[geocentrism] Re: correction
- From: "Bernie Brauer" <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:48:37 -0600
*Wayne wrote:*
*"Now, we may not like what the descendents of those ancient jews have
become and what they represent today..."*
*Where do "Jews" belong?* The Jewish historian Arthur Koestler shows
that most Jews are Khazars, not original Jews. The Ashkenazi Jews should go
back to their true homeland, *Khazaria.*
Have you seen *The Thirteenth Tribe? *Click
here<http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Koestler13thTribe.htm>.
Plus our discussion about it is
here<http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/DarylBradfordSmith-Hufschmid-10Dec2006.html>
Bernie
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Wayne <mtwaynew@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> greetings all. It is a priviledge to be a part of this forum. forgive
> me, but I'm going to break my silence with an earful right off the bat...
>
> neville, first: to be quite honest I don't see how you can speak so
> confidently about this character you call the "devil", when you reject the
> one document of authority that establishes credible evidence for his
> existence?
>
> second: if we're "going to decide what to believe and what to deny" based
> upon our own personal experience and ethical judgement (or racial
> preference?) , if we're the ones setting the standards, if we're the
> one's from which we're going to draw our own absolutes in this life
> (basically the same position as humanists by the way) then who is basically
> "God" in this scenerio? (i would submit that its *us*?)
>
> Now if somone is going to set themselves up as their own independent judge
> of truth and righteousness, then I want to put *their* life under a
> microscope and see how *they* walk, when no one's watching. If they're
> going to be the standard for good and evil, righteousness and
> unrighteousness, then I say, "Please, show me what righteousness looks
> like..." "Show me the money" as a popular American film was said.
>
> Now perhaps *they* may not participate in anything openly malicious and
> wicked (like cheating on your wife, or working for George Double-U, or
> pumping your neighbor's cat, or w/e it is that seems to float their boat
> when they're seeking out their fleshly desires), but I'm willing to bet that
> a thorough examination of *their* heart is going to reveal some things
> that don't look so "righteous"...
>
> I'd like to catch of whiff of the hatred and pride that's in *their *heart.
> The selfishness and arrogance and envy that is contained in those hidden
> places of the heart. The apostle paul sums up this thing very nicely in
> Romans 2:21
>
> "You therefore who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who
> preach that one should not steal, do you steal? You who say that one should
> not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you
> rob temples? You who boast in the law, through your breaking the law, do
> you dishonor God?"
>
> "You who accuse the Word of God as speaking untruths, do you yourself
> speak wickedness?" (my own "personal" interpolation there )
>
> and if we back up to verses 3,5
>
> "And do you suppose this o man, when you pass judgement upon those who
> practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the
> judgement of God? ...But because of your stubbornness and unrepentent
> heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and
> revelation of the righteous judgement of God, *WHO WILL RENDER TO EVERY
> MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS*..."
>
> Third, since we're putting the morality and judgement of the God of the
> bible on trial here, allow me to throw something out there in His defense.
> In case one wasn't aware, those "poor and helpless" nations of the land of
> Canaan (the "promised land") whom the Jews conquered and drove out, weren't
> exactly a shining example of righteousness themselves.
>
> In recent years, secular archaeology has largely confirmed what the bible
> already told us: and that's the fact that these people were *wicked*.
> How can I say that? Well, for starters, these people worshipped deities
> like "Molech", who is referenced several times in the Old Testament.
> Molech, in case you weren't aware, was a deity that demanded blood from his
> subjects (although I must admit Yahweh did as well). But Molech
> didn't demand just any blood by the way (I'm afraid the blood of bulls and
> calves wasn't good enough for this 'beacon of goodness'). Nope, these
> people burned *their own children *"in the fire", as the scriptures and
> secular history now confirm. and that's just *one* example of the caliber
> of "good deeds" that these nations participated in daily.
>
> Now, one could easily argue that the Israelites themselves weren't exactly
> a shining example of righteousness at this point either, or throughout much
> of their storied history after that, but thats the whole point! One of the
> things God was clearly doing in those days was "carving out a people for his
> own possession" (Deuteronomy 7 explains this nicely). God took for himself
> a nation from within another nation, to make them his own. To be a
> shepherd, and yes a father to them. To *teach them the difference between
> good and evil, right and wrong, etc. TO SET THE STANDARD.. TO GIVE THE
> WORLD AN ABSOLUTE(s)... *To make his name known among the nations.
>
> Now the fact that the Jews more often than not did not respond
> appropriately to God's "parenting skills" by no means indicates that God the
> Father needs to take some parenting classes from the American or British
> government, no sir! (more on that another time, suffice it to say that God
> *does* in fact raise Good kids, its just that the bad eggs seem to get all
> the attention in secular history. which reminds me, if we understand that
> "science" is untrustworthy, what makes us thing that "history" (falsely so
> called?) is any better? I prefer "HIS-story"
>
> Fourth, if Jesus' statements in the New Testament are going to be
> referenced as a source of "truth" that opens our eyes, then let's play
> fair. John 8:44 and the "you are of your father the devil" statement is in
> context of verse 13, which gives us a little clue as to who in particular
> Jesus was probably addressing. Although again I will admit the nation as a
> whole was largely wicked as well. but they are no different than every
> nation that has been raised up under heaven before and since then (excluding
> the nation of the faithful of course [Hebrews 12:22-24])
>
> Furthermore, the same church as referenced above in Hebrews is addressed to
> by the Apostle John in 1 John 3:4-10 and are told that the reality of life
> is that *anyone* who practices sin is of their father, the devil.
>
> But back to Jesus who we seem to be appealing to as a credible source of
> truth and goodness, how about these memorable gems:
>
> Matthew 10:5-6 Jesus tells the disciples to avoid the gentiles and the
> samaritans altogether!
>
> Matthew 15:21-28 In this scene Jesus basically likens a *Canaanite* woman
> to a dog! (although He end up granting her request, btw)
>
> and how can I forget this one:
>
> John 4:22 "...we worship that which we know, for salvation is* from the
> Jews*."
>
> Also, if anyone is interested, Romans 3:1-2, Romans 9:3-5, as well as
> Ephesians 2:11-12 clearly shows that even the beloved apostle paul (whom
> usually is also widely esteemed among those who aren't too fond of today's
> jews) understood that the Old Testament jews were a privileged bunch that
> God himself had taken under his wing.
>
> Now, we may not like what the descendents of those ancient jews have become
> and what they represent today, but that does not give us any credible moral,
> historical, or intellectual grounds for rejecting the whole of scripture
> (bible) as a reliable document of authority.
>
> Furthermore, if the "judaism" that was referenced in the following
> statement "*Judaism was created out of stolen Egyptian beliefs*" has to do
> specifically with the God of the Old Testament, I would like to see actual
> "evidence" produced for this.
>
> Last, but not least, the "lying pen of the scribes" can largely be proven
> to be a baseless accusation as well. It's hardly an original criticism of
> the bible, and one that the bible has successfully withstood for hundreds of
> years now. If anyone actually researches the textual tradition of the
> transmission of the Old Testament canon, one will clearly see an abundance
> of evidence that those scriptures have passed on down to us in a
> remarkably unmolested and pristine condition. I would be happy to share
> this "evidence" with anyone who is interested.
>
> Sorry about the short novel as my first post, but this is "how we roll" as
> my hip-hop friends here in the states would say...
>
> good day mates...
>
> wayne
>
> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:39:00 -0800From: njones@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: correction
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> *From:* pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Sent:* Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:46:25 +1000
> **
> I don't know -- but I'll move on now.
>
> With respect to all,
> John
> Hey John... Hope you are not moving on er off .. the list that is.. I'm
> not finished with ya yet! Grin..
>
> You said,
> So it's significant that Neville appears to believe little of what the
> bible says,
>
> I don't really believe that... not at all.. All he has done is shown an
> open ness to what it all means.. Something everybody wants.. right
> Neville? Thats putting honesty above conviction... something a lot of
> scientists will not do.
>
> Phil
>
> Well, as a very clever French professor I know used to say, whenever anyone
> asked him an awkward question, "you are right, and you are not right."
>
> The most important and significant thing for me to realize about the Bible
> was when I clearly saw that the Jews are not God's 'chosen people'. Far from
> it. Yet this was there, before my nose, all the time: "Ye are of your
> father, the Devil, and the works of your father ye will do, for he was a
> liar and a murderer from the beginning."
>
> This is a truth and it definitely set me free. In fact, Phil, you were a
> member of this forum in the days when I would ban someone if they insulted
> the Jews. The truth opened my eyes not only to exactly what is going on in
> this sick and depraved world, but to the "lying pen of the scribes" and
> the "yeast of the Pharisees."
>
> Only recently have I discovered that Judaism was created out of stolen
> Egyptian beliefs in order to give a wandering bunch of liars and deceivers
> some form of credence.
>
> There are truths in the Bible, but where I differ from you and John is that
> I see that these truths are intertwined with lies and deceit. directed by,
> ... well, who is the master of deceit?
>
> So, and in answer now to John's question, I would say that 'moved' (in, off
> the top of my head, Ps. 93:1, 96:10, 1 Ch. 16:?) means to physically,
> spatially move, and that this scripture is true. This, actually, gives you
> both a good idea of my position, inasmuch as I now deny Joshua's 'long day',
> not because of the Sun and Moon being told to stand still, but because it
> labels God as the patsie (the past is the key to the present). Such a
> bloodthirsty character could only be the Devil. This is how I decide what to
> believe and what to deny. The Jews either engaged in this wanton carnage
> because they revel in it, or because the Devil instructed them, or both.
>
> Hence, you and John will still see quotes from the Bible on my web site,
> but they will never be of the Joshua's 'long rampage of blood and gore'
> type.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Neville.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* John Roodt <johnroodt@xxxxxxxxx>
> *To:* geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 24, 2008 2:55 PM
> *Subject:* [geocentrism] Re: correction
>
> :-) no problem, Phil. And, no, I am not a clever scholar.
>
> We're like a company of soldiers all marching to the beat of the drum in
> our own heads, and each of us loudly protesting that we're the only one in
> step.
>
> But even though we should probably end this discussion, I see no reason to
> apologise to this forum.
>
> Wasn't it the Scripture that caused us to question the current model of the
> Universe? Even though we had no scientific proof, we were confident that the
> Bible held a contrary view, and we were inclined to believe it.
>
> In fact, Neville's website initially quoted the Scriptures that indicated
> that the Earth was fixed and could not be moved.
>
> I asked the question ages ago whether or not the word 'moved' meant a
> physical movement as opposed to: "my heart is steadfast and will not be
> moved", or "I was moved to tears" etc. No one answered it. But I have
> watched the debates to see if the question would be answered anyway.
>
> So it's significant that Neville appears to believe little of what the
> bible says, and that you and I (and others) can differ so much in our
> interpretation of what the bible says. Does it really matter to us whether
> or not we rotate and orbit or just stand still? What matters is that there
> is an apparent discrepancy between what Science says and what we believe the
> Bible says. At least that's how it appeared when I joined this forum. Maybe
> you've all moved beyond that and I haven't. My only concern is: "what is the
> truth?"
>
> We both love the truth; we read the same Scriptures; and we pray to the
> same God for understanding on these matters and others far more important
> than whether the Earth moves or not. How then can we be so far apart?
>
> I don't know -- but I'll move on now.
>
> With respect to all,
> John
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:48 PM, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
> Peter came in with some biblical comments that seemed to deny Jesus was
> God. along with other, Therefore I can answer those points together with my
> response to Johns below. inserted in brown.. Philip.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* John Roodt <johnroodt@xxxxxxxxx>
> *To:* geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 24, 2008 10:18 AM
> *Subject:* [geocentrism] Re: correction
>
> Phil,
>
> Catholics overlook one glaring truth. JESUS EXISTED BEFORE THE WORLD
> BEGAN!! In what possible sense could Mary be his mother in Heaven?!? A
> Mystery perhaps but Elizabeth did say it..
>
> 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women
> and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me *that
> the mother of my Lord should come to me? *
>
> Some Catholics may overlook it ! but they are not "clever scientists" like
> myself, and would hardly be expected to comprehend the complexities of time
> space and eternity. Thats why Heaven is called a place of many mansions!
>
> I have already asked John using this same quotation , did he understand the
> difference. "Before Abraham was born, I AM". Time is temporal or
> temporary.. Eternity in temporal terms is compared to an everpresent "now"
> A mystery to 3D human brains, but fully experienced in the next world. "
> We pray ....." Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy
> Ghost, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be..."
> beginning = ever shall be..
>
> What has Mary to do with Him?
>
> 46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. 47 And my spirit hath
> rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 *Because he hath regarded the humility of
> his handmaid: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me
> blessed. 49 Because he that is mighty hath done great things to me:* and
> holy is his name.
> Jesus entered this world for a purpose ... He wasn't created here the way
> we are. He already existed. He is no-one's Son but God's alone. Mary is NOT
> the mother of God.
>
> And whence is this to me *that the mother of my Lord should come to me? *
> She is not even the mother of Jesus in glory -- how could she be?
>
> You've said it yourself, Catholics make "Graven images of things in Heaven
> and Earth and pay them homage"... how much more evidence must you see of
> pagan worship before your eyes are opened and you see the truth?
> *You read into my words a thing I did not say.* And it is off subject,
> unless you are only interested in Catholic bashing.. I am not into
> protestant bashing, and will not be drawn into such a slanging match here.
> Sufficient to say, no catholic may pay homage to images or things. Respect
> absolutely, as I would hope you give to the Holy Book, lest someone commit
> sacrilege with it. You could not see, or else ignored my accent on humility
> in all things as promoted by Mary.
>
> The Bible is an incredible work. Consider how God allows sinful men to be
> the writers of His Word. Even Jesus did not commit anything to writing -- He
> knows that He can get man to write down His eternal and perfect truths. Even
> though they are weaved into the fabric of human existence -- interlaced with
> the stories of sinful human lives. It is truly amazing. How awesome, and
> wise, and great is our God. The depth of His Wisdom is unfathomable.
> Thus here may I take the quote Peter used and His comment..
> It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach as
> doctrines commands of men.'
>
> So, unless a doctrine such as Mary veneration is in the Bible, it is a
> doctrine of men. Peter. "Consider how God allows sinful men to be the
> writers of His Word. Even Jesus did not commit anything to writing -- He
> knows that He can get man to write down His eternal and perfect truths"
>
> And if you did not hear it from His mouth, how can you be absolutely sure
> the Bible is not a collection of the *doctrines of men!*
>
> *Jesus* *selected 12, many more than the few of the testaments. Yet it was
> the men who followed centuries later who decided to collect and authorise
> the Books into a canonised NT of Scripture. "Doctrines of men " As are the
> Quran or the Book of Mormon!.... They cannot authorise themselves.. *
>
> Mary is just a blessed part of the fabric through which God wove His plan
> for salvation. Jesus himself said that no-one born of woman was greater than
> John the Baptist -- not even Mary. How could she be exalted above even John
> the Baptist?
>
> These issues are your preferred interpretation. If you are indeed a clever
> scholar then I must weigh your opinion against other clever scholars who
> also are very well educated men. *And after that, then one must wonder
> which if any has the guidance of the Holy Ghost.*
>
> That the most intelligent of scholars in the world are unable to find
> consensus on so many issues raised by Bible study, is fair evidence to show
> how in-appropriate is the idea that the Bible Alone suffices unto salvation.
>
>
>
> Thanks for efforts to explain your position, but I think you need to step
> back and re-look at what you believe.
>
> Be sure I believe nothing blindly. I said above, "And after that, then one
> must wonder which if any has the guidance of the Holy Ghost. " If it was on
> scholarship alone, I would have no faith. I firmly believe that those men
> whose apostolic succession is proven by the historical continuity of
> "laying of the hands" in ceremonial sacramental ordination all the way back
> to the Apostles, and to Christ Himself are the most logical group whose
> scholarship would be guided by the Holy Ghost; that same group of men who
> collected and authorised the Holy Scripture and protected it throughout the
> centuries.
>
> I agree, we have exhausted the subject here. Its been an enjoyable
> discussion. My Prayers as always are with you and all the members of the
> group. Many thanks to Neville for his tolerance and for allowing us to
> proceed. Regards, Philip.
>
> John
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:05 AM, PETER CHARLTON <
> peter.nambo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> There is an awful lot at stake here. How terrible for either of us to
> cling to our beliefs at the cost of our souls. Incidentally, is there a
> consequence to denying Mary as "Queen of Heaven"?
>
>
>
> A good question indeed for Jesus said 7 It is in vain that they keep
> worshiping me, because they teach as doctrines commands of men.'
>
> So, unless a doctrine such as Mary veneration is in the Bible, it is a
> doctrine of men.
>
>
> 46 While he was yet speaking to the crowds, look! his mother and brothers
> took up a position outside seeking to speak to him. 47 So someone said to
> him: "Look! Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, seeking to
> speak to you." 48 As an answer he said to the one telling him: "Who is my
> mother, and who are my brothers?" 49 And extending his hand toward his
> disciples, he said: "Look! My mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does
> the will of my Father who is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister,
> and mother."
> Also, Jesus showed us that even he himself was not to be venerated, let
> alone his Mother, only his Father in heaven, MT 19:16 And, behold, one came
> and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have
> eternal life?
>
> MT 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good
> but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the
> commandments.
>
> Pete Charlton
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Get Free 5GB Email – Check out spam free email with many cool features!
> Visit http://www.inbox.com/email to find out more!
>
> ------------------------------
> Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live. Learn
> Now<http://windowslive.com/connect/post/jamiethomson.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!550F681DAD532637!5295.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_getmore_092008>
>
Other related posts:
