- This topic has 317 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Tim Kraft @ Mar. 02 2011,21:44) Kerwin: How was Jesus considered a “Jew”? TK
Hi Tim,Jew is a term for the son's of Judah
Heb.7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda;
of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
Luke 3:33; starting with Mary's father (Heli) in Luke 3:23.Witnessing to a worldwide audience in behalf of YHVH!
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (Isaiah 49:16 / Isaiah 60:14 / Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org (Ecl.9:12-16)Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 02 2011,18:41) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 02 2011,18:15) I realise some christians hold science as a gold standard to be admired for its phenomenal success, while simultaneously trying to drag it down to the gutter level occupied by the business of believing in things without unambiguous evidence for them, but I'm afraid your strawman does not describe the science I know. Stuart
Hi Stuart,What about 'evolution'? You call it science, but it is 'only' a belief!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
You don't even have the first clue about your ancestry. Most people don't either, but then most people don't go broadcasting their ignorance to the world on internet forums.Stuart
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 02 2011,20:34) To all, Scientists have the problem of group think when they come up with one model to answer a number of questions. As they come up with additional evidence they have to spin it so it fits in with their previously conceived notions.
That is why when their interpretation of scant evidence indicated hot gas giant's were sometimes located near suns they decided they jettted there from further out in the system. That hypothosis explained the aparent observation but was not actually testable except possible in computer modeling. I have no idea if such modeling ever occured.
There is actually a name for this but I cannot remember what it is.
Never the less that is not what this thread is about so perhaps the conversation about such things should be moved to another thread where it is more apropriate.
What on earth are you wittering about??Stuart
Quote (Tim Kraft @ Mar. 02 2011,21:44) Kerwin: How was Jesus considered a “Jew”? TK
How was he not one?I suppose by not existing…
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 03 2011,18:26) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 02 2011,20:34) To all, Scientists have the problem of group think when they come up with one model to answer a number of questions. As they come up with additional evidence they have to spin it so it fits in with their previously conceived notions.
That is why when their interpretation of scant evidence indicated hot gas giant's were sometimes located near suns they decided they jettted there from further out in the system. That hypothosis explained the aparent observation but was not actually testable except possible in computer modeling. I have no idea if such modeling ever occured.
There is actually a name for this but I cannot remember what it is.
Never the less that is not what this thread is about so perhaps the conversation about such things should be moved to another thread where it is more apropriate.
What on earth are you wittering about??Stuart
Hi Stuart,Gas giants are not 'on Earth', no wonder you don't understand
our common ancestry! You don't pay attention!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Mar. 04 2011,11:33) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 03 2011,18:26) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 02 2011,20:34) To all, Scientists have the problem of group think when they come up with one model to answer a number of questions. As they come up with additional evidence they have to spin it so it fits in with their previously conceived notions.
That is why when their interpretation of scant evidence indicated hot gas giant's were sometimes located near suns they decided they jettted there from further out in the system. That hypothosis explained the aparent observation but was not actually testable except possible in computer modeling. I have no idea if such modeling ever occured.
There is actually a name for this but I cannot remember what it is.
Never the less that is not what this thread is about so perhaps the conversation about such things should be moved to another thread where it is more apropriate.
What on earth are you wittering about??Stuart
Hi Stuart,Gas giants are not 'on Earth', no wonder you don't understand
our common ancestry! You don't pay attention!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
What on earth are you talking about?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 04 2011,14:03) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 04 2011,11:33) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 03 2011,18:26) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 02 2011,20:34) To all, Scientists have the problem of group think when they come up with one model to answer a number of questions. As they come up with additional evidence they have to spin it so it fits in with their previously conceived notions.
That is why when their interpretation of scant evidence indicated hot gas giant's were sometimes located near suns they decided they jettted there from further out in the system. That hypothosis explained the aparent observation but was not actually testable except possible in computer modeling. I have no idea if such modeling ever occured.
There is actually a name for this but I cannot remember what it is.
Never the less that is not what this thread is about so perhaps the conversation about such things should be moved to another thread where it is more apropriate.
What on earth are you wittering about??Stuart
Hi Stuart,Gas giants are not 'on Earth', no wonder you don't understand
our common ancestry! You don't pay attention!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
What on earth are you talking about?Stuart
Hi Stuart,Gen:1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
…So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them. Stuart, don't you believe what God says?God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Tim Kraft @ Mar. 02 2011,16:44) Kerwin: How was Jesus considered a “Jew”? TK
Jesus is the son of David of the one of the tribe of Judah. That makes him a Jew.He also practices the true Jewish faith or he would not be the Anointed.
Stu,
I figure I was clear in pointing out that scientists are subject to sin just like and human being that has not entered the new covenant.
Being subject to sin their sinful desires warp their judgement in one way or another.
Why worship them as they fall short of the glory of God.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 05 2011,15:12) Stu, I figure I was clear in pointing out that scientists are subject to sin just like and human being that has not entered the new covenant.
Being subject to sin their sinful desires warp their judgement in one way or another.
Why worship them as they fall short of the glory of God.
I see. You could have warned me you that you would be talking nonsense and I could have ignored you.Just for the record:
I am not a christian, so the word “sin” has no impact on me. Perhaps you mean scientists who are also christians.
I do not worship anyone.
Stuart
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 04 2011,14:12) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 04 2011,14:03) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 04 2011,11:33) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 03 2011,18:26) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 02 2011,20:34) To all, Scientists have the problem of group think when they come up with one model to answer a number of questions. As they come up with additional evidence they have to spin it so it fits in with their previously conceived notions.
That is why when their interpretation of scant evidence indicated hot gas giant's were sometimes located near suns they decided they jettted there from further out in the system. That hypothosis explained the aparent observation but was not actually testable except possible in computer modeling. I have no idea if such modeling ever occured.
There is actually a name for this but I cannot remember what it is.
Never the less that is not what this thread is about so perhaps the conversation about such things should be moved to another thread where it is more apropriate.
What on earth are you wittering about??Stuart
Hi Stuart,Gas giants are not 'on Earth', no wonder you don't understand
our common ancestry! You don't pay attention!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
What on earth are you talking about?Stuart
Hi Stuart,Gen:1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
…So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them. Stuart, don't you believe what God says?God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
The Judeo-christian book of magic says that one human, possibly the first one, came to be by divine breathing into dirt. The second human arose by taking a rib from the first human and doing some magic on it. The third and fourth humans were born following the means of making humans with which we are familiar today. The fifth human is something of a mystery. The bible almost never mentions girls being born, and especially it fails to mention the appearance of Mrs. Cain.I believe in one means of procreation of our species. You must believe in at least four.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 05 2011,16:13) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 04 2011,14:12) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 04 2011,14:03) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 04 2011,11:33) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 03 2011,18:26) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 02 2011,20:34) To all, Scientists have the problem of group think when they come up with one model to answer a number of questions. As they come up with additional evidence they have to spin it so it fits in with their previously conceived notions.
That is why when their interpretation of scant evidence indicated hot gas giant's were sometimes located near suns they decided they jettted there from further out in the system. That hypothosis explained the aparent observation but was not actually testable except possible in computer modeling. I have no idea if such modeling ever occured.
There is actually a name for this but I cannot remember what it is.
Never the less that is not what this thread is about so perhaps the conversation about such things should be moved to another thread where it is more apropriate.
What on earth are you wittering about??Stuart
Hi Stuart,Gas giants are not 'on Earth', no wonder you don't understand
our common ancestry! You don't pay attention!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
What on earth are you talking about?Stuart
Hi Stuart,Gen:1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
…So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them. Stuart, don't you believe what God says?God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
The Judeo-christian book of magic says that one human, possibly the first one, came to be by divine breathing into dirt. The second human arose by taking a rib from the first human and doing some magic on it. The third and fourth humans were born following the means of making humans with which we are familiar today. The fifth human is something of a mystery. The bible almost never mentions girls being born, and especially it fails to mention the appearance of Mrs. Cain.I believe in one means of procreation of our species. You must believe in at least four.
Stuart
Stu,How was the first man born?
If a man cannot give birth and yet it is the man that determines the sex of the offspring, how could a woman make a man without a Man?
Original sin is the Christian doctrine that humans inherit a tainted nature and a proclivity to sin through the fact of birth. Theologians have characterized this condition in many ways, seeing it as ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a “sin nature”, to total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.
The doctrine of original sin began to emerge in the 3rd century but only became fully formed with the writings of Augustine of Hippo (354–430), who was the first author to use the phrase “original sin” (Latin: peccatum originale). Augustine’s conception of original sin was based on a mistranslated passage in Paul the Apostle’s Epistle to the Romans, and scholars have debated whether the passage supports Augustine’s view.
Augustine’s formulation of original sin became popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who equated original sin with concupiscence (or “hurtful desire”), affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom to do good and proposed that original sin involved a loss of free will except to sin. Modern Augustinian Calvinism holds this view. The Jansenist movement, which the Catholic Church declared heretical from 1653, also maintained that original sin destroyed freedom of will. Instead the Catholic Church declares “Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. “Weakened and diminished by Adam’s fall, free will is yet not destroyed in the race.” Today, 52% of American evangelicals accept the doctrine of original sin
Hi all, this is Adam after many years I just came back to Heavennet. I want to make this topic live again if you are interested. Please go through the previous messages and submit your views.
Thank you.
Adam…..i believe God know from the very beginning of his human creation that man would fail and sin. Scripture tells us God knows the end. From the beginning, So if that be true, then he know man would sin even when he created him. In fact i believe it was his purpose and plan for man to sin.
The question is why? , Here is how i see it, God wanted a family, of his own, but he did not want a family of God’s of his equals, because of the potential of conflicts. So he created man, unable to always chose the right way himself , he gave us all the propensity to sin. When left to ourselves, just as it say, “it is not within man to direct his paths” So man was created lacking that ability from the very start. That is why God knew fro the start man would sin , he didn’t have the ability not to yet. So God in order to speed up the sin nature in man add a “Catalysts “, to speed up the process, it was Satan , God used to seed up , what would eventually happen anyway.
What point was all of this for ?, to bring man into experiencing both, “good and evil” for himself . It was needful in our development and growth, to grow to, “love good , and hate evil”. What better way then to experience it for ourselves.
But after experiencing it, then what, the problem still exists about our inablity to direct our paths for ever right?, So God increases our ability to guide our steps, how? , by anointing us with his own Spirit, giving us the capacity to make the right decisions, He furthers our development .
Adam, we are all in the process of being created, and the final part of our creating process, is to receive the very Spirit of God into us. Jesus has received it, at the Jordan river, he is the first from mankind to have, but not the last, but the last will be “exactly” like him. Therefore he could say “i am the first and the last”. But not he only.
So i view the original sin as part of God the Fathers plan all along, and Satan as being used by God to further his plan all along. We are all still in the creative process. Jesus is the first fruit, “from mankind”, to achieve that Goal, God the Father has in mind for us all.peace and love to you and yours……….gene.
Thank you so much brother Gene for replying my post above. Lot of new thoughts you have shared here. Yes God created man as mortal and weak so that he would depend on God. But the problem here is NT writers and early Church fathers misinterpreted Hebrew scriptures and invented unwanted doctrines like Original sin which needed a Vicarious atonement by God himself. We need to investigate these concepts in the light of Hebrew Bible which was the only source available for the NT writers. We should not take for granted of these writings though they were Canonized by Christianity.
I hope others also share their views on this topic.
With love…..Adam
Another mistranslation by Paul himself
Isaiah 59:20
What does Christianity do with this clear biblical teaching that we can master sin? Christianity simply changes the Bible. It presents a contradictory and incorrect translation of how God instructed mankind to turn from sin, as is demonstrated in a blatant Christian mistranslation of Isaiah 59:20. In the Hebrew original, this verse says:
“A redeemer will come to Zion; and unto those who turn
from transgression.” Isaiah 59:20This verse clearly demonstrates two points: 1) People can turn from transgression; and, 2) The redeemer of Israel will come to Zion and to those who turn away from sin on their own accord.
However, in the Christian New Testament the same verse in Isaiah is incorrectly quoted to give the impression that it is the messiah who removes sin. Romans 11:26 says:
“The Deliverer will come from Zion , He will remove
ungodliness from Jacob.” Romans 11:26The mistranslation of the words “to Zion” to “from Zion” and, “those who turn from transgression” to “He will remove ungodliness,” distorts the meaning of the original text. This is an attempt to support the incorrect Christian belief that a messianic redeemer will remove sin. According to the Bible, sincere repentance has always been the fundamental method of removing sin.
Does blood alone atone for sin?
The Hebrew word for repentance is Tshuvah – (תשובה (and it literally means “to return” to God. This is a process of regretting and forsaking sin, as demonstrated in the following verses:
“Let the wicked forsake his way and let him return to the Lord.” Isaiah 55:7
“When a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and
righteousness, he will save his life.” Ezekiel 18:27Furthermore, the Book of Chronicles says,
“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:14.
While there is absolutely no mention of blood in the above verses, the Bible does command sacrifices under a very narrow and specific set of circumstances, solely as a means of motivating sincere repentance. Biblically-mandated sacrifices were required primarily for certain unintentional sins, as it says;
“If a person sins unintentionally in any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done… he must present to God an unblemished bull.” Leviticus 4:1
An example of an unintentional sin would be violating the Sabbath because you mistakenly thought it was a weekday, or, accidently eating a forbidden food while thinking it was permissible.
In an attempt to build a case that all sins need blood sacrifices, Christians often cite a non-existent, passage: “There is no remission without the shedding of blood.”
The intention of this fabricated passage is refuted by a verse in the New Testament, that says;
“According to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” Hebrews 9:22
Incredibly, the inclusion of the words, “one may almost say” in this New Testament passage supports the correct biblical teaching that only some sins required blood sacrifices. There is absolutely no blood sacrifice prescribed for the majority of intentional sin, only for an unintentional sin.
So, in addition to referring to unintentional sins, the limited nature of blood sacrifices can also be seen in Chapter 5:13 of Leviticus11 that directs a poor penitent person, who could not afford an animal offering, to offer a non-blood, flour offering in its place. So why were unintentional sins, rather than intentional sins,
singled out for sacrifices? Because when you do something accidentally you commonly minimize its seriousness and downplay the need for repentance. We rationalize and tell ourselves, “It was just an accident.” The process of bringing a sacrifice focused attention on the seriousness of the unintentional transgression. An animal was offered to remind us that we were careless with our animal passions;
the animal needed to be unblemished, so during the examination process, we would look for and contemplate our own blemishes. The taking of the animal’s life reminded us of the severity of disobeying
God.Animal sacrifices were a means to a specific end. But they were not a panacea. Someone who brought numerous sacrifices without repentance would accomplish nothing. This point was made by King Solomon, the wisest of all men. He referred to sacrifices offered without repenting or acknowledging one’s sin, as “the sacrifices of fools.” As it says in Ecclesiastes;
“Draw near to listen rather than offer the sacrifice of fools, who do not know that they do wrong.” Ecclesiastes 4:17
Jewish Scriptures makes it clear that God wants a sincere and changed person, and not rote sacrifices:
“The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart.” Psalm 51:22
“The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but the prayer of the upright is His delight.”
Proverbs 15:8“I desire kindness and not sacrifices, the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” Hosea 6:6
“Doing charity and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.” Proverbs 21:3
Almost all sins committed intentionally required only sincere repentance without an animal sacrifice, because when a person sins intentionally, he knows he is doing something wrong. So when sinners make up their mind to return to God, they do so because they cannot delude themselves into thinking it wasn’t
serious or was just an accident This is confirmed by the following verse:“When the wicked man turns away from his wickedness that he has committed, and does that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.” Ezekiel 18:27
It is essential to remember that God is just and merciful and does not torment us or make it difficult to return to Him. This is attested to throughout the Jewish scriptures.
“We do not present our supplications before you because of our righteousness, but because of your abundant mercy.” Daniel 9:18
“Return to Me and I shall return to you.” Malachi 3:7
“God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol, for He will receive me.” Psalm 49:15
“Israel shall be saved by the Lord, and not ashamed or confounded to all eternity.” 16 Isaiah 45:17
How do Christians cope with the fact that the majority of intentional sins are atoned for without blood? They quote the non-existent passage that supposedly says, “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.” But as shown above, that statement is false.
This presents a stunning refutation to the validity and foundation of the tenents of Christianity, because in truth we do not need blood at all for intentional sins, nor do we need blood for unintentional sins when there is no Temple to offer a sacrifice.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
