[geocentrism] Re: A tool of Satan
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
Ok me in ..ummmm...musturd
----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:26:54 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: A tool of Satan
What outlandish colour have we not used yet? Let's have ... turquoise
-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: A tool of Satan
OK...Im narrowing it down now.....we should be able to use clean paper after
this one..i think........I'm in orenge now....
OK.......it does not have to be but it was... Well, there's not much I can say
to this assertion, other than it is an assertion by you to support your
position! ....no that is not my assertion that is the texts asserion the burden
of proof is on you to prove the text is in error not merrly assert it is in
error...... You already agreed that "it did not have to be," so I have proven
to your satisfaction, or at least your agreement, that the text does not assert
whatever it was we were talking about (!!) with no room for doubt. Hence, your
assertion is still your assertion.
1. what the text states about itself is nto the issue nor did make an
assertion about the valdiity of the text you did....Im only showing you that
appraoch is less logical then accepting all the text...
2. That validity of the text whcih you question and i ask based on what?...not
any assertions of allen is what is in question..
therfore: your conclusion is False because the burden of proof of whatever we
were talking about is on you to show that the text is false the text and your
asertion as to the validity of the text not allen is in question..
That is if i even remember corectly what that was all about........
Hmmm, I think that you and I are so far apart here that there is no point in
debating these issues. You really seem happy to assign to God characteristics
that are alien to my appreciation of God. The grass and the roses do not have
spirits. ...how do you know that? many religions belive they do... and beside
how or why does that mean they are less importaint to God maybe they ahave
somthing else entirly ...God made them too......... are we less coz we only
have 2 leggs rather then 8?...do insects have spirits? how do you
know......ummmm others have strong feelings about that....The animals do. What
is an animal to God? A creature that God has entrusted to us to look after,
care for and discipline. and plants are not?...how do you know that? How do you
discipline a plant? what has disipline got to do with life worthyness or
determine if it has a spirit or not....? Because, as I pointed out, there is a
difference between plants and animals and
discipline (i.e., the need for) is one aspect of that. "A creature that God
has entrusted to us to look after, care for and discipline." You still dont
show us how that proves that God must view animals the same as humans..or that
He views plants with any less value....or where insects stand in the whold
sceme of things not to mention coral ......What is a man (or woman) to God? If
you need to ask that, then your spirit is lacking. What is your child to you?
What is your pet cat to you? What is your pet dog to you? plants and animals
are for food Animals "are for food"? I thought that we were instructed in the
beginning that vegetation was for food? The last explicit instruction for what
to eat i know of, in my bible was to "rise kill and eat"................. An
admonition of the Devil if ever I heard one. Besides, are you saying that the
original instruction has now been removed?
No im saying that i accept all not just some of the scriptures and there is a
place in time for animal consumption as brought out in that text.....Further
you have yest to demonstrate that the parts of the text you look at are the
only valid text and the ones that i accept are not. YOu must do that before you
can even begin to attempt to argue that God only wants vegitarians...
You take part of the text to make your case then use your case to "prove" that
the other bits of text are invalid....your whole approach is arbirtray not
objective....If you cannot accept the only source text you have for the nature
of God and the mission/purpose of Christ then what in the world makes you
belive there ever was a Jesus Christ ........??????
and for my comfort.....Childeren are for raising to do likewise and be
Godly...................
By using only the written Bible, as decided upon at the Council of Nicea, you
are neglecting to use what the Creator gave to each and every one of us. the
councile of Nicea did not determine the scriptures....The gospel of Christ has
been preached everywhere all over the world by AD 70 ? The scriptures even
point that out........ If anyone would bother to studdy the gnostic gosples and
all the other text it would not be hard to see how and why only certain ones
fit together and all the others dont fit even with each other........ The
Council of Nicea most definitely did determine what was in the canon and what
was not. Do you accept the Gospel of Thomas, for example? If not, then why not?
because it does not conform to the L&P via Paul's warning...not to think
beyond what is written But it was written .....Paul IT surly was written just
like alot of other religious books today............written some 100+years
after the gosple of Christ had already
been delivered. and only rediscovered in 1945...( igeuss there goes any
notions of preservation of the gosple that God may or may not have
had..ummm.....and it is certainly is not consistent with the L&P wich we know
Paul was specifiicaly addressing particularly if you hold that the rest of the
bible was only put together at Nicea............... The NT has been doctored to
agree with the L&P.
"doctored"..ummmm It was written and put together to agree with the L&P for
sure.... But, then that is why i accept it... ???...You still dont give any
valid reason for why the L&P are not true excpet "you feel". You took a verse
you pick out above the others then force or reject any other verse to fit it
"context be damed"......over all the others....why that verse? How is that
method more objective then taking the whole in context and understaning it as a
whole rather then in bits and peices that have no way of being validated
external of someones head?
was specificaly talking about the L&P.....ummmmm.. This character string seems
to be the flavour of the month judging by how often you employ it. It canont be
argued that Paul was not speaking about the L&P particularly if you hold that
the rest of the bible was only put together at Nicea..thats how and why any of
the other gosples were eleminated long before nicea....???.....and although
there were some Christains then who accepted Thomas there are Christians today
who accept written false teachings from false teachers...the bible even warns
of it... Yes, but the Bible also claims to be "God-breathed," but that does not
of itself mean that it is. ..and It dose not mean that it is not.......the fact
that the bible calims insperation of God and to accept that based on the
tesomony of the witness What do you mean by the testimony of the witness?
There is a difference between "The word of God" and a record/ testimony to the
word of God......Paul said we are his witnesses....But the word of God is not
ink and paper..........I'm stopping here (and placing this in red), since I
would like to concentrate on this in our future discussions.
Yes, good lets focus on this.....im sure to raise eyebrows here.....
Neville.
is somehow more illogical then just making it all up yourself ??? ....what is
the differnece? NONE! same then as it is now but you can still know now the
same way they did then. But the way you know is not by picking and choosing
words and phrases but assembeling the whole thing together....just as with a
puzzel the correct solution is intrinsic to the puzzle not how many other
puzzels you try to mix it up with....
Nevile your doctrine is based on the scriptures you choose to accept and the
scriptures you choose to accept are determined by your doctrine.....think about
it....there is no way to validate your postion logicaly. I started off
believing that all the canonical writings were the true word of God. I then
found that some were not. Your "i found that some were not" methodology is what
is in question..you have explained your methodology but as of yet demonstrated
no way of validating it as more logical or more reasonable then the alternitive
in fact it is less so....... Does that mean that I throw out the baby with the
bathwater? No. In fact, it was the recollection of a particular scripture that
enlightened me to this.
Which only begs the question how do you know that one was not the one thrown in
by the devil...... or maybe you just dont know how it fits with the others
...so you take the third option wich can only come from inside your head and
cannot be validated or supported in any other way.......you interpret that
verse based on how you "see it" the from that either accept or reject
others......well i did the same thing...i just found they make perfect sense
together.......
I have missed one or two comments, because this thread is starting to get too
confusing. Perhaps you could pick a point to extract and we can then start with
a clean piece of paper?
Neville.
----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 2:07:26 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: A tool of Satan
This time in red:
-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
OK this blue
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 8:50 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: A tool of Satan
Again in green, but bold green:
-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: A tool of Satan
OK .........ME TOO AGAIN IN BLUE...
----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:06:20 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: A tool of Satan
Allen, I have answered in green, but any further colouring would I think make
this dialogue too confusing.
-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
blue
----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 11:52:03 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: A tool of Satan
-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
I have told you this before, but I will tell you in all sincerity again, "go
and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice'." (1st canonical
gospel, 9:13a, NIV.)
1. This still begs the question how do you know that God really desires mercy?
Three reasons: It says so in Hosea. 'Jesus' claims that it is true. My
experience/spirit acknowledges it to be true.
Is mercy good only in your head or Godʼs as well and how can you be sure of
that? Mabye the real God is a vengfull God and what you call good is evil......?
This is a possibility, true, but I have considered it deeply about 6-12 months
ago and I have rejected it. (We are back to the good tree producing bad fruit
that started this discussion.)
2. More importaintly, a closer examination of that verse both in Hosea as well
as Mat 19:13.. shows us that Christ audience did not understand that verse
either (of course they didn't, since otherwise he would not have needed to tell
them to go away and figure it out - someone who is well is in no need of a
doctor - is that not the immediately preceding verse?), so what makes you so
sure you do?.... Did they sacrifice?...Yes! Did Christ condemn
sacrifices....NO!... Are you claiming that Christ condoned sacrifice, or that
he simply is not recorded as condemning sacrifice? Mark 1:44..Moses comanded
sacrifice for the cleasing........ Inserted by the Jewish scribes to tie this
teacher in with the concept of the Jews being the 'chosen ones'. We only have
this source....and that is my point..i only use and know what it
says........how and what do you base your assertion on? again back to my
hitler annalogy people can "feel" like he was a good guy..and claim
that all that bad stuff was just inserted by "the zionist"...? Of course it is
posible that only you are right but you have no way of validating any of your
belifes and thus far less reason to belive your error then i do even if in fact
mine was the error....In fact your beilfe offers no reason at all why anyone
else should go along with it.....What they like many do not understand, which
is what Christ was showing them is just because there is a acceptable sacrifice
for mistreating people does not mean it is acceptable to mistreat your brother
for your own sake ( the one he had healed )and make up for it with a "required
sacrifice". The sacrifice does not make up for the evil acts particular if the
act is intentional. They were asking a question why do you eat with publicans
and sinners? This was after Christ had just healed a man ...did they care about
the man or the publicans&sinners...NO! they only cared about themselfs. All the
sacrifice in the
world will not make up for their apathy and contempt for the truth and work of
God, which was Christ comming to heal the sick and bring the words of life to
the lost ....what were they doing?.......Mat 23:13 you dont go in and you
suffer not them that would........... Christ is pointing out that if they had
the truth of God /mercy they would not condemn work of God a mercifully act as
they did throughout His ministry and secondly seek to help/save not just
condemn their brothers who they condemn falsely. No. What Christ was pointing
out was that our Father not only desires mercy to be shown by us, but also does
not desire sacrifice of living creatures. "only mercy" is not found in that
verse........That is what you say about the verse, not what the verse says..
You are assuming a concept into the verse....the verse is about the application
mercy not the condemation of sacrifice The verse has two distinct parts,
tellings us firstly that God desires
mercy and secondly that God does not desire sacrifice. only if you assume that
is true first in the same way that i could apply that line of reasoing to my
bosses intruction for me to go home if i dont feel good....Therfore whenever i
dont feel good i should just go home even next week when everything happens all
at once.......I dont think you have difficutly applying reasonalbe meaning to
real people in context but you just refuse to do that with the teachings of
Christ, as such you are invoking circular flaicies to justify your selective
use of words and context that you use to develope your doctirne from then
justify your choices of the words & context by appealing to your
doctrine.....??.......... I can understand why the second part is a stumbling
block to defending the OT, because the OT is riddled with sacrificial ritual
and to say that this was not desired by our Father throws into question the
entire OT. However, that is my position. ....that
was jesus point when he said.....Matthew 21: 31 the publicans and harlots go
into the kingdom before you do....They did not have mercy on anyone, they were
only interested in being self-righteous (I don't think that whores are usually
noted for being self-righteous - besides which, how do you KNOW that they did
not display mercy?) if they had would Jesus be talking to them?..Christ came
to heal the sick, they thought it was Christ who was sick and had a
demon......what would be the point of point out a error that does not exist?.
they must have been in error he told them to go learn it!?.... This is your
deduction, and is a reasonable deduction, but my question was, how do you KNOW?
because 1. if you already know somthing you cant go learn it ....2.The same
ones Jesus was speaking to there (Jewish leaders) were the same ones who
accused him of having a demon. 3. The jewish leaders/ establishment rejected
Christ ...many whores and publicans came
repented and accepted Christ that is why they go in the status quo would
not........ ........he was not speaking to the whores there, he was speaking
to the pharisees and leaders of the day....? "publicans and harlots" - a
"harlot" is a whore ...............???Mat 21:23................. is spoken
directly to and condemn any and everyone that did not conform to them including
Christ and anyone the Christ helped. ....You see they were out to silence and
eventually would kill the Christ. No, Allen. This brings us back to the
sacrifice of a human being. Murder, okay, from their point of view, but you are
claiming that our Father required this as to be a sacrifice from before the
universe's creation. YES...but it was God in the flesh (Christr) God is a
spirit and must be worshipped in spirit and in truth Yes, But he came in the
flesh to teach you that fact, otherwise you would not know how you are to
worship him This fact can be taught by someone who has
simply been appointed, or annointed, to proclaim it. It does not have to be
God 'in the flesh'. . OK.......it does not have to be but it was... Well,
there's not much I can say to this assertion, other than it is an assertion by
you to support your position! ....no that is not my assertion that is the texts
asserion the burden of proof is on you to prove the text is in error not merrly
assert it is in error......if God made that determination then what are you
basing your assertion on that he did not do it that way... we only have the
bible for source material.......further, you were the one who quoted Jesus "God
is spirit and must be worshiped in spirit and in truth"....so where did you
learn that teaching from..?......JESUS.. not just anyone.. and he claimed to be
Son of God???...that is why they did not udnerstand coz they rejected the
teaching of Christ..................again gets back the the whole point of God
desirese mercy ( spiritual) not
sacrifice ( fleshly carnal) but if you were not in the flesh you would know
GOD because spiritaly we are dead untill Christ who is God in the flesh
reconsiled man back to God in the spirit through the sufferings in his
flesh.........who demanded that of himself (son) God is not bound by human
morality, God sets the morality for man not the other way around. you have it
backwards............that is in part Why God almighty had to do it himself cos
it would not be acceptable for or from a man .....? God made that determination
before the foundation of the world.... Christ offered himself he laid his life
down no one took it from him..? JOHN 10:18 .."NO MAN take it from me"...how
could they He is God..? I deny the trinity idea. ok i dissagree Fine, but we
need to understand where the other is coming from. I'm only using Jesus as the
son of God and God in the flesh...how that defines the ultimate nature of God
or where and how is the dividing line between
Christ and the Father is beyond the scope of this or my full
understanding.......In which case, they would have had absolutely no way of not
wanting Christ's blood. The very purpose of their existence would have been to
bay for his blood. Every since Adam the men of God have been looking for the
Christ. They did not understand the purpose of Christ or the sacrifice just
like many do not today, as such God Who Sacrified himself used their own
ignorance and wickedness to accomplish God's Righteous plan...ACTS 2:22-23 "By
myself I can do nothing." The trinity idea enables you to juggle about with
what God is to suit your position, rather than adjusting your position, even
if it means throwing out the black book (or most of it), to suit what God is.
...I did not mention trinity...that is another discusion all together, but in
any case....as you said God is a spirit, and maybe even "omnipresent" at that
so, why can't God be in two places at one time...? I
was objecting to your declaration that "God sacrificed himself" as part of his
"plan." why? if it is moraly reprehsible and unacceptable for a man to
sacrifice himself for sins becuse of murder or unworthyness? .....Then why
would it not make perfect sense if God did it for us? That way no moral
delima....coz God determins morales and worthyness.....If the king chops his
arm off because im a theif who is going to tell him that is wrong..?..based on
what? ..it There are still plenty of folk who need to as Christ said " Go lean
what this means"....The verses are not condeming sacrifice without assuming
that into the verse ( circular logic), Jesus is puting sacrifice in
perspective. The verse is clear: Our Father does not desire sacrifice. This is
simple English. Right he desires mercy not sacrifice........but he did not say
that sacrifice was therofre not or ever nessisary.... sacrife is the penilty
for the transgression............ do you desire to
punish your childeren? No .....is it nessisary? Yes ..why you are making the
rules up you can just say everything is ok and forget about the punishment
right? But, Allen, what or who are you saying should be punished. If one of my
children did something wrong, then they would be punished. I would not want or
expect them to go out and punish an animal instead. Furthermore, I would not
expect someone else to take the blame for what one of them did. This makes no
sense. what difference does it make. If you use a belt or a switch on your
child did you not kill or take responsibility for the cow or branch or if you
prevent them from eating a twinky did you not affect ecconomy for the workers
who make them why should they be punished too?....ridiculouls...NO! it is only
a matter of SCALE not substance......What is an animal to God? what is a man to
God? If God makes the animals and humans then just like the trees you plant in
your garden or the grass
around your house why should the grass or roses get cut and die for your good
pleasure......COZ it is your grass and floweres.....!? Hmmm, I think that you
and I are so far apart here that there is no point in debating these issues.
You really seem happy to assign to God characteristics that are alien to my
appreciation of God. The grass and the roses do not have spirits. ...how do you
know that? many religions belive they do... and beside how or why does that
mean they are less importaint to God maybe they ahave somthing else entirly
...God made them too......... are we less coz we only have 2 leggs rather then
8?...do insects have spirits? how do you know......ummmm others have strong
feelings about that....The animals do. What is an animal to God? A creature
that God has entrusted to us to look after, care for and discipline. and plants
are not?...how do you know that? How do you discipline a plant? what has
disipline got to do with life worthyness
or determine if it has a spirit or not....?......What is a man (or woman) to
God? If you need to ask that, then your spirit is lacking. What is your child
to you? What is your pet cat to you? What is your pet dog to you? plants and
animals are for food Animals "are for food"? I thought that we were instructed
in the beginning that vegetation was for food? Thelast explicit instruction
for what to eat i know of, in my bible was to "rise kill and
eat".................and for my comfort.....Childeren are for raising to do
likewise and be Godly..........why not?..........man is made in the image of
God....God did not desire the disobediance of man, but it is nessisary
otherwise there could be no other "will" external of God ie...."contraly to the
will of God" if everything was according to the will of God.....Romans
9:18-19... you cannot have a choice without 1. Options 2. the capcity to
exercise those options.....Could man exercise his option to
disobey...yes....could he opt to reconcile himself back to God....NO What?! Of
course we can. HOW? and How do you know that is true?.... How does the prodigal
son do it then? Does he get someone else to crawl back for him? Does he think
that it is predestined that his father will take him back? Or does he humble
himself, come to his senses, AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT HIMSELF? Only God could
do that but God determined how and why it was to be done and by
Whom.....HIMSELF cos Man could not do it himself......that is Why Christ
Came...... You are supporting your contention by simply reiterating it. NO that
is what is taugh by the apostles of Christ whom you reject but you reject them
coz you built a doctrine on the things you rejected...but the things you
rejected or justified in your eyes by your doctrine....circular falicy......
Er, no, I have not built a doctrine on the things I have rejected - I have just
thrown them in the bin where they belong. But
they would not hear his words then and I dont see that you are listining to
them now..........
What if you are one of the ones who needs to figure out what it means, Allen? I
apply context and use the only source of information we have about the issue
and man to ascertain the issue and the man...where as you pick and choose
meaning external of what context and information we have about the issue (from
the only source we have) with nothing more then how "you feel".......Well
now,..... what if i did that with the rest of human history...say Adolf
Hitler...I could show he was a good man if i pick and choose only what i feel
is true about him from the only sources we have about him.. Hitler did not
drink alchool or smoke................"surely this man was the son of God" !?
Adolf Hitler was also a vegetarian, which is extremely important in my opinion.
He developed the affordable family car, the world's first system of motorways,
family care, improved worker's conditions, ... why are the plants lives less
then the animals and humans...who made that determination...?..just rember
before you answer that maybe "i feel" differently.....
Already answered above - i.e., the animals have spirits.
By using only the written Bible, as decided upon at the Council of Nicea, you
are neglecting to use what the Creator gave to each and every one of us. the
councile of Nicea did not determine the scriptures....The gospel of Christ has
been preached everywhere all over the world by AD 70 ? The scriptures even
point that out........ If anyone would bother to studdy the gnostic gosples and
all the other text it would not be hard to see how and why only certain ones
fit together and all the others dont fit even with each other........ The
Council of Nicea most definitely did determine what was in the canon and what
was not. Do you accept the Gospel of Thomas, for example? If not, then why not?
because it does not conform to the L&P via Paul's warning...not to think
beyond what is written But it was written .....Paul IT surly was written just
like alot of other religious books today............written some 100+years
after the gosple of Christ had already
been delivered. and only rediscovered in 1945...( igeuss there goes any
notions of preservation of the gosple that God may or may not have
had..ummm.....and it is certainly is not consistent with the L&P wich we know
Paul was specifiicaly addressing particularly if you hold that the rest of the
bible was only put together at Nicea............... was specificaly talking
about the L&P.....ummmmm.. This character string seems to be the flavour of the
month judging by how often you employ it. It canont be argued that Paul was not
speaking about the L&P particularly if you hold that the rest of the bible was
only put together at Nicea..thats how and why any of the other gosples were
eleminated long before nicea....???.....and although there were some Christains
then who accepted Thomas there are Christians today who accept written false
teachings from false teachers...the bible even warns of it... Yes, but the
Bible also claims to be "God-breathed," but
that does not of itself mean that it is. ..and It dose not mean that it is
not.......the fact that the bible calims insperation of God and to accept that
based on the tesomony of the witness is somehow more illogical then just making
it all up yourself ??? ....what is the differnece? NONE! same then as it is now
but you can still know now the same way they did then. But the way you know is
not by picking and choosing words and phrases but assembeling the whole thing
together....just as with a puzzel the correct solution is intrinsic to the
puzzle not how many other puzzels you try to mix it up with.....And why does
Christ so often say, "he who has eyes to see, ..." and "he who has ears to
hear, ..."? How do you know that the Quran has to be discarded? Or the Hindu
writings? Or the Buddhist writings? Coz you either accept or reject Christ
..but Christ said I AM THE WAY and NO MAN COME TO THE FATHER EXCEPT BY ME.....
there is no other way to validate
anyother thing that i or anyone might imagine that he said except by the
source records.......
Is this not the whole point? My whole position? We have personal reasoning and
experience. We have a dialogue with the Creator. We have eyes to see. We have
ears to hear. but you are denying the very thing you are using as your
jsutifycation...Nevile your doctrine is based on the scriptures you choose to
accept and the scriptures you choose to accept are determined by your
doctrine.....think about it....there is no way to validate your postion
logicaly. I started off believing that all the canonical writings were the true
word of God. I then found that some were not. Your "i found that some were not"
methodology is what is in question..you have explained your methodology but as
of yet demonstrated no way of validating it as more logical or more reasonable
then the alternitive in fact it is less so....... Does that mean that I throw
out the baby with the bathwater? No. In fact, it was the recollection of a
particular scripture that enlightened me to this.
Which only begs the question how do you know that one was not the one thrown in
by the devill or maybe you just dont know how it fits with the others ...so you
take the third option wich can only come from inside your head and cannot be
validated or supported in any other way.......you interpret that verse based on
how you "see it" the from that either accept or reject others......well i did
the same thing...i just found they make perfect sense together.......
Was not Krishna "born of a virgin" in 900 B.C.? was he?........i always like to
consider the source...what is it about the source(s) that makes me even want to
put my faith in that?
Well, I'll answer my own question. No, he was not "born of a virgin." No one
was ever "born of a virgin." But the point is that this story predates the
Christian story by 900 years. Christanity started with Christ who created the
world 6000BC when God so predetermined it........so how does stories from 900
BC that sound similar to "christanity" prove anything except that the stories
of Virgin birth and resurection from the dead did not suddenly appear in 900
bc....UM...more like from the begining of time.............And don't tell me
that you are not aware of all the other stuff that likewise predates it: born
on December 25, executed, in the grave for 3 days, resurrected, 12 deciples, ...
I have missed one or two comments, because this thread is starting to get too
confusing. Perhaps you could pick a point to extract and we can then start with
a clean piece of paper?
Neville.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1325 - Release Date: 11/03/2008
1:41 PM
Free 3D Earth Screensaver
Watch the Earth right on your desktop! Check it out at www.inbox.com/earth
Receive Notifications of Incoming Messages
Easily monitor multiple email accounts & access them with a click. Visit
www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out!
Other related posts:
