“squuuze me”

Since: Feb 09

Florida, USA

#468286 Nov 24, 2012
Doctor DUFUS REALITY wrote:
As much as I hate the thought of a 'tracking deice' being attached to someone's person,in the world we live in today,I must agree that hidden tracking devices could possibly discourage criminal activity. http://politix.topix.com/homepage/3531-girl-e...
It's impossible to legislate morality ...dufus.

Implantable devices/tracking bracelets bla-bla-bla will work about as good as all the other gimmicks man has used to deter criminal activity.

Lindsay for President!!!

“squuuze me”

Since: Feb 09

Florida, USA

#468287 Nov 24, 2012
Qu_innocence wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup! Smile.
<quoted text>Exactly.
<quoted text> Most definitely a companion. She came from Adam's DNA (okay, rib) and that does somehow make her biologically related to Adam.
<quoted text>And I appreciate it too.
Morning Qu ...
The writers/translators of the Bible knew nothing of DNA, which brings up an interesting question that has never occured to me before; why a rib ...when God could just of easily of used a fingernail, a hair, or just swabbed Adams mouth?

“Saved. ”

Since: Aug 12

Like Ice On planet Mercury

#468288 Nov 24, 2012
hick-up wrote:
<quoted text>
Morning Qu ...
Good morning HU.
hick-up wrote:
<quoted text>
The writers/translators of the Bible knew nothing of DNA, which brings up an interesting question that has never occured to me before; why a rib ...when God could just of easily of used a fingernail, a hair, or just swabbed Adams mouth?
You're right that they didn't know these things which makes it more interesting to me how they could write such things as science confirms, in theory at least, how some of these things are possible. In my view and understanding, Eve was a genetically modified clone. I believe this because the Bible talks about how he took the rib (I believe a cell from the rib) and "made" a woman. That word "made" in the Hebrew means "to build or rebuild". I believe God re-engineered that adult cell structure to make the woman. In theory, I've read that one can get a woman out of a man in a theorized, modified cloning process but not the other way around.

I believe God used a rib.. also translated as "side" in the original because being at one's side IMHO would symbolically indicate companionship or being equals... rather than under the feet... or behind the back... or in front of. The side tells a little story of what God originally intended, that they were suppose to both take dominion of the earth. And even though Adam was created first they were still suppose to be equals.

Genesis 1:26 "let them"... JMO

“Saved. ”

Since: Aug 12

Like Ice On planet Mercury

#468289 Nov 24, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't agree with that Gnostic religion either. Let us remember that most of what we assume about "gnosticism" in Christianity is base on two small Egyptian (Coptic) groups' texts. There is much more in the the Jewish tradition of Kabbalah and the Greek neoplatonism (from which John got his "Logos").
What the variety of surviving non-canonical texts show is that prior to Constantine there was no single christian doctrine or belief. There are many who think that nothing existed outside Paul and what would become the RCC for three hundred years. That idea is erroneous.
Good early mornin' G... there was definitely a battle of ideas going on there about Christ in those times... even now. But even though pagan gnosticism existed long before Christianity I believe that Simon Magus, the sorcerer who supposedly got save in the book of Acts, is the actual father of Christian Gnosticism. I believe that he wasn't sincere and eventually merged the Greek philosophy of platoism, mysticism and christianity... at least that is what some histories allude to.

“Saved. ”

Since: Aug 12

Like Ice On planet Mercury

#468290 Nov 24, 2012
Old School Granny wrote:
<quoted text>
QU, I applaud the courage it takes to bring in all that you are --some I understand and some is new to me -- curious as to whether you will bring in anything from the Bema Seat and what your beliefs are in this -- but don't let me distract you -- I'm reading along and may God bless you for taking the time to tackle this endeavor. TLC - Judy
I've seen Skom, RA and some others talking about it before but I never really looked that far into it.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#468291 Nov 24, 2012
LAWEST100 wrote:
Good evening BLL and thank you for your understanding, I am quite confident that I am correct in what I have said especially after reading the surrounding verses to that scripture that you posted, this is talking about our bodies being united with Christ's spirit and being one in that regard as well as a scripture warning us against engaging in fornication and to yeild your members ( your body ) unto God's spirit, I don't see that scripture refuting anything about tbe Godhead and the oneness of Christ and the Father being one and the same.
And good evening to you, Brother LAWEST100.

So you know, this will probably be my last installment regarding this topic. And before I continue, I'd like to share with you the pleasure I've had having this discussion with you. I truly appreciate your congeniality. As you most likely know, the ability to remain respectful during discussions is quite rare in many forums and threads of Topix. If you all will have me, I think I might have found a new home. Now, my comment.

I asked that you consider the Greek term "MIA" for its definitive and interpretive use. It seems to me that when the author wished to indicate a literal application of the subject, they would use the Greek term "MIA." But, when the author wished to indicate a figurative application of the subject, they would use the term "HEIS." Throughout the writings of the "New Testament," I've noticed that "HEIS" is commonly used to describe groups, but in a singular fashion. However, when describing a single person, place, or thing, and not in a group, "MIA" is most commonly used. John 10:30 and 1John 5:7-8 are among those that have "HEIS" in their construct.

Again, I truly appreciate your congeniality, and I thank you for discussing this subject with me. Until next time...

May the shalowm of our 'Elohiym remain with you and yours.

“Saved. ”

Since: Aug 12

Like Ice On planet Mercury

#468292 Nov 24, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that God is neither good or evil, no more than a shark is good or evil.
One can easily make a scriptural case that God is evil just as easily as one can make a case that God is good.
IMHO as soon as we put human moraks on God we are trying to impose our opinions on God, something that is doomed to failure.
IN Tolkein's work the Silmarilian, the elves are jelous of man and agree with God because God gave humans the gift of death. They felt that immortality was a curse, not a blessing.
The less I fear death, the more I am starting to side with the elves.
My own view is that God is Good... but often misunderstood.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#468293 Nov 24, 2012
1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This is only one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted verses in the bible. People, with their agendas, use this to prove that our Father, our anointed Savior and the Holy Spirit, are literally one entity, but three distinct individuals at the same time. They puff themselves up by believing (after being convinced by indoctrination) that this is the mystery of "God" that only they understand, as the Holy Spirit has revealed this mystery to them. Now, before I continue with 1John 5:7, to explain what John meant, I'd like to share with you a scripture that uses this same language. Following is an excerpt from a prayer our anointed Savior prayed to Father.

John 17:21 That they all may be ONE; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be ONE in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

QUESTION: What do these these bear record of? And what makes these three "one?"

Of course, I have to begin by saying that, this "one" does not mean that the three are also one and the same. The Greek reads as such: "OTIS TREIS EISIN OI MARTUROUNTES." Now, if we examine the Greek term "eisin," which is our English "one," we'll see that this is not a numeric indicate. Rather, this "one," or "eisin" means "to agree in one." Now, if we read verse 8 of 1John 5, this says, "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The Greek reads as such: "TO PNEUMA KAE TO UDOR KAI TO AIMA KAI OI TREIS EIS TO EN EISIN." Hopefully, we notice that this Greek term, "eisin," is used again. And again, and as it's translated in our English versions, the definition means "to agree in one." Essentially, then, we can easily translate 1John 5:7 to say, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three agree in one," and not be in error.

QUESTION: If John was not promoting any belief of a so-called "trinity," then what was John referring to?

This takes us back to my initial questions. From 1John 5:5, we read of John declaring, "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" So, by verse 7, John was offering proof by reminding the church that there are three that bear witness to this fact. But, when was this? The answer is simple, as it was literal events that John was alluding to.

Matthew 3:16-17 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Father: "a voice from heaven"
the Word: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Holy Ghost: "the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him."

John testified that Father had told him (John 1:33-34), "Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." Then, John admitted, "And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God."

The error derives from the translator's capitalization of the term "Word" in the verse. Because of this, we believe this "Word" is our anointed Savior. But, as we can see, it's not. To further prove this and to understand 1John 5:8, too, we need not look any further than his crucifixion. Read John 19:34, Luke 23:46-47, Mark 15:37-39, and Matthew 27:50-54, for further proof.

In conclusion, what John was proving at, not only verse 7, but verse 8, too, was not that any so-called "trinity" exists, but that the three mentioned bear record and witness that our anointed Savior is, indeed, the Son of "God," as all three "agree in one." If anything, his baptism and crucifixion testify to this fact!

Thank you for your time and consideration.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#468294 Nov 24, 2012
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

This is only one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted verses in the bible. People, with their agendas, use this to prove that our anointed Savior and Father are, literally, one entity, but three (with the Holy Spirit included) distinct individuals at the same time. They puff themselves up by believing (after being convinced by indoctrination) that this is the mystery of "God" that only they understand, as the Holy Spirit has revealed this mystery to them. Now, before I continue with John 10:30, to explain what our anointed Savior meant, I'd like to share with you a scripture that uses this same language. Following is an excerpt from a prayer our anointed Savior prayed to Father.

John 17:21 That they all may be ONE; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be ONE in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Now, we can safely believe that Father granted our anointed Savior his request. Considering his request, though, are we now to believe that those that he prayed for were allowed membership into the so-called "trinity?" If not, why not? Or, does his request reveal to us what he meant, as recorded at John 10:30?

At John 10:24, we read how that the Jews were demanding of our anointed Savior an answer, as to whether he was the promised Messiah or not. He replied, "I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me." By verse 29, he made the declaration, "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." Father is greater than all, he said. And according to John 14:28, he also admitted, "my Father is greater than I." Greater, indeed, as "God of gods (Deut 10:17)." And even so, and as recorded at John 10:30, "I and my Father are one," declared our King and Lord. This provoked the wrath of the Jews, as they "took up stones again to stone him." Now, Yahowshua defended himself, but the Jews justified themselves by saying, "For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." Did our anointed Savior make himself "God" by saying the he and Father are one?

Our Lord corrected the Jews by saying, first, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" He quoted Psalm 82:6 to remind them that, even if that were the case, he would not be in error. Note, that at that moment, our anointed Savior was making a distinction between Father "God" and gods, even though the terms and definition are identical. He continued by saying, "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture CANNOT be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

Okay. First, the scripture "cannot be broken," so whether we agree or not makes no difference. "God" called them gods, by "whom the word of God came." Our anointed Savior brought the word and the Jews were well aware of that. But, then, what did he ask? Did he not try to correct their misunderstanding? They falsely accused him, evidently, by thinking that he meant he was Father "God" when he claimed that he and Father are one. What he meant, though and as he declared, was that he was "the Son of God." So, now I ask...

Why do we hold fast to the false accusation of the Jews when we read John 10:30 and not the correction made by our anointed Savior at verse 36? Why do we, like the Jews, insist that our anointed Savior was making himself Father "God" instead of "the Son of God," as he stated? Why do we insist on holding fast to the erroneous doctrine that's been upheld over the years by our "churches" and not what our anointed Savior declared himself? Do we believe men before what's written? We must, because this is how John 10:30 is taught, that Father and Son are one and the same rather than just in union with one another.

Thank you.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#468295 Nov 24, 2012
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

This is only one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted verses in the bible. People, with their agendas, use this to prove that our anointed Savior is the same "I AM" of Exodus 3:14. This says, "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." Now, before I continue with John 8:58, to explain what our anointed Savior meant, I'd like to share with you scriptures that uses this same language. Following is an excerpt from a letter Paul wrote to the church at Corinth.

1Corinthians 15:9-10 For ~I am~ the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God ~I am what I am~: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Now, how many of us will say, now, that Paul was referring to himself as the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14? Not only did Paul use the phrase "I am" (in verse 9), but he also used the phrase "I am what I am" (in verse 10). Is Paul, now, the "I AM" that spoke with Moses?

This conversation began early that morning, when the scribes and Pharisees brought a woman unto him, having been caught in the very act of adultery (John 8:3). By wisdom, our Lord saved her. By verses 31-33, we can read what also provoked such a murderous spirit in the Jews. Our Lord said, "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." The Jews' response exposes the reason for the actions we read at verse 59. They replied, "We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?" They also boasted, "Abraham is our father."

To understand the controversy, we have to understand, more than anything else, the importance of lineage to the Jews with, especially, Abraham. John warned them, "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." Abraham is, to say the least, not only the progenitor of the nation of Israel, but also the father of the covenant. In the mind of the Jew, without Abraham, there'd be no nation, nor covenant. Who can be greater except "God" Himself? Abraham was to the Jew as our Lord is to us.

The Jews had just called our Lord a demon-possessed Samaritan. Of course, our Lord defended himself. What started this controversy, though, begins more-so at verse 51. He declared, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." The Jews then replied, "Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?" Now, it's our Lord's statement that caused such confusion among the Jews. He said, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad." The Jews asked, "Thou are not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" He declared unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

Question: Did our Lord reveal an identity, or a reference to time?
Answer: Both.

The fact is, he revealed who he was, as the laws, prophecies, and psalms, speak of a coming Messiah that existed before the foundation of the world. The Messiah is not only the offspring of Abraham, but the root. Nevertheless, his statement does not mean he's the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14. His saying "I am" was only to express that he existed "Before Abraham was." It's us that exceeds the definition of what he meant. And because of this, we promote falsehood.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

“Saved. ”

Since: Aug 12

Like Ice On planet Mercury

#468296 Nov 24, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on genetics and USA law, Eve would be his daughter.
If you're referring to cloning I've read that they are still trying to figure out the ethics in all of this. In most circles they theorized that a clone of that person would genetically be their brother or sister but not their son or daughter. But ethically, and they are still trying to figure it out, if a female clone was placed in the original lady's own uterus then the original would treat the clone as their daughter.

Natural clones are identical twins,as they share the same exact DNA structure. Personally, I believe in Adam & Eve's case... that Eve was a genetically, modified clone of Adam... which in that case would genetically make Eve his sister. Eve didn't descend from Adam's seed as Judy mentioned but rather she came out of Adam's rib (I believe rib cell in this case)
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
In Jewish tradition, Lilith was his first 'wife' whom Adam 'sent away'(not divorced) and formed from the clay and spirit just like Adam.
In essense, we are the offspring of adultery and incest. Maybe that is why we humans are such crazy bastrards. <smile>
I believe this story comes from Jewish mysticism sometimes called jewitchery. I don't subscribe to the lilith story. Lilith by the way was in that mystic view a demon goddess and had various names thoughout history like hekate, inanna, ashera and the like... she is also know as the queen of the witches.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#468297 Nov 24, 2012
Sorry for the double-post, all. Hopefully, our moderators will erase one of them.

And for the record, these were originally posted mid-December of last year.

“Saved. ”

Since: Aug 12

Like Ice On planet Mercury

#468298 Nov 24, 2012
Qu_innocence wrote:
<quoted text>Good evening Jute... I understand these views are very traditional but thank you for supporting my right to express some of these views.... smile.
I meant "aren't very traditional" Judy, sorry.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#468299 Nov 24, 2012
If interested take a peek.

Why God created woman from Man's rib.
<<In him hope abound

Journalynn wordpress.com

“Saved. ”

Since: Aug 12

Like Ice On planet Mercury

#468300 Nov 24, 2012
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Sorry for the double-post, all. Hopefully, our moderators will erase one of them.
And for the record, these were originally posted mid-December of last year.
Good Mornin' Bro lee... welp, it's time for me to turn in... there's a few posts that I have yet to answer from Wednesday from you, Scott, G, BTJ and Skom but I can't keep my eyes open right any longer lol... it's been a pretty long day. See you guys later on, Lordwilling. Smile.

“Saved. ”

Since: Aug 12

Like Ice On planet Mercury

#468301 Nov 24, 2012
lil whispers wrote:
If interested take a peek.
Why God created woman from Man's rib.
<<In him hope abound
Journalynn wordpress.com
Good Morning LW, I pressed on the link but it took me somewhere else... please resend... see you later Lordwilling! Smile.

bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#468302 Nov 24, 2012
BIBLE TRUE JEHOVA wrote:
<quoted text>
whorever,
keep this to yourselves, anyway you are spiritualy dumb,
you doesn't understand ancient antiquity line earthly genealogical generations writtings ,mister'smart" from africa dessert
Actually, I wrote this:

"The genealogies of Jesus, are wrong and absurd. Jesus cannot have any genealogy because he had no father.

And the Father was not his father.

If you call him the Son of God, how can you then call him the Son of David and link him up with men? Was David his father or the Father?"

If you are living in a lovely oasis, please answer my questions. Those are perfectly valid questions.

Bonus questions: How can you call him Son of Man, when God was never called Man? And also, when Jesus was not the son of any man.

He was the only son of my dearest mother Maryam (Mary).

bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#468303 Nov 24, 2012
Brother Lee Love wrote:
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

This is only one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted verses in the bible. People, with their agendas, use this to prove that our anointed Savior is the same "I AM" of Exodus 3:14.

Nevertheless, his statement does not mean he's the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14. His saying "I am" was only to express that he existed "Before Abraham was." It's us that exceeds the definition of what he meant.

And because of this, we promote falsehood.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
Excellent! And that is correct.

He wanted to say that he was there in the heavens before Abraham was sent down on earth.

If Jesus had wanted to say that he was the 'I Am' of Moses and the Israelites, he would have said:

"Before Abraham was born, I was the I Am." And if he had said that, he would have been killed on the spot.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#468304 Nov 24, 2012
Qu_innocence wrote:
<quoted text>Good Morning LW, I pressed on the link but it took me somewhere else... please resend... see you later Lordwilling! Smile.
Hi Q;

I found this by pure accident and only wanted to share is all.
Only I do not how to do this internet system so here goes once again before I cave in here.

Why God created woman from man's rib.
<<In him hope...
Journalynne.wordpress.com/.../11/why-god-crea...

There is also a u tube video on this page with this to watch.

Have a good evening thanks for your patiences with me.God bless.

bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#468305 Nov 24, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
His comment to the Samaritan woman was fine for a fresh convert to Judaism. We see it all the time here with the "only real christians" attacking the sect they abandoned.

As for Nazarine, Nazarite. I think there is a lot of confusion where people try to make thing connect because of similar sounding words or misspellings that foster new inventions. Think of the words deer and dear, are they the same ?

What if deer are dear to me ? My wife is a deer ? and my favorite play on the words:
"Goodbye deer, have fawn."

Anyway, in ancient Judaism, the term nazarite was used to simply describe a "holy man" what we call hermits and monks.

The term has nothing to do with the village of Nazareth. the term Nazeren was used long after Jesus death to refer to any christian and was also the name addopted by a 4th cent. christina sect.

It is, simply, a red herring.
Hi, G_O_D

Thanks for your thoughts.

It is not a red herring. The Church and the evangelists have made it sound like a red herring.

You are right in saying that the term has nothing to do with Nazareth. It has also nothing to do with the Nazarenes.

You are quite close in para 4 of your post. I have studied a lot on this subject and found that Nazarites were initially the children, whose mothers had been barren for long and they vowed that they would give the child to serve God in the Temple, if they were granted a child.

For example, Mary's mother had vowed to give her child in the service of God and sent her to the Temple.

Other parents, who were dedicated to God, also gave their children to serve God. The Hebrew term Nazir been exploited. Since the child was born of a vow or Nazir, the child was called a Nazirite.

You were also right in your para 4, because those monks and sages, who went into isolation, had vowed to serve God. However, they were not children born of a Nazir (Vow to God).

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
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 5 min Dolphin 441,750
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 24 min It aint necessari... 773,452
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 37 min hojo 558,855
IRA fading away, analysts say (Sep '08) 46 min rock white 14
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 51 min arabian 5,492
kelly bright 2 hr bigbadwolf91869 1
Teacher back in class after Bush-Hitler comparison (Mar '06) 2 hr Sniper II 95
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 hr AussieBobby 264,978
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 5 hr Catcher1 175,509
More from around the web