Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#467598 Nov 18, 2012
Brother Lee Love wrote:
G_O_D...
Pardon my intrusion, but I can't help but wonder...
Which higher, intelligent, supreme being do you worship?
How did you come to learn of this being?
If asked to provide written evidence of this being, what source(s) do you recommend?
sorry BLL for interuption
during my long obseravation of G_0_D POSTS.
clearly is visible that he doesn't worship anyone,nor any GOD

this very simple low educated poster using his own street wisdom to post internet different writters webs-mostly confusing if you read them carefuly and read them make head mish mash like head of g_o_d poster

g_o_d guesses, thoughts without of any logical base,accusations,insults other christians, just are unworthy in the world of spiritual debates, or biblical discussions

guy is just lost and entertain yourselves having a lot of time,seating in the bad and plying with internet possters

May G-D bless you Sir BLL
I think you got nothing against me for sometimes harsh unpleasant posts.
I LIKE TO READ AND ANALIZE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE CYBER SPACE

“Saved. ”

Since: Aug 12

Like Ice On planet Mercury

#467599 Nov 18, 2012
LAWEST100 wrote:
<quoted text> According to the prophet Isaiah who pretty much bears out all that I've been saying to you Jesus is both the child given IS the MIGHTY GOD, THE EVERLASTING FATHER and THE PRINCE OF PEACE, and his name shall be called wonderful ( and it is a wonderful name ) and counsellor ( because he councils his people tbrough his Word and spirit ) and the government is upon his shoulders ( because he has all power ).
According to the original hebrew language for this verse in the Bible... Father isn't mentioned (Eternal is, but not Father):

http://interlinearbible.org/isaiah/9-6.htm

“Saved. ”

Since: Aug 12

Like Ice On planet Mercury

#467600 Nov 18, 2012
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
So did Mary Magdalene and his disciples. They too had a Father.
However, Jesus had no father. And the Father was not really his father.
The Father was everybody's Father, not everybody's father.
Yes indeed... that is what makes Jesus Sonship so unique... His true Daddy was God The Father... Big Daddy.
Doctor REALITY

Little Rock, AR

#467601 Nov 18, 2012
BIBLE TRUE JEHOVA wrote:
<quoted text>
please?don't rewrite Bible,sugest, or play more smart from Jesus
read Jesus statement about His Baptism from John,
your bambling,sugestions,and posibility together with those internet web faken media works for nobody, at first destroy you and put in the light of complete dumb
very soon you will sugest that Jesus was chineese,he he heeeeee
read Bible that is all what is left for you in those last days of your life
have good day and fast departure from Lies, and quesses
Shrink,why are you arguing with that child of Satan?! Just as the book of Job mentioned an ocassion when Satan also came along one day when all of the faithful angels went before the Throne of God to themselves before the Lord,so also this 'g-d' character comes to this christian forum,even though he knows he's a child of the devil trying to use this 'ocassion',or christian forum,to VAINLY present his case. He's an evil,unrepentant son of Satan who has no conscious about speaking evil against the Holy Bible and the Lord Jesus Christ. That's why I don't WASTE TIME trying to respond to his silly posts. I dismissed him and his 'illogic' long ago.
Doctor REALITY

Little Rock, AR

#467602 Nov 18, 2012
LAWEST100 wrote:
<quoted text> Wow!!!!!!!... Do you ever have alot to learn in the Lord..........
How many white friends do you have?
Doctor REALITY

Little Rock, AR

#467603 Nov 18, 2012
Qu_innocence wrote:
<quoted text>According to the original hebrew language for this verse in the Bible... Father isn't mentioned (Eternal is, but not Father):
http://interlinearbible.org/isaiah/9-6.htm
How many white friends do you have?

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#467604 Nov 18, 2012
Qu_innocence wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, Melchizedek was a normal human being. The author of Hebrews was just simply explaining how Melchizedek was an archetype of the Messiah and how the prophecy of the Melchizedek order (in Psalm 110) came to pass through Jesus...
"The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."
Psalms 110:4
<quoted text>I've read of some leaders that were worshipped (Nimrod/Semiramis/Tammuz) etc...
But Melchizedek was a "human" King and a Priest of the Most High God... he wasn't the Most High God in bodily form like it was with some of the other pagan kings who were worshipped. Melchie was more like a chieftain (or some elder) of his own tribe of people and ruled that region or bit of land.. In his priestly action with Abram, he was being a facilitator of worship TO the Most High God rather than being worshipped. As a king, it was usually customary to pay tribute to the ruler of that land which one passes through, especially if they are friendly.
I agree with most of your point. As we have no details on Melchie outside the Hebrew sory it is impossible to do more than compare him to the numerous Sumerian leaders we do have details on.

That is to say, Melchie was a Sumerian human and nothing more.

The use of the term 'archtype' is IMHO a ex post facto apologetic and has no validity. One should not 'read into' the Scriptures what isn't there.

Note that the Jews, even at the time of Jesus, understood that the 'Messiah' was not in the Scriptures and is only a 'tradition' that became a part of Judaism without much Biblical support.

There are Jews that believe that several Messiahs have come and some Jews believe there is a Messiah in every generation. There even Jews that believe they are the Messiah. None of which is blasphemy in Judaism.
Doctor REALITY

Little Rock, AR

#467605 Nov 18, 2012
Doctor REALITY wrote:
TODAY is the day of salvation,for the Lord Jesus Christ has not promised you tomorrow!!: http://www.bing.com/videos/search...
Hundreds and thousands of people in need of salvation won't live to see tomorrow. And THIS is a prime example of why the Lord Jesus Christ said 'TODAY is the day of salvation,for you are not promised tomorrow!: http://www.bing.com/videos/search...

“Saved. ”

Since: Aug 12

Like Ice On planet Mercury

#467606 Nov 18, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
The tribe of Benjamin ceased to exist when Judah was conquered by Babylon in c. 586 BCE.
It is refered to as a "lost tribe". Just another case of PAul having no clue about Judaism. Also, as a non-Jew he would not have been a Pharisee...esp. if he was a Roman persecutor of Jews.
Actually, they were all lost tribes (so it would seem) when they got scattered into exile.. but mostly their tribalship got diluted. Eventually, the people who had called themselves Benjaminites merged in with Judah and just considered themselves Jews... but some Jews still kept accurate geneologies like other non-jewish people do today.
Doctor REALITY

Little Rock, AR

#467607 Nov 18, 2012

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#467608 Nov 18, 2012
Brother Lee Love wrote:
G_O_D...
Pardon my intrusion, but I can't help but wonder...
Which higher, intelligent, supreme being do you worship?
How did you come to learn of this being?
If asked to provide written evidence of this being, what source(s) do you recommend?
I believe in God. The non-anthropomophic creative force from which the entire universe came into being and whose rules govern it.

I see God in action every day of my life. That is the 'proof'.

Just as I do not have to be an electrician to accept that electricity is real, I do not need a religion to understand that God is real.
Doctor REALITY

Little Rock, AR

#467609 Nov 18, 2012

“Saved. ”

Since: Aug 12

Like Ice On planet Mercury

#467610 Nov 18, 2012
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Regarding Melchizedek, I agree with "Jehovah's Witnesses" interpretation.
First, it's written of him: "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God..."
In saying that he was made "like unto the Son of God," this must be in reference to how our anointed Savior was conceived in the womb of Mary. Like the creation of the very first man, intercourse was unnecessary in order for our anointed Savior to be conceived. Melchizedek's origins must have been identical, then. He wasn't conceived, nor born. He just was.
Also, to call Melchizedek the "king of Salem" identifies with our anointed Savior being appointed King, as well. "Salem" is nothing more than another name for Jerusalem. And Jerusalem is, after all, the resting place of "God's" earthly throne, even if a temple doesn't exist. Jerusalem is, with or without a temple, Zion.
Titles are most significant throughout the bible. Many times, titles are given as names. "Melchizedek" is one of these. As I believe, "Melchizedek" is the name and title of our anointed Savior as he appeared as a terrestrial being, but before he was born of a woman. When he was born of a woman, he was given a different name and title that identified with his overall mission. When in the spirit-realm, he was referred to, man times, as "the Angel of YHWH." And like "Jehovah's Witnesses," I believe that other than this title, that he was also called "Michael" when in the spirit-realm.
NOTE: For what reason would Abram offer tithes to Melchizedek unless he had knowledge of who Melchizedek was beforehand?
We read a few times how the most High visited Abram, even before Abram's visit by Melchizedek. According to what's written, though, we can easily conclude that a representative was actually sent to Abram, to talk with him. This representative, most likely, was our anointed Savior- the most High's foremost Angel. It's reasonable to conclude, then, that Abram recognized Melchizedek, having received visitations from him before.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Good afternoon BLL... thanks for sharing your input... I'll take a look more in depth on this 2morrow.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#467612 Nov 18, 2012
Qu_innocence wrote:
If you say that Jesus' spirit was God The Father... then The Father was being tempted because temptation not only appeals to the flesh but it has a spiritual characteristic as well. And to say God the Father can be tempted goes against scripture because God (The Father) cannot be tempted... but Jesus was in all ways tempted according to scripture.
Jesus clearly says in the scriptures over and over again that His Father was in heaven and prayed to His Father in heaven. I have to go with the scriptures Bro.
If you don't mind, I'd like to add that if our anointed Savior, like Father, could not be tempted, or was unable to sin, then his being tempted, all in all, was pointless, and makes null and void the fact that he conquered sin. None can't conquer what they never confront.

Additionally, he was our substitute on the cross. A substitute must, especially in the case of his sacrifice, identify perfectly with the initial subject, being susceptible to sin. As our sacrifice, he could not be unclean, nor a sinner, as such sacrifices were prohibited by the law. To avoid uncleanness, he was conceived without an earthly father. To remain perfect, he had to overcome every temptation while being just as susceptible to sin as we are. If he was not susceptible to sin, then he would not have been a proper, acceptable substitute.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
Doctor REALITY

Little Rock, AR

#467613 Nov 18, 2012
That must hav been before he got the ring.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#467614 Nov 18, 2012
CORRECTION: None CAN conquer what they never confront.

“Saved. ”

Since: Aug 12

Like Ice On planet Mercury

#467615 Nov 18, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
As if he is going to tell his followers that the real Apostles told him to sit down and shut up.
Remember Paul was in Rome and visited Jerusalem only once and very briefly. Also there is much to indicate that his comments on Peter were were possible fabrications as there is much evidence that Peter was never in Rome:
"First of all, there is no place in the New Testament where there is any hint or any record of any kind that Peter was in Rome. In 1 Peter 5:13, it tells us very plainly that he wrote that epistle from the city of Babylon [In Peters day Babylon was still a city and a territory—See Josephus, Antiquities, Book xv, Ch 2, 2. "The ancient city of Mesopotamia, an area which was then a center of pure and uncompromising Judiasim" p. 65, 1 Peter by A. M. Stibbs. ACT 2:9 tells us they were in the Pentecost crowd. "After the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 Babylonia became, and for centuries remained, a seat of Jewish Schools devoted to the study and interpretation of the law" Dictionary of the Bible, p. 72, by J. J. Davis]. This is far to the east of the Roman Empire and not in Rome which is in the western part of the Empire. This is where Peter apparently had much of his ministry among the many Jews scattered there from previous centuries. He was there preaching that the Messiah had come, that Jesus Christ was that promised Messiah, and that Jesus Christ was the only hope of salvation. He was there preaching to those people when he wrote the epistles of 1 and 2 Peter. He wrote to those who were in what is now Asia Minor or what is now modern Turkey. All of these districts that he mentions are in a little section of eastern Turkey. The New Testament gives no statement or hint whatever that Peter was ever in the City of Rome, the Capital of the Roman Empire in his day.
There is some groundless tradition that says Peter was in Rome. One problem with the tradition is that the tradition is full of errors, mistakes, things that are incorrect. I’ve read parts of Josephus, all of the Apostolic Fathers, in English translation. Time and time again, as I read in these old writings, or check some writers reference to them. The references are there but in the very context in which the references are found the whole thing was full of things that are contradictory to the New Testament. Therefore being contrary to the New Testament their evidence is worthless."
http://www.christianbeliefs.org/articles/pete...
I'll get more in depth with this post 2morrow. smile.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#467616 Nov 18, 2012
Qu_innocence wrote:
<quoted text>Joseph and Mary were cousins from the same Judaean tribe... both of their lineages linked to King David who was from the tribe of Judah... and then the rest of the geneology shows King David's ancestral line and connection to judah.
Remember the Roman census? They had to go back to their home town to be counted (for tax reasons)... that was Bethlehem which was in Judah.
There are no records of Rome ever performing a census as described in the Bible. Rather, it is contraindicated by all other sources and archaelogy.

The closest one cancome is the cencus of Emperor Augustus (27 BC – AD 14) which places it long after Jesus "sat on the steps of the Temple".

It is more likely that in the telling of the legends, timelines got confused.
Doctor REALITY

Little Rock, AR

#467617 Nov 18, 2012

“Saved. ”

Since: Aug 12

Like Ice On planet Mercury

#467618 Nov 18, 2012
"To carry a grudge is like being stung to death by one bee."

William H. Walton

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 11 min Hukt on Fonix 775,626
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 14 min Oxbow 559,636
What country has the best culture in your opinion? (Jul '08) 34 min Confused 251
Gay snapchat names 39 min Pittspens71 150
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 57 min Rick in Kansas 265,185
21 Dead Babies Found on Riverbank in China (Mar '10) 59 min McGold 661
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr Chris Clearwater 175,684
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 2 hr duststorm 441,786
More from around the web