?…
King David wrote: The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt; their acts are vile. Ps. 41:1
Nathan, have you ever questioned the likely hood of a snake on a pole curing anyone of snake bite? Or do you just blindly believe what ever you read in a book or see on a video?
Its just one of many miracles God performed, no different than Moses lifting his staff and parting the Red Sea (Exodus 14:16). Once a person believes in an omnipotent God, why would they 'question' a miracle? Seeing is believing, but believing without seeing is faith.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Apr 2, 2020 2:15:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Apr 2, 2020 2:32:24 GMT -5
Satan is NOT a MYTH but a REAL BEING/fallen angel of God. You need to understand that as a fact NOT a myth.
The Serpent/the Dragon is symbolic for Satan the Devil. Rev. 12:7-9 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old Serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
6 Times Jesus Talked About Satan Our Savior is clear about the evil power the devil holds. Luke 10:17-19 says "The seventy returned with joy, saying, 'Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name!' And He said to them, 'I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you.'” The context of these words is the return of the 70 disciples that Jesus had sent out to evangelize and prepare His way to Jerusalem. The group was so impressed that Satan and his demons had bowed down to the name of Jesus, but Jesus already knew they were well protected. The fall of Satan that Jesus saw happened after Lucifer’s sin. In his pride, Lucifer had lifted himself up, but God had cast him down out of his original place in heaven. Jesus’ statement in Luke 10:18 speaks on the back story of Satan and the Lord’s defeat over the power of Satan. Mark 5:7-8 Not everyone believes in demonic procession, but Jesus talked about it in the Bible on several occasions. Mark 5 tells the story of Jesus removing Satan’s evil spirits from a suffering man. Mark 5:7-8 says “Crying out with a loud voice, [the demoniac] said, ‘What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.’ For he had said to him, “’Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!’” This, again, shows us that Jesus has the ultimate authority over the devil and his group of angels. Jesus can cleanse us of evil spirits and feel rejuvenated once again.
www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/6-times-jesus-talked-about-satan.aspx
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Apr 2, 2020 3:05:27 GMT -5
Quoting the bible to support biblical beliefs is not proof nor evidence. It is circular reasoning. But if it floats ya boat then who am I to deny you your fantasies.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Apr 2, 2020 5:35:15 GMT -5
Quoting the bible to support biblical beliefs is not proof nor evidence. It is circular reasoning. But if it floats ya boat then who am I to deny you your fantasies. The Bible is divided into two testaments, the Old and the New, each of which contain many testaments by a wide variety of witnesses over several thousand years. What is a testament? Definition of testament (Miriam-Webster Dictionary)
1a: a tangible proof or tribute
b: an expression of conviction : CREED
2a: an act by which a person determines the disposition of his or her property after death
b: WILLIf we consider the four gospels and other eye-witness accounts contained in the New Testament, this is not unlike opening a court case file from the distant past and looking at the oral recorded evidence of the witnesses involved. We can see the evidence laid before the court and whether or not that evidence was accepted and if sufficient, how the case was proved. There can be little doubt that there is a sufficiency of credible eye-witness, oral testimony contained within the New Testament to prove the case for God and Jesus, beyond reasonable doubt to the unbiased, neutral mind. It is up to us whether we accept or reject that evidence. (Virgs)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2020 6:19:51 GMT -5
Quoting the bible to support biblical beliefs is not proof nor evidence. It is circular reasoning. But if it floats ya boat then who am I to deny you your fantasies. The Bible is divided into two testaments, the Old and the New, each of which contain many testaments by a wide variety of witnesses over several thousand years. What is a testament? Definition of testament (Miriam-Webster Dictionary)
1a: a tangible proof or tribute
b: an expression of conviction : CREED
2a: an act by which a person determines the disposition of his or her property after death
b: WILLIf we consider the four gospels and other eye-witness accounts contained in the New Testament, this is not unlike opening a course case file from the distant past and looking at the oral recorded evidence of the witnesses involved. We can see the evidence laid before the court and whether or not that evidence was accepted and if sufficient, how the case was proved. There can be little doubt that there is a sufficiency or credible eye-witness, oral testimony contained within the New Testament to prove the case for God and Jesus, beyond reasonable doubt to the unbiased, neutral mind. It is up to us whether we accept or reject that evidence. (Virgs) agreed... problem is material people also known as atheists do not recognize verbal or written testimonies. which of course eliminates a lot of history. nevertheless they must see it with their own eyes which is impossible of course as no one can go back in any length of time the mid 1800's at best and actually SEE something happen....
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Apr 2, 2020 12:12:26 GMT -5
Quoting the bible to support biblical beliefs is not proof nor evidence. It is circular reasoning. But if it floats ya boat then who am I to deny you your fantasies. The Bible is divided into two testaments, the Old and the New, each of which contain many testaments by a wide variety of witnesses over several thousand years. What is a testament? Definition of testament (Miriam-Webster Dictionary)
1a: a tangible proof or tribute
b: an expression of conviction : CREED
2a: an act by which a person determines the disposition of his or her property after death
b: WILLIf we consider the four gospels and other eye-witness accounts contained in the New Testament, this is not unlike opening a court case file from the distant past and looking at the oral recorded evidence of the witnesses involved. We can see the evidence laid before the court and whether or not that evidence was accepted and if sufficient, how the case was proved. There can be little doubt that there is a sufficiency of credible eye-witness, oral testimony contained within the New Testament to prove the case for God and Jesus, beyond reasonable doubt to the unbiased, neutral mind. It is up to us whether we accept or reject that evidence. (Virgs) Sounds lovely doesn't it Ram, until one realizes that the gospels were not written by the named authors. some of the old T was the writing down of oral history, and some of the new testament was written perhaps a hundred years or more after the event. An appeal court would throw the case out.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Apr 2, 2020 17:10:32 GMT -5
The Bible is divided into two testaments, the Old and the New, each of which contain many testaments by a wide variety of witnesses over several thousand years. What is a testament? Definition of testament (Miriam-Webster Dictionary)
1a: a tangible proof or tribute
b: an expression of conviction : CREED
2a: an act by which a person determines the disposition of his or her property after death
b: WILLIf we consider the four gospels and other eye-witness accounts contained in the New Testament, this is not unlike opening a court case file from the distant past and looking at the oral recorded evidence of the witnesses involved. We can see the evidence laid before the court and whether or not that evidence was accepted and if sufficient, how the case was proved. There can be little doubt that there is a sufficiency of credible eye-witness, oral testimony contained within the New Testament to prove the case for God and Jesus, beyond reasonable doubt to the unbiased, neutral mind. It is up to us whether we accept or reject that evidence. (Virgs) Sounds lovely doesn't it Ram, until one realizes that the gospels were not written by the named authors. some of the old T was the writing down of oral history, and some of the new testament was written perhaps a hundred years or more after the event. An appeal court would throw the case out. Whether or not the gospels were written by the named authors, matters not one whit. What witness writes down their own testimony in preparation fror a hearing? Is it not standard practice for a third party to do this? Nae my dear friend, it is the testifier who counts and whether such matters were actually dictated or related by him. The use of the word 'some' would not in itself throw a case out, though it 'may' (or may not depending on the circumstances) deem those parts of the evidence to be disregarded. The case may be weakened, but since we have a very strong case to start with, these questionable matters may have little effect. Another point is that if corroboration can be drawn from other accepted testimonies then such evidence may be allowed to stand. You seem to have overlooked the rubber stamp of (Virgs) in my declaration. Such authority assuredly places unquestionable verity on the statement. There are two things which defy me, much to my angst. It is these matters which other board members should be addressing as a matter of importance. These are: 1) Why does Nathan not seek the approval of Virgs before he posts anything? 2) Why does Grats not come clean about whether or not rice features in his diet? If only we could get proper answers to these questions we could feel satisfied, rather than quibbling over lesser issues?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 2, 2020 17:27:12 GMT -5
The Bible is divided into two testaments, the Old and the New, each of which contain many testaments by a wide variety of witnesses over several thousand years. What is a testament? Definition of testament (Miriam-Webster Dictionary)
1a: a tangible proof or tribute
b: an expression of conviction : CREED
2a: an act by which a person determines the disposition of his or her property after death
b: WILLIf we consider the four gospels and other eye-witness accounts contained in the New Testament, this is not unlike opening a course case file from the distant past and looking at the oral recorded evidence of the witnesses involved. We can see the evidence laid before the court and whether or not that evidence was accepted and if sufficient, how the case was proved. There can be little doubt that there is a sufficiency or credible eye-witness, oral testimony contained within the New Testament to prove the case for God and Jesus, beyond reasonable doubt to the unbiased, neutral mind. It is up to us whether we accept or reject that evidence. (Virgs) agreed... problem is material people also known as atheists do not recognize verbal or written testimonies. which of course eliminates a lot of history. nevertheless they must see it with their own eyes which is impossible of course as no one can go back in any length of time the mid 1800's at best and actually SEE something happen.... I don't need it to be ancient. I'd make do with a modern day miracle. You know, one where an amputee grows his limb back. Trouble is it seems that all miracles ended with the bible days.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Apr 2, 2020 18:38:18 GMT -5
Sounds lovely doesn't it Ram, until one realizes that the gospels were not written by the named authors. some of the old T was the writing down of oral history, and some of the new testament was written perhaps a hundred years or more after the event. An appeal court would throw the case out. Whether or not the gospels were written by the named authors, matters not one whit. What witness writes down their own testimony in preparation fror a hearing? Is it not standard practice for a third party to do this? Nae my dear friend, it is the testifier who counts and whether such matters were actually dictated or related by him. The use of the word 'some' would not in itself throw a case out, though it 'may' (or may not depending on the circumstances) deem those parts of the evidence to be disregarded. The case may be weakened, but since we have a very strong case to start with, these questionable matters may have little effect. Another point is that if corroboration can be drawn from other accepted testimonies then such evidence may be allowed to stand. You seem to have overlooked the rubber stamp of (Virgs) in my declaration. Such authority assuredly places unquestionable verity on the statement. There are two things which defy me, much to my angst. It is these matters which other board members should be addressing as a matter of importance. These are: 1) Why does Nathan not seek the approval of Virgs before he posts anything? 2) Why does Grats not come clean about whether or not rice features in his diet? If only we could get proper answers to these questions we could feel satisfied, rather than quibbling over lesser issues? I cannot see why you think you have a strong case when much of what is said in the bible defies the laws of physics and chemistry. There are also mistakes made in botany and biology as well as astronomy and cosmology. Now where do you think is a strong case?
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Apr 3, 2020 2:14:50 GMT -5
agreed... problem is material people also known as atheists do not recognize verbal or written testimonies. which of course eliminates a lot of history. nevertheless they must see it with their own eyes which is impossible of course as no one can go back in any length of time the mid 1800's at best and actually SEE something happen.... I don't need it to be ancient. I'd make do with a modern day miracle. You know, one where an amputee grows his limb back. Trouble is it seems that all miracles ended with the bible days. The miracles that Jesus and his disciples worked were for the Jews to prove to them that he was their long prophesied Messiah. Without those clear signs from God, they would not have believed. They even recognised this when Nicodemus came from the Sanhedrin by night and said thus to Jesus: John 3 King James Version (KJV) 3 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
God sent the Jews absolute proof that Jesus was their Messiah. The purpose of the miracles was to prove the word to an unbelieving people who rejected that proof. They were left with no excuse. God wants us to trust him at his word. Jesus even said that it was an evil and adulterous generation that sought a sign. The Jews sought signs whereas the Greeks (Gentiles) sought knowledge. God wants the 'just' to live by faith in him, not by proof or sight. He simply wants us to accept and follow him by his word. There are actually people, even today, who do this! Jesus told the bad guy when he was tempted by him to show that he was the son of God by working a miracle or two. His response was 'man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.' No signs, no wonders, just simple sincere faith and trust in the word of God. That's what God is looking for from his people. Just ask the guy below! (Virgs)
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Apr 3, 2020 2:22:30 GMT -5
Whether or not the gospels were written by the named authors, matters not one whit. What witness writes down their own testimony in preparation fror a hearing? Is it not standard practice for a third party to do this? Nae my dear friend, it is the testifier who counts and whether such matters were actually dictated or related by him. The use of the word 'some' would not in itself throw a case out, though it 'may' (or may not depending on the circumstances) deem those parts of the evidence to be disregarded. The case may be weakened, but since we have a very strong case to start with, these questionable matters may have little effect. Another point is that if corroboration can be drawn from other accepted testimonies then such evidence may be allowed to stand. You seem to have overlooked the rubber stamp of (Virgs) in my declaration. Such authority assuredly places unquestionable verity on the statement. There are two things which defy me, much to my angst. It is these matters which other board members should be addressing as a matter of importance. These are: 1) Why does Nathan not seek the approval of Virgs before he posts anything? 2) Why does Grats not come clean about whether or not rice features in his diet? If only we could get proper answers to these questions we could feel satisfied, rather than quibbling over lesser issues? I cannot see why you think you have a strong case when much of what is said in the bible defies the laws of physics and chemistry. There are also mistakes made in botany and biology as well as astronomy and cosmology. Now where do you think is a strong case? Oral testimony of credible eyewitnesses established at the time. This is known as 'best' evidence! If we accept that God can defy the laws of physics and chemistry, then we have no barriers to belief. Nothing is impossible with God. After all he created all things, including the laws of physics and chemistry. All creation is subject to the mind and will of God. He controls these things. They do not control God, which is a major flaw in the unbelieving argument. (VIRGS)
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Apr 3, 2020 2:31:38 GMT -5
I cannot see why you think you have a strong case when much of what is said in the bible defies the laws of physics and chemistry. There are also mistakes made in botany and biology as well as astronomy and cosmology. Now where do you think is a strong case? Oral testimony of credible eyewitnesses established at the time. This is known as 'best' evidence! If we accept that God can defy the laws of physics and chemistry, then we have no barriers to belief. Nothing is impossible with God. After all he created all things, including the laws of physics and chemistry. All creation is subject to the mind and will of God. He controls these things. They do not control God, which is a major flaw in the unbelieving argument. (VIRGS)I want a volunteer to stand over a keg of gunpowder, not a very big keg but enough to launch them into orbit around Venus. If that is successful then ascension may be believable. No rice required for the journey.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Apr 3, 2020 3:06:09 GMT -5
Oral testimony of credible eyewitnesses established at the time. This is known as 'best' evidence! If we accept that God can defy the laws of physics and chemistry, then we have no barriers to belief. Nothing is impossible with God. After all he created all things, including the laws of physics and chemistry. All creation is subject to the mind and will of God. He controls these things. They do not control God, which is a major flaw in the unbelieving argument. (VIRGS)I want a volunteer to stand over a keg of gunpowder, not a very big keg but enough to launch them into orbit around Venus. If that is successful then ascension may be believable. No rice required for the journey. My dear friend, I do respect your identifying as an atheist, which is your right, but I am a little troubled that this may not be your real position? Just why you would select a very Catholic idea to try and prove (disprove?) the ascension is way beyond me. Are you a closet Romanist? They do exist! However, that very idea that you have come up with, failed the test. Back in the year 1605 a Catholic inspired idea, very similar to the one you suggest (did you plagiarise it?) was meticulously planned, but failed. The only material difference is that the chosen astronauts were both unwilling and unknowing. As with your suggestion, it appears that rice was not included in any dietry needs, if such needs were even catered for? Anyway, I submit details of that very plan for your information and for those on the board who are interested in such matters. In conclusion, the plan did not prove the ascension. Is that why you wish it to be replicated? Your goal appears to be to disprove, rather that prove? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Apr 3, 2020 3:26:45 GMT -5
I want a volunteer to stand over a keg of gunpowder, not a very big keg but enough to launch them into orbit around Venus. If that is successful then ascension may be believable. No rice required for the journey. My dear friend, I do respect your identifying as an atheist, which is your right, but I am a little troubled that this may not be your real position? Just why you would select a very Catholic idea to try and prove (disprove?) the ascension is way beyond me. Are you a closet Romanist? They do exist! However, that very idea that you have come up with, failed the test. Back in the year 1605 a Catholic inspired idea, very similar to the one you suggest (did you plagiarise it?) was meticulously planned, but failed. The only material difference is that the chosen astronauts were both unwilling and unknowing. As with your suggestion, it appears that rice was not included in any dietry needs, if such needs were even catered for? Anyway, I submit details of that very plan for your information and for those on the board who are interested in such matters. In conclusion, the plan did not prove the ascension. Is that why you wish it to be replicated? Your goal appears to be to disprove, rather that prove? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_FawkesHow else then is one to ascend to Venus? Rice power?
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Apr 3, 2020 3:30:10 GMT -5
My dear friend, I do respect your identifying as an atheist, which is your right, but I am a little troubled that this may not be your real position? Just why you would select a very Catholic idea to try and prove (disprove?) the ascension is way beyond me. Are you a closet Romanist? They do exist! However, that very idea that you have come up with, failed the test. Back in the year 1605 a Catholic inspired idea, very similar to the one you suggest (did you plagiarise it?) was meticulously planned, but failed. The only material difference is that the chosen astronauts were both unwilling and unknowing. As with your suggestion, it appears that rice was not included in any dietry needs, if such needs were even catered for? Anyway, I submit details of that very plan for your information and for those on the board who are interested in such matters. In conclusion, the plan did not prove the ascension. Is that why you wish it to be replicated? Your goal appears to be to disprove, rather that prove? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_FawkesHow else then is one to ascend to Venus? Rice power? Exactly! Righteousness Is Christ Expressed!
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Apr 3, 2020 3:56:38 GMT -5
How else then is one to ascend to Venus? Rice power? Exactly! Righteousness Is Christ Expressed! Can you get a tartan flavour in that?
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Apr 3, 2020 4:56:39 GMT -5
Exactly! Righteousness Is Christ Expressed! Can you get a tartan flavour in that? An odd question from the very person who has proved such in the very recent past? www.scotweb.co.uk/tartan/Christian/55088
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2020 5:48:08 GMT -5
I see you are still attempting to deflect responsibility from your countrymen for inventing 2x2ism by now trying to suggest it started in Galway. It won’t work. Every sensible person knows it was started by a Scotsman who got the idea from an unnamed sister in Switzerland who heard it from Princess Victoria who was German. Lockdown or no lockdown the facts don’t change. Ireland had virtually nothing to do with it other than providing a ripe crop of wiling recruits (and I have the evidence to support this) whose ancestry can be traced to your island rather than mine and who came over here without being invited. Matt10 Matt10, as you know, the original Scots go all the way back to Ireland. A bit like Great Britain bundling off its convicts to the colonies a few centuries ago. Now I have heard your 'theory' about the true beginnings before....oft times I am afraid, but it is a poor attempt at supplanting the truth with falsehood. It matters not one whit that a Scotsman and an Irishman got together and put their idea into practice, because in this context responsibility is equally divided between the races. What does matter, is not 'who' but 'where.' It is the geography that counts, hence the Galilee claims. The battle rages. Embarrassed Irishmen say it began on the shores of Galloway (south-west Scotland), whilst every true enlightened Scot, either currently professing or formerly, knows that it began on the shores of Galway in West of Ireland. It seems the impasse led to the Galilee agreement? Yes, the original Scots go all the way back to Ireland but I’m sure you’re aware that the Kingdom of Scotland was subsequently infiltrated by large numbers of men from the south and that the River Irvine from which the great leader’s name derives is located in an area that was inhabited by Britons. Suspiciously Irvine is not far from Galloway either. Hmm. No matter how you try to dress it up Ireland bears no responsibility for the formation for this looney religious sect whatsoever. The only possible thing you can throw at us is Edward Cooney (was the name Cooney a typographical error?) and from what I know he was quickly banished from the island to some far off place never to return. Whether it was Galloway, Galilee or Glasgow I care not, the important thing to be clear on it was not Galway. Meanwhile here’s a recipe for a Galawati Kebab. Matt10 www.bawarchi.com/recipe/galawati-kebab-oetbqoiigebeb.html
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Apr 3, 2020 6:23:46 GMT -5
Matt10, as you know, the original Scots go all the way back to Ireland. A bit like Great Britain bundling off its convicts to the colonies a few centuries ago. Now I have heard your 'theory' about the true beginnings before....oft times I am afraid, but it is a poor attempt at supplanting the truth with falsehood. It matters not one whit that a Scotsman and an Irishman got together and put their idea into practice, because in this context responsibility is equally divided between the races. What does matter, is not 'who' but 'where.' It is the geography that counts, hence the Galilee claims. The battle rages. Embarrassed Irishmen say it began on the shores of Galloway (south-west Scotland), whilst every true enlightened Scot, either currently professing or formerly, knows that it began on the shores of Galway in West of Ireland. It seems the impasse led to the Galilee agreement? Yes, the original Scots go all the way back to Ireland but I’m sure you’re aware that the Kingdom of Scotland was subsequently infiltrated by large numbers of men from the south and that the River Irvine from which the great leader’s name derives is located in an area that was inhabited by Britons. Suspiciously Irvine is not far from Galloway either. Hmm. No matter how you try to dress it up Ireland bears no responsibility for the formation for this looney religious sect whatsoever. The only possible thing you can throw at us is Edward Cooney (was the name Cooney a typographical error?) and from what I know he was quickly banished from the island to some far off place never to return. Whether it was Galloway, Galilee or Glasgow I care not, the important thing to be clear on it was not Galway. Meanwhile here’s a recipe for a Galawati Kebab. Matt10 www.bawarchi.com/recipe/galawati-kebab-oetbqoiigebeb.htmlMany thanks for the recipe Matt10. Much appreciated. It just might be my over fertile, suspicious mind, but is this the beginning of and attempt to deflect from the beginnings in Galway to the Galawati origins in India? Please take into account that Irvine (okay a Scotsman) superintended the forerunner of the 'looney religious sect' in the west and south of Ireland during the 1890s via a two and two system. You may point out that this other looney religious sect, i.e. the Faith Mission, was also started by a Scotsman with its HQ in Edinburgh, but remember he learned his renegade behaviour in the Emerald Isle and having virtually gone AWOL from his masters, where he was uncontactable and off the reins, his new venture was gestating and was soon to be supported by his future Irish counterpart who not only threw in his lot with him, but sold his drapery business to fund the project. All this occurred far nearer to the shores of Galway than it did to the shores of Galloway, Galilee, to Glasgow or even a Galawati. I'm sure I have some references somewhere in Dorothy's annals, or possibly they are in Trevor's (her illegitimate son) documents, which can add strength to these facts?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 3, 2020 9:14:09 GMT -5
I don't need it to be ancient. I'd make do with a modern day miracle. You know, one where an amputee grows his limb back. Trouble is it seems that all miracles ended with the bible days. The miracles that Jesus and his disciples worked were for the Jews to prove to them that he was their long prophesied Messiah. Without those clear signs from God, they would not have believed. They even recognised this when Nicodemus came from the Sanhedrin by night and said thus to Jesus: John 3 King James Version (KJV) 3 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
God sent the Jews absolute proof that Jesus was their Messiah. The purpose of the miracles was to prove the word to an unbelieving people who rejected that proof. They were left with no excuse. God wants us to trust him at his word. Jesus even said that it was an evil and adulterous generation that sought a sign. The Jews sought signs whereas the Greeks (Gentiles) sought knowledge. God wants the 'just' to live by faith in him, not by proof or sight. He simply wants us to accept and follow him by his word. There are actually people, even today, who do this! Jesus told the bad guy when he was tempted by him to show that he was the son of God by working a miracle or two. His response was 'man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.' No signs, no wonders, just simple sincere faith and trust in the word of God. That's what God is looking for from his people. Just ask the guy below! (Virgs) Who is this guy called "(Virgs)" who you keep quoting?
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Apr 3, 2020 9:16:00 GMT -5
A list of a few pandemics God has fixed Atheism Agnosticism Watchtower & Bible Tract Society LDS LSD 2x2ism Scientism Christian Science .... ~~ Edward Cooney (1867-1960) 2x2 early days worker in (1901) wrote To Impartial Reporter 10/7/1909
1) Edward Cooney wrote, " We (2x2 workers) did NOT start this Jesus Way. It was started and planned by God before we were thought of, and we are earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the Saints and trying to separate it from the tradition of men. There was in the day, William Irvine, upon whose heart God's Spirit worked to raise him up like the judges of old, to lead back those in Christendom to the TRUTH as it is in Jesus." ( By Patricia Roberts book page 43-45)
Edward Cooney wrote, "Undoubtedly God has called us and separated us to be His people in the beginning, and most prominent and most used in this calling out a people, William Irvine who at the time of being sent forth to be a prophet, saw more clearly than any of us that the revelation of the Father to each individual child of His is Christ would build His Church, and that the gates of HELL shall NOT prevail against it." (By Patricia Roberts Page 43-45)
Here are lists of names of mean tradition churches the last 2000 yrs..... ~~ Why are there so MANY churches today? 38,000 denominations. Good Video! to listen.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH79F0Hn56U1) List of approximately 38,000 Christian denominations
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations 2) Names of 5000 denominations
www.philvaz.com/DENOMS.php#TYou might find some interesting books to read more on the Roman Catholic Church history to the present day: 1. A City on Seven Hills by Dave Hunt. 2. A woman Rides the Beasts (chapter 6) by Dave Hunt. 3. The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days. By Dave Hunt. P.O. Box 7019 Bend, Oregon 97708 Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Knox got together in Switzerland to try to work out a way to reform the Church but they could NOT agree with each other.
John Calvin, a Frenchman became the leader of the Huguenots and Puritans. John Knox, a Scotch was appointed by Queen Elizabeth to start the Presbyterian Church in [1560]. They broke away from the Catholic Church to try having something more like it should be the Way of Jesus. They broke away from the Catholic Church bodily BUT NOT in spirit. They started their church with the same paraphernalia the Catholic had in the infant stage. Church buildings, Property, Names, Robes, Ceremony, Traditions. They should have gone back to Christ's teachings, but they ONLY went back to where the Catholic Church started in the beginning, and followed most of their customs. Church Year/Established Founder/Where Established
The New Testament Church by Jesus Christ 33 A.D. The Vaudois apostolic ministry founded by Paul 68 A.D. Catholic (Universal) in Rome founded by the bishops 320 A.D. Orthodox 1054 Schismatic Catholic Bishops Constantinople Lutheran 1517 Martin Luther Germany Anabaptist 1521 Nicholas Storch & Thomas Munzer Germany Anglican 1534 Henry VIII England Henry VIII (28 June 1491 – 28 January 1547) was King of England from 21 April 1509 until his death. Henry was the second Tudor monarch, succeeding his father, Henry VII. Henry is best known for his six marriages and, in particular, his efforts to have his first marriage, to Catherine of Aragon, annulled. His disagreement with the Pope on the question of such an annulment led Henry to initiate the English Reformation, separating the Church of England from papal authority and appointing himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England. Despite his resulting excommunication, Henry remained a believer in core Catholic theological teachings. Domestically, Henry is known for his radical changes to the English Constitution, ushering in the theory of the divine right of kings to England. Besides asserting the sovereign's supremacy over the Church of England, he greatly expanded royal power during his reign. Charges of treason and heresy were commonly used to quash dissent, and those accused were often executed without a formal trial, by means of bills of attainder. He achieved many of his political aims through the work of his chief ministers, some of whom were banished or executed when they fell out of his favor. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Apr 3, 2020 9:22:28 GMT -5
(Part II)
Mennonites 1536 Menno Simons Switzerland Calvinist 1555 John Calvin Switzerland Presbyterian 1560 John Knox Scotland Congregational 1582 Robert Brown Holland Baptist 1609 John Smyth Amsterdam
Dutch Reformed 1628 Michaelis Jones New York Congregationalist 1648 Pilgrims and Puritans Massachusetts Quakers 1649 George Fox England Amish 1693 Jacob Amman France Freemasons 1717 Masons from four lodges London
Methodist 1739 John & Charles Wesley England Unitarian 1774 Theophilus Lindey London Methodist Episcopal 1784 60 Preachers Baltimore, MD Episcopalian 1789 Samuel Seabury American Colonies
United Brethren 1800 Philip Otterbein & Martin Boehn Maryland Disciples of Christ 1827 Thomas & Alexander Campbell Kentucky Mormon 1830 Joseph Smith New York Methodist Protestant 1830 Methodist United States
Church of Christ 1836 Warren Stone & Alexander Campbell Kentucky Seventh Day Adventist 1844 Ellen White Washington, NH Christadelphian (Brethren of Chris) 1844 John Thomas Richmond, VA Salvation Army 1865 William Booth London Holiness movement 1867 Methodist United States
Jehovah's Witnesses 1874 Charles Taze Russell Pennsylvania Christian Science 1879 Mary Baker Eddy Boston Faith Mission John Govan 1886 Church of God in Christ 1895 Various churches of God Arkansas
Church of Nazarene c. 1850-1900 Various religious bodies Pilot Point, TX Pentecstal 1901 Charles F. Parkham Topeka, KS Assemblies of God 1914 Pentecostalism Hot Springs, AZ Iglesia ni Christo 1914 Felix Manalo Philippines Four-square Gospel 1917 Aimee Semple McPherson Los Angeles, CA
United Church of Christ 1961 Reformed and Congregationalist Philadelphia, PA Calvary Chapel 1965 Chuck Smith Costa Mesa, CA United Methodist 1968 Methodist and United Brethren Dallas, TX Born-again c. 1970s Various religious bodies United States Harvest Christian 1972 Greg Laurie Riverside, CA
Non-denominational c. 1990s various United States
In 1985 the number of the Protestants Christians Denominations Surpassed 22,OOO with an average of 5 new ones organized each week according to U.S News magazine in 3/4/91.
There are about 40,000 different Christian denominations in the world added since AD 30. Some groups classify Christianity into 8 meta-groups, namely Roman Catholicism (the largest), Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and Assyrian Churches, Protestantism, Restorationism, Anglican Communicants, Pentecostal, and others.
|
|