Slashdot Mirror

https://www.blueletterbible.or... John 1:1 KJV - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ...is still better than anything written by mankind, before or since.

If any of you would be interested in a good overall introduction to the Bible, I can't recommend Dr. Chuck Missler's work highly enough for "nerds"--> https://www.youtube.com/playli...
He comes from an Information Technology background, and presents some insight into the authenticity of the Bible that I had not seen in my 35+ years of study. He doesn't "preach", he just teaches according to what he has found over many decades of Bible study. Could be the best 24 hours you'll ever invest in anything in your life....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://africa-arabia-plate.we...
[Zec 14:4 KJV] 4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which [is] before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, [and there shall be] a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
https://discussions.godandscie...
https://www.tomorrowsworld.org...
https://www.blueletterbible.or...
http://www.biblesearchers.com/...
And, as a bonus, I'll leave this for the math nerds to dissect... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://www.telusplanet.net/pub...

...but joint heirs with Christ as God's children. If you're truly interested in how the divine author of the Holy Bible views the desired relationship with us, check out this paragraph.... https://www.blueletterbible.or... and note verses 16 and 17.

[Rom 8:1 KJV] [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
[Rom 8:2 KJV] For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
[Rom 8:3 KJV] For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
[Rom 8:4 KJV] That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
[Rom 8:5 KJV] For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
[Rom 8:6 KJV] For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace.
[Rom 8:7 KJV] Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
[Rom 8:8 KJV] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
[Rom 8:9 KJV] But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
[Rom 8:10 KJV] And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.
[Rom 8:11 KJV] But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
[Rom 8:12 KJV] Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
[Rom 8:13 KJV] For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
[Rom 8:14 KJV] For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
[Rom 8:15 KJV] For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
[Rom 8:16 KJV] The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
[Rom 8:17 KJV] And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together.
[Rom 8:18 KJV] For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time [are] not worthy [to be compared] with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
[Rom 8:19 KJV] For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
[Rom 8:20 KJV] For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope,
[Rom 8:21 KJV] Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
[Rom 8:22 KJV] For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
[Rom 8:23 KJV] And not only [they], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.
[Rom 8:24 KJV] For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
[Rom 8:25 KJV] But if we hope for that we see not, [then] do we with patience wait for [it].
[Rom 8:26 KJV] Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
[Rom 8:27 KJV] And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to [the will of] God.
[Rom 8

Or, as my boss put it:

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

He's up one world and down one soul. Duh.

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

Could you, please, convince me back that my life was not spent in vain?

Ancient commenter Solomon noted:

Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.

This is what happens when a biblical zeal for vengeance meets modern technology.

"Biblical zeal for vengeance"? I'm not a Biblical scholar, but a quick search indicates that the Bible is rather clear and consistent in how vengeance should be approached, namely, that it should be left to God since it's not ours to mete out. Here are a few from the search:

Psalm 94:1

O LORD God, to whom vengeance belongs—
O God, to whom vengeance belongs, shine forth!

Deuteronomy 32:35

Vengeance is Mine, and recompense;
Their foot shall slip in due time;
For the day of their calamity is at hand,
And the things to come hasten upon them.'

Hebrews 10:30

For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. And again, "The LORD will judge His people."

Long story short, carrying out vengeance is something that the Bible pretty clearly says is not ours to do. Check the search results yourself if you think I'm cherry-picking.

As for the rest of your point, yeah, this stuff is pretty far off the deep end. She's trying to make an "ends justify the means" argument with her "how will the future view it" line of reasoning, and when it comes to criminal justice, that's one line of argumentation that should almost never be made, simply because we have a responsibility to take the high road when criminals do not, and show them how society is supposed to function. Hint: as you'd likely agree, it's not by torturing people into submission.

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Eccl 1:9

Nice try. In hebrew the root of the word for serpent is the same as to lie.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H5172&t=KJV

Yea, hath God said?

"people didn't live as a long, so there was a lot of pressure to start breeding as soon and as many as possible"

Common misconception. Lots of young people died (in childbirth or as infants), bringing down the average life expectancy. But once a person reached adulthood, the maximum lifespan was about the same as it is today. Bible Psalm 90:10: "Our days may come to seventy years, or eighty, if our strength endures; yet the best of them are but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away" (as written ~500 BC).

http://biblehub.com/psalms/90-10.htm
http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/parallel/paral18.cfm

16. Yea, I hated all my labour which I had taken under the sun: because I should leave it unto the man that shall be after me.
17. And who knoweth whether he shall be a wise man or a fool? yet shall he have rule over all my labour wherein I have laboured, and wherein I have shewed myself wise under the sun. This is also vanity.

What gave it away; was it the dudes hanging out with each other out in the desert, wearing nothing but flowing robes?

I don't follow about what's wrong with men wearing flowing robes. After Adam and Eve sinned for the first time and became aware of their nakedness, God made clothes for them. Genesis 3:21 identifies these as tunics, or shirts long enough to cover at least the kneecaps. (Some English translations use imprecise terms in this verse, such as "coats" or "garments", but the Hebrew word is kethoneth which means a tunic.) Centuries later, man would invent trousers, but only for riding horses. But even given Deuteronomy 22:5, there's nothing wrong with men wearing masculine styles of flowing robes.

Oh, please.. As if the Bible is that much better?

Remember who gobbled the apple?

There are so many bible verses that I'll just link to some web pages:
First page

Second page

Third page

Yes, the new testament was generally better than the old testament, but there's lots of fun wackiness in both.

Deuteronomy - Chapter 13 is also a fun read :)

The author of that page seems to be wrong about this. I started checking a few more instances of that word. Although it may well have been translated as miscarriage in that passage it is certainly not necessarily meaning that.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3318&t=KJV&cscs=Gen
Here's an online concordance search I found with the definition and list of references:

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind ...
Gen 8:16 Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee.
and several more similar references until we come to a genealogy of Noah's sons:
Gen 10:14 And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (out of whom came Philistim,) and Caphtorim.
and after a few more references we find Melchizedek's prophesy to Abram:
Gen 15:4 And, behold, the word of the LORD [came] unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir

So not even getting past Genesis and there are at least two instances of the word being used to refer to a live birth. I'd need to see much stronger reasoning to be convinced that it's use in one particular passage must only refer to a stillbirth. It variously refers to plants coming out of the ground, people coming out of a structure (ark), residence, city or land, and people being born. Where is any evidence that in Exodus it means stillbirth when it doesn't have that meaning everywhere else (indeed does not have it anywhere else that I have found)?

I'm not really motivated to further effort to convince you, if you're really interested, look at the definition, look at the references, believe what you want.

You seem to have read quite a bit into what I said. All I was pointing out was that the topic isn't confined to the Old Testament. Simple references, nothing more. It wasn't my goal to spur a discussion about the modern state of affairs, nor did I offer an opinion on homosexuality. But since you seem to have assumed that I'd take a hard-line stance, allow me to clarify a few points in response. It seems like you're mostly focused on the current marriage debate, based on your closing remark, so that's where I'll spend most of my time.

I'd suggest using a different translation than the King James, since it takes quite a few liberties with the accuracy of the text. The translation I was using earlier to look those up was (Young's Literal Translation, and it referred to them as "sodomites", rather than those who "defile themselves with mankind", which is quite a bit clearer. Even so, an even clearer picture of the phrase can be offered by Strong's Concordance, which indicates that the original Greek word was indeed intended to convey the idea of homosexuality.

Anyway:
Regarding ignoring Paul - "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". Scripture also talks elsewhere about how Paul was instructed by Jesus during the eight or so years that he spent in Tarsus between his conversion on the road to Damascus and when he began his ministry.

Regarding marriage - "Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge."

None of that contradicts the three verse fragments you provided, however, nor are they intended to do so, since all of scripture is meant to be used, and all of the ones we've cited are reconcilable with each other. I'm not advocating hatred of homosexuals or anything of that sort, nor am I advocating that we should be judgmental towards them, both of which you seemed to assume of me. As you pointed out, it's God's place to judge, not ours, and that's even reiterated in the second verse I provided above.

Even so, Christians are called to spread the gospel, and part of it is that God can forgive sins, which is preceded by our repentance of them. Clearly you can't force someone to be repentant (of which many are guilty for trying), but if you had a friend who you knew was making a poor decision, wouldn't you come alongside them in friendship and advise them to do otherwise? It's no different here with loving your neighbor. There definitely are people who approach this matter with other motivations, particularly in a judgmental fashion, but I'd say that they're in the wrong for doing so.

That said, I don't want to give the false impression that I'm okay with the way the marriage debate is heading, because I'm not. While I am fully in support of homosexual relationships being given equal legal status to that of marriages, I do not believe that those relationships should be referred to as "marriage". As an analogy, if a group of classical music aficionados went to their local concert hall expecting to hear Bach, but were instead treated to the "classical" music of Eminem, they would be offended at the mischaracterization of the music they were listening to. Regardless of your thoughts on Eminem (the merits of his music are well beyond the scope of this discussion), referring to what he does as "classical" is clearly inappropriate.

Now, imagine if it was not just music, but was something that you believed was defined by God, who then told us that it should not be defiled. Though I don't expect you to agree with me, I hope this at least helps you to understand why I may object to the increasingly popular opinion on the marriage debate.

Speaking personally, I do have friends that aren't heterosexual, but that doesn't mean that I beat them over th

IMHO 'magic' is anything that the user doesn't understand (which is true at some level of everything) - for some folks, turning on a light switch is performing magic. But then there's this...

The Ark of the Covenant may have been a really big capacitor - two layers of conductor (gold foil) separated by acacia wood, with the two layers each connected to one of the cherubim that rose above and reached toward each other - essentially forming two points for an arc to traverse under the right circumstances. In the desert, this might well build up a pretty good charge. I think some folks at MIT once built a replica, borrowing the gold from somewhere - it could hold a one farad charge IIRC.

And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth [his hand] to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook [it].
And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for [his] error; and there he died by the ark of God.

(Blue Letter Bible.

You know, I realized when I re-read my post, it could be hard to parse. Sorry for that.

First, Just so you know, some positions taken by modern day followers of Judaism (and even in the first century) have no basis in the Torah, Prophets, or Writings. As an example, the immortal soul. Ezekiel 18:4 and 20 plainly state human souls die. Jews say otherwise.

So what is taught in Judaism now is not a reliable guide for what was believed and written down in the time of Moses or even Ezekiel.

Second, I do not get involved in politics, so you will never find me petitioning either way in this matter

Now to the meat of the matter. Moses is the accepted writer of Exodus and Job (according to the Talmud) So in Job 3:16, Moses quotes Job as saying:(NIV) "Or why was I not hidden in the ground like a stillborn child, like an infant who never saw the light of day?" The word "stillborn child" is the word used for abortion or miscarriage in the Bible more than once. The word is transliterated 'nephel' a noun from the root 'naphal' a verb, meaning to fall or to be cast down. One example of usage: "and many of them *perish*" (Exodus 19:21) Note, only a few usages mean death, but all mean falling of some sort.

When we get to Exodus also written by Moses according to the Talmud, the word in 21:22 is 'yatsa'' a root itself, a verb meaning to go, come out, depart, to come or go forth (with purpose or for result), to cause to go or come out, bring out, lead out, to deliver. This is a completely different word. When it is used in the Bible, there is not necessarily a failure involved. A quick perusal of usage actually indicates successful bringing forth, i.e. "and the earth *brought forth* grass" (Genesis 1:12)

We read that the Talmud says that a fetus is not a soul. But the Talmud is a commentary or explanatory for the Torah. So what Moses wrote and what the Talmud teaches might not be the same. It's up to the reader to decide what to believe.

A literal rendering of the passage would be close to "And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges; " (Young's Literal Translation)

As I said before, the word for what comes out is the same for living breathing offspring, in Job, a suckling or child and in Exodus progeny, offspring or child.

With all that said then, when it says injury, (a noun singular defined as harm or mischief or injury to anyone) then it would naturally apply to both mother and child(ren). Unless your teachings precluded that. (See first paragraph)

You can research this for yourself if you want. http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm is a resource to find concordances and definitions of words. (Beware the commentaries)

In short: the natural language would point to any injury (to mother or 'children') requiring 'eye for eye' especially since the word used for children in Exodus (Young's) everywhere else in the Bible indicate living, breathing, already born progeny.

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. 8Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. (Mattew 6:7 King James Version) http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=6&v=1&t=KJV#comm/7

Ok. First of all, what the Biblical text actually says is "kol heharim hag...

What I'm seeing in Gen 7:19 is "har". The lexicon link for "har" provides different meanings according to biblical usage of the word: hill, mountain, hill country, mount.

I completely blanked on Gen 7:20 saying "mountains" and using the exact word "har".

At any rate, some creationists theorize such a world where high(er) mountains were created due to coinciding plate movement along with the flood. The root words used in the bible imply that water covered hills and mountains: Creationists are theorizing how that might have been possible.

You can't just make up mechanisms to protect a cherished hypothesis. That's not science. Science looks at the evidence and says "ok, what's the simplest explanation of the evidence we have? What is the most probable explanation" you don't just keep making marginally plausible hypotheses to defend an idea.

They're not just making up mechanisms. They're theorizing and modeling with concrete physics. That was the point of linking the runaway subduction proposal.

It's worth repeating: Theories are falsifiable. It's not rational to criticize a theory based on "intentions." So what if they're starting from a religious stand point? Judge the theory on its merits.

I have read a number of creation ideas, proposals, models and theories that are no longer credible and creationists know it. They discover the holes and move on. Just like science has done. I just got done reading A Brief History of Time. The history of physics it describes is exactly like that.

Do you understand what the term "by definition" means or what I was saying about being careful about uses of short inferential distance?

Okay. I am not being pedantic about it but I think you are. I think we both know what the most important communication is with a statement like the one I brought up. Faulting the semantics of the syntax in the medium in which it was delivered is of little value.

Yay, more apologetic cargo cult science that doesn't work at all. That article posits under no evidence other than their reading of the Biblical text very high mutations rates.

I agree. Probably that one article doesn't do a good enough technical job of describing the vast body of work that backs up the ideas. But I really recommend reading more of the Q&A documents and trying to find the technical ones because, as a whole, they are quite intriguing.

Apologetic nonsense. Why is the "mainstream" not quesitoned in this context? Because we have 200 years worth of evidence. In 1750 most educated people were still young earth creationists. By 1850, almost no one was.

Most people would rather not have a god they owe their existence and their obedience to. Is it any wonder that these ideas would catch on like wildfire?

Sincerity is not in doubt. Intellectual honesty and objectiveness are. You aren't linking to anything I haven't seen dozens of times before.

You've poured over their 6000 documents with at least a mind to giving them a chance? I'm impressed.

If a text tells obvious truths then that doesn't say anything significant about the text, full stop.

I don't know why you stopped there. The rest of the paragraph continued on that thought.

You can't just start with a preconceived notion (in this case the correctness of the Biblical text) and then when you reach marginally plausible conclusions decide that that's how things must have happened.

You are right and you ar

Ok. First of all, what the Biblical text actually says is "kol heharim hag...

What I'm seeing in Gen 7:19 is "har". The lexicon link for "har" provides different meanings according to biblical usage of the word: hill, mountain, hill country, mount.

I completely blanked on Gen 7:20 saying "mountains" and using the exact word "har".

At any rate, some creationists theorize such a world where high(er) mountains were created due to coinciding plate movement along with the flood. The root words used in the bible imply that water covered hills and mountains: Creationists are theorizing how that might have been possible.

You can't just make up mechanisms to protect a cherished hypothesis. That's not science. Science looks at the evidence and says "ok, what's the simplest explanation of the evidence we have? What is the most probable explanation" you don't just keep making marginally plausible hypotheses to defend an idea.

They're not just making up mechanisms. They're theorizing and modeling with concrete physics. That was the point of linking the runaway subduction proposal.

It's worth repeating: Theories are falsifiable. It's not rational to criticize a theory based on "intentions." So what if they're starting from a religious stand point? Judge the theory on its merits.

I have read a number of creation ideas, proposals, models and theories that are no longer credible and creationists know it. They discover the holes and move on. Just like science has done. I just got done reading A Brief History of Time. The history of physics it describes is exactly like that.

Do you understand what the term "by definition" means or what I was saying about being careful about uses of short inferential distance?

Okay. I am not being pedantic about it but I think you are. I think we both know what the most important communication is with a statement like the one I brought up. Faulting the semantics of the syntax in the medium in which it was delivered is of little value.

Yay, more apologetic cargo cult science that doesn't work at all. That article posits under no evidence other than their reading of the Biblical text very high mutations rates.

I agree. Probably that one article doesn't do a good enough technical job of describing the vast body of work that backs up the ideas. But I really recommend reading more of the Q&A documents and trying to find the technical ones because, as a whole, they are quite intriguing.

Apologetic nonsense. Why is the "mainstream" not quesitoned in this context? Because we have 200 years worth of evidence. In 1750 most educated people were still young earth creationists. By 1850, almost no one was.

Most people would rather not have a god they owe their existence and their obedience to. Is it any wonder that these ideas would catch on like wildfire?

Sincerity is not in doubt. Intellectual honesty and objectiveness are. You aren't linking to anything I haven't seen dozens of times before.

You've poured over their 6000 documents with at least a mind to giving them a chance? I'm impressed.

If a text tells obvious truths then that doesn't say anything significant about the text, full stop.

I don't know why you stopped there. The rest of the paragraph continued on that thought.

You can't just start with a preconceived notion (in this case the correctness of the Biblical text) and then when you reach marginally plausible conclusions decide that that's how things must have happened.

You are right and you ar

Ok. First of all, what the Biblical text actually says is "kol heharim hag...

What I'm seeing in Gen 7:19 is "har". The lexicon link for "har" provides different meanings according to biblical usage of the word: hill, mountain, hill country, mount.

I completely blanked on Gen 7:20 saying "mountains" and using the exact word "har".

At any rate, some creationists theorize such a world where high(er) mountains were created due to coinciding plate movement along with the flood. The root words used in the bible imply that water covered hills and mountains: Creationists are theorizing how that might have been possible.

You can't just make up mechanisms to protect a cherished hypothesis. That's not science. Science looks at the evidence and says "ok, what's the simplest explanation of the evidence we have? What is the most probable explanation" you don't just keep making marginally plausible hypotheses to defend an idea.

They're not just making up mechanisms. They're theorizing and modeling with concrete physics. That was the point of linking the runaway subduction proposal.

It's worth repeating: Theories are falsifiable. It's not rational to criticize a theory based on "intentions." So what if they're starting from a religious stand point? Judge the theory on its merits.

I have read a number of creation ideas, proposals, models and theories that are no longer credible and creationists know it. They discover the holes and move on. Just like science has done. I just got done reading A Brief History of Time. The history of physics it describes is exactly like that.

Do you understand what the term "by definition" means or what I was saying about being careful about uses of short inferential distance?

Okay. I am not being pedantic about it but I think you are. I think we both know what the most important communication is with a statement like the one I brought up. Faulting the semantics of the syntax in the medium in which it was delivered is of little value.

Yay, more apologetic cargo cult science that doesn't work at all. That article posits under no evidence other than their reading of the Biblical text very high mutations rates.

I agree. Probably that one article doesn't do a good enough technical job of describing the vast body of work that backs up the ideas. But I really recommend reading more of the Q&A documents and trying to find the technical ones because, as a whole, they are quite intriguing.

Apologetic nonsense. Why is the "mainstream" not quesitoned in this context? Because we have 200 years worth of evidence. In 1750 most educated people were still young earth creationists. By 1850, almost no one was.

Most people would rather not have a god they owe their existence and their obedience to. Is it any wonder that these ideas would catch on like wildfire?

Sincerity is not in doubt. Intellectual honesty and objectiveness are. You aren't linking to anything I haven't seen dozens of times before.

You've poured over their 6000 documents with at least a mind to giving them a chance? I'm impressed.

If a text tells obvious truths then that doesn't say anything significant about the text, full stop.

I don't know why you stopped there. The rest of the paragraph continued on that thought.

You can't just start with a preconceived notion (in this case the correctness of the Biblical text) and then when you reach marginally plausible conclusions decide that that's how things must have happened.

You are right and you ar

I notice that's in Matthew's words, not Jesus's.

According to NIV, Jesus says everything in Mt 19:4-6 except for 'he replied' in vs 4. Which translation are you looking at? (Matthew 19:1 gives Jesus as 'he')

Besides, that would mean the polygamy in the Old Testament was both blessed by god (even commanded by him) and incompatible with one-man-one-woman marriage as described in Genesis, which is contradictory.

If marriage is and was always defined as "one man, one woman" than the Bible must be in error describing David's and Solomon's mates as "wives."

Polygamy in OT was allowed and regulated. Sin was too. True justice in the Bible requires all sinners to die in the day of their sin. But only some sins incurred the death penalty in Mosaic Law. Polygamy was 'commanded' only in case of 'Brother in law marriage' that I can recall. But note the very interesting words of Jesus there in Mt 19:8: Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

Like I said in other reply, Read the whole passage. Jesus was even correcting the ideas of his apostles. Really, Christianity is different than Judaism as expounded in OT. Jesus brought something better according to Heb 7:22, Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

Put simply, Jesus was re-instituting one man one woman marriage that was the original definition.

as a side note, Solomon broke the command for kings and wives found at Deuteronomy 17:17: He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold. And his heart was led astray.

I notice that's in Matthew's words, not Jesus's.

According to NIV, Jesus says everything in Mt 19:4-6 except for 'he replied' in vs 4. Which translation are you looking at? (Matthew 19:1 gives Jesus as 'he')

Besides, that would mean the polygamy in the Old Testament was both blessed by god (even commanded by him) and incompatible with one-man-one-woman marriage as described in Genesis, which is contradictory.

If marriage is and was always defined as "one man, one woman" than the Bible must be in error describing David's and Solomon's mates as "wives."

Polygamy in OT was allowed and regulated. Sin was too. True justice in the Bible requires all sinners to die in the day of their sin. But only some sins incurred the death penalty in Mosaic Law. Polygamy was 'commanded' only in case of 'Brother in law marriage' that I can recall. But note the very interesting words of Jesus there in Mt 19:8: Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

Like I said in other reply, Read the whole passage. Jesus was even correcting the ideas of his apostles. Really, Christianity is different than Judaism as expounded in OT. Jesus brought something better according to Heb 7:22, Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

Put simply, Jesus was re-instituting one man one woman marriage that was the original definition.

as a side note, Solomon broke the command for kings and wives found at Deuteronomy 17:17: He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold. And his heart was led astray.

I notice that's in Matthew's words, not Jesus's.

According to NIV, Jesus says everything in Mt 19:4-6 except for 'he replied' in vs 4. Which translation are you looking at? (Matthew 19:1 gives Jesus as 'he')

Besides, that would mean the polygamy in the Old Testament was both blessed by god (even commanded by him) and incompatible with one-man-one-woman marriage as described in Genesis, which is contradictory.

If marriage is and was always defined as "one man, one woman" than the Bible must be in error describing David's and Solomon's mates as "wives."

Polygamy in OT was allowed and regulated. Sin was too. True justice in the Bible requires all sinners to die in the day of their sin. But only some sins incurred the death penalty in Mosaic Law. Polygamy was 'commanded' only in case of 'Brother in law marriage' that I can recall. But note the very interesting words of Jesus there in Mt 19:8: Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

Like I said in other reply, Read the whole passage. Jesus was even correcting the ideas of his apostles. Really, Christianity is different than Judaism as expounded in OT. Jesus brought something better according to Heb 7:22, Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

Put simply, Jesus was re-instituting one man one woman marriage that was the original definition.

as a side note, Solomon broke the command for kings and wives found at Deuteronomy 17:17: He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold. And his heart was led astray.

Learn set theory

What is the difference between unlawful and illegal?

Matthew 19:4-6 is the definition of marriage. Definitions are by definition exclusionary. Marriage means Husband and Wife. In this passage Jesus said both 'male and female' and 'man...united to his wife.'

Strong's definition of Pornea or fornication is found here:Strong 4202 Note def 1a

Jesus used that word in many places, note Mt 19:9 and Mt 15:19

And finally what about what Jesus says at Revelation 22:15: (NIV) Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. Also Jesus' Father said this one chapter earlier:Revelation 21:8, (NIV) But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars–their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

If you have arguments based on the Bible, I will be willing to hear them. Note again that I am not saying you and another woman can't marry. Just that NOWHERE in the Bible does Biblical marriage include same-sex unions.

Learn set theory

What is the difference between unlawful and illegal?

Matthew 19:4-6 is the definition of marriage. Definitions are by definition exclusionary. Marriage means Husband and Wife. In this passage Jesus said both 'male and female' and 'man...united to his wife.'

Strong's definition of Pornea or fornication is found here:Strong 4202 Note def 1a

Jesus used that word in many places, note Mt 19:9 and Mt 15:19

And finally what about what Jesus says at Revelation 22:15: (NIV) Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. Also Jesus' Father said this one chapter earlier:Revelation 21:8, (NIV) But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars–their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

If you have arguments based on the Bible, I will be willing to hear them. Note again that I am not saying you and another woman can't marry. Just that NOWHERE in the Bible does Biblical marriage include same-sex unions.

"And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them." (Ezekiel 4:12-13)

Sounds like Linux.

As to the raising from the dead, I agree there is no proof that it happened other than the Bible. Really how could we prove anything about Alexander or Constantine or anyone else from history other than King Tut? (we have his body)

Uhhh....maybe the fact there are *more* scriptures mentioning them?

I'm not sure what you mean. Alexander the Great was not named in the Bible. Referred to here: Daniel 8:20-22 My point was that those people are in secular history *not in the bible* and we believe they existed... Why not discount them too? Maybe you were using satire?

I do remember that a card carrying scientist (I remember not who) on npr said to 'resurrect' someone, all you would need is their dna and a really good MRI... (or some kind of 'brain backup') Scientifically theoretically possible.

Oh yeah, they had plenty of that stuff 2000 years ago, that is common knowledge!

I'm not saying that is how it happened. I was saying that it was *scientifically* conceivable. I do agree that it would have to be God or an alien race that had a 3500~ year jump on us. (a thousand or so Light years to get here)

Here is something interesting though, Pretty much every "Messiah" back at that time was thoroughly excoriated by the Jews. But they mention nothing at all about Jesus. Even if he was made up, surely they would point out that fact seeing as Jesus had followers that history does talk about. See the burning of Rome 64 CE. Tacitus talks about it here: Great Fire of Rome

Maybe there was some guy called Jesus, thinking he was 'The Son Of God' and some believing that. But the NT was written about 300 years after his death. If I fall and scratch my pinky, after it has been forwarded five times I will have broken my neck and after ten times I will be in loose pieces and to be glued together again. Leave alone if something has to be forwarded for threehundred years. A guy will start with sweaty feet and end up walking on water.

Umm... Papyrus 52, 100 to 150 CE.

Some interesting facts here.

Also, you said the book was 2000 years old. Maybe for internal harmony with your arguments you want to revise that to 1700 years old?

As to the prophecies that are fulfilled, Here's just one, Matthew 7:21-23. There would be 'Christians' they would do 'funny' stuff and would be working lawlessness. I'll let you find those fulfillments. Also, not words of Jesus but in the Bible, is 2 Peter 2:1-3 Sects? Check! Hypocrisy? Check! That is pretty much why many people don't like "Christians"

Pretty easy to predict, knowing human nature.

And pretty uncommon for founders of religions too.

And I'll throw in one you might be interested in for free. History and the Bible both are clear that the first century Christians (and Christ) didn't involve themselves with politics. See John 18:36 or John 6:15

...So???

So any person who tries to force the teaching of ID/Creationism by legislation or laws forbidding Gay Marriage or Abortion are not following the example of Jesus Christ

As to the raising from the dead, I agree there is no proof that it happened other than the Bible. Really how could we prove anything about Alexander or Constantine or anyone else from history other than King Tut? (we have his body)

Uhhh....maybe the fact there are *more* scriptures mentioning them?

I'm not sure what you mean. Alexander the Great was not named in the Bible. Referred to here: Daniel 8:20-22 My point was that those people are in secular history *not in the bible* and we believe they existed... Why not discount them too? Maybe you were using satire?

I do remember that a card carrying scientist (I remember not who) on npr said to 'resurrect' someone, all you would need is their dna and a really good MRI... (or some kind of 'brain backup') Scientifically theoretically possible.

Oh yeah, they had plenty of that stuff 2000 years ago, that is common knowledge!

I'm not saying that is how it happened. I was saying that it was *scientifically* conceivable. I do agree that it would have to be God or an alien race that had a 3500~ year jump on us. (a thousand or so Light years to get here)

Here is something interesting though, Pretty much every "Messiah" back at that time was thoroughly excoriated by the Jews. But they mention nothing at all about Jesus. Even if he was made up, surely they would point out that fact seeing as Jesus had followers that history does talk about. See the burning of Rome 64 CE. Tacitus talks about it here: Great Fire of Rome

Maybe there was some guy called Jesus, thinking he was 'The Son Of God' and some believing that. But the NT was written about 300 years after his death. If I fall and scratch my pinky, after it has been forwarded five times I will have broken my neck and after ten times I will be in loose pieces and to be glued together again. Leave alone if something has to be forwarded for threehundred years. A guy will start with sweaty feet and end up walking on water.

Umm... Papyrus 52, 100 to 150 CE.

Some interesting facts here.

Also, you said the book was 2000 years old. Maybe for internal harmony with your arguments you want to revise that to 1700 years old?

As to the prophecies that are fulfilled, Here's just one, Matthew 7:21-23. There would be 'Christians' they would do 'funny' stuff and would be working lawlessness. I'll let you find those fulfillments. Also, not words of Jesus but in the Bible, is 2 Peter 2:1-3 Sects? Check! Hypocrisy? Check! That is pretty much why many people don't like "Christians"

Pretty easy to predict, knowing human nature.

And pretty uncommon for founders of religions too.

And I'll throw in one you might be interested in for free. History and the Bible both are clear that the first century Christians (and Christ) didn't involve themselves with politics. See John 18:36 or John 6:15

...So???

So any person who tries to force the teaching of ID/Creationism by legislation or laws forbidding Gay Marriage or Abortion are not following the example of Jesus Christ

As to the raising from the dead, I agree there is no proof that it happened other than the Bible. Really how could we prove anything about Alexander or Constantine or anyone else from history other than King Tut? (we have his body)

Uhhh....maybe the fact there are *more* scriptures mentioning them?

I'm not sure what you mean. Alexander the Great was not named in the Bible. Referred to here: Daniel 8:20-22 My point was that those people are in secular history *not in the bible* and we believe they existed... Why not discount them too? Maybe you were using satire?

I do remember that a card carrying scientist (I remember not who) on npr said to 'resurrect' someone, all you would need is their dna and a really good MRI... (or some kind of 'brain backup') Scientifically theoretically possible.

Oh yeah, they had plenty of that stuff 2000 years ago, that is common knowledge!

I'm not saying that is how it happened. I was saying that it was *scientifically* conceivable. I do agree that it would have to be God or an alien race that had a 3500~ year jump on us. (a thousand or so Light years to get here)

Here is something interesting though, Pretty much every "Messiah" back at that time was thoroughly excoriated by the Jews. But they mention nothing at all about Jesus. Even if he was made up, surely they would point out that fact seeing as Jesus had followers that history does talk about. See the burning of Rome 64 CE. Tacitus talks about it here: Great Fire of Rome

Maybe there was some guy called Jesus, thinking he was 'The Son Of God' and some believing that. But the NT was written about 300 years after his death. If I fall and scratch my pinky, after it has been forwarded five times I will have broken my neck and after ten times I will be in loose pieces and to be glued together again. Leave alone if something has to be forwarded for threehundred years. A guy will start with sweaty feet and end up walking on water.

Umm... Papyrus 52, 100 to 150 CE.

Some interesting facts here.

Also, you said the book was 2000 years old. Maybe for internal harmony with your arguments you want to revise that to 1700 years old?

As to the prophecies that are fulfilled, Here's just one, Matthew 7:21-23. There would be 'Christians' they would do 'funny' stuff and would be working lawlessness. I'll let you find those fulfillments. Also, not words of Jesus but in the Bible, is 2 Peter 2:1-3 Sects? Check! Hypocrisy? Check! That is pretty much why many people don't like "Christians"

Pretty easy to predict, knowing human nature.

And pretty uncommon for founders of religions too.

And I'll throw in one you might be interested in for free. History and the Bible both are clear that the first century Christians (and Christ) didn't involve themselves with politics. See John 18:36 or John 6:15

...So???

So any person who tries to force the teaching of ID/Creationism by legislation or laws forbidding Gay Marriage or Abortion are not following the example of Jesus Christ

As to the raising from the dead, I agree there is no proof that it happened other than the Bible. Really how could we prove anything about Alexander or Constantine or anyone else from history other than King Tut? (we have his body)

Uhhh....maybe the fact there are *more* scriptures mentioning them?

I'm not sure what you mean. Alexander the Great was not named in the Bible. Referred to here: Daniel 8:20-22 My point was that those people are in secular history *not in the bible* and we believe they existed... Why not discount them too? Maybe you were using satire?

I do remember that a card carrying scientist (I remember not who) on npr said to 'resurrect' someone, all you would need is their dna and a really good MRI... (or some kind of 'brain backup') Scientifically theoretically possible.

Oh yeah, they had plenty of that stuff 2000 years ago, that is common knowledge!

I'm not saying that is how it happened. I was saying that it was *scientifically* conceivable. I do agree that it would have to be God or an alien race that had a 3500~ year jump on us. (a thousand or so Light years to get here)

Here is something interesting though, Pretty much every "Messiah" back at that time was thoroughly excoriated by the Jews. But they mention nothing at all about Jesus. Even if he was made up, surely they would point out that fact seeing as Jesus had followers that history does talk about. See the burning of Rome 64 CE. Tacitus talks about it here: Great Fire of Rome

Maybe there was some guy called Jesus, thinking he was 'The Son Of God' and some believing that. But the NT was written about 300 years after his death. If I fall and scratch my pinky, after it has been forwarded five times I will have broken my neck and after ten times I will be in loose pieces and to be glued together again. Leave alone if something has to be forwarded for threehundred years. A guy will start with sweaty feet and end up walking on water.

Umm... Papyrus 52, 100 to 150 CE.

Some interesting facts here.

Also, you said the book was 2000 years old. Maybe for internal harmony with your arguments you want to revise that to 1700 years old?

As to the prophecies that are fulfilled, Here's just one, Matthew 7:21-23. There would be 'Christians' they would do 'funny' stuff and would be working lawlessness. I'll let you find those fulfillments. Also, not words of Jesus but in the Bible, is 2 Peter 2:1-3 Sects? Check! Hypocrisy? Check! That is pretty much why many people don't like "Christians"

Pretty easy to predict, knowing human nature.

And pretty uncommon for founders of religions too.

And I'll throw in one you might be interested in for free. History and the Bible both are clear that the first century Christians (and Christ) didn't involve themselves with politics. See John 18:36 or John 6:15

...So???

So any person who tries to force the teaching of ID/Creationism by legislation or laws forbidding Gay Marriage or Abortion are not following the example of Jesus Christ

As to the raising from the dead, I agree there is no proof that it happened other than the Bible. Really how could we prove anything about Alexander or Constantine or anyone else from history other than King Tut? (we have his body)

Uhhh....maybe the fact there are *more* scriptures mentioning them?

I'm not sure what you mean. Alexander the Great was not named in the Bible. Referred to here: Daniel 8:20-22 My point was that those people are in secular history *not in the bible* and we believe they existed... Why not discount them too? Maybe you were using satire?

I do remember that a card carrying scientist (I remember not who) on npr said to 'resurrect' someone, all you would need is their dna and a really good MRI... (or some kind of 'brain backup') Scientifically theoretically possible.

Oh yeah, they had plenty of that stuff 2000 years ago, that is common knowledge!

I'm not saying that is how it happened. I was saying that it was *scientifically* conceivable. I do agree that it would have to be God or an alien race that had a 3500~ year jump on us. (a thousand or so Light years to get here)

Here is something interesting though, Pretty much every "Messiah" back at that time was thoroughly excoriated by the Jews. But they mention nothing at all about Jesus. Even if he was made up, surely they would point out that fact seeing as Jesus had followers that history does talk about. See the burning of Rome 64 CE. Tacitus talks about it here: Great Fire of Rome

Maybe there was some guy called Jesus, thinking he was 'The Son Of God' and some believing that. But the NT was written about 300 years after his death. If I fall and scratch my pinky, after it has been forwarded five times I will have broken my neck and after ten times I will be in loose pieces and to be glued together again. Leave alone if something has to be forwarded for threehundred years. A guy will start with sweaty feet and end up walking on water.

Umm... Papyrus 52, 100 to 150 CE.

Some interesting facts here.

Also, you said the book was 2000 years old. Maybe for internal harmony with your arguments you want to revise that to 1700 years old?

As to the prophecies that are fulfilled, Here's just one, Matthew 7:21-23. There would be 'Christians' they would do 'funny' stuff and would be working lawlessness. I'll let you find those fulfillments. Also, not words of Jesus but in the Bible, is 2 Peter 2:1-3 Sects? Check! Hypocrisy? Check! That is pretty much why many people don't like "Christians"

Pretty easy to predict, knowing human nature.

And pretty uncommon for founders of religions too.

And I'll throw in one you might be interested in for free. History and the Bible both are clear that the first century Christians (and Christ) didn't involve themselves with politics. See John 18:36 or John 6:15

...So???

So any person who tries to force the teaching of ID/Creationism by legislation or laws forbidding Gay Marriage or Abortion are not following the example of Jesus Christ

As to the raising from the dead, I agree there is no proof that it happened other than the Bible. Really how could we prove anything about Alexander or Constantine or anyone else from history other than King Tut? (we have his body)

Uhhh....maybe the fact there are *more* scriptures mentioning them?

I do remember that a card carrying scientist (I remember not who) on npr said to 'resurrect' someone, all you would need is their dna and a really good MRI... (or some kind of 'brain backup') Scientifically theoretically possible.

Oh yeah, they had plenty of that stuff 2000 years ago, that is common knowledge!

Here is something interesting though, Pretty much every "Messiah" back at that time was thoroughly excoriated by the Jews. But they mention nothing at all about Jesus. Even if he was made up, surely they would point out that fact seeing as Jesus had followers that history does talk about. See the burning of Rome 64 CE. Tacitus talks about it here: Great Fire of Rome

Maybe there was some guy called Jesus, thinking he was 'The Son Of God' and some believing that. But the NT was written about 300 years after his death. If I fall and scratch my pinky, after it has been forwarded five times I will have broken my neck and after ten times I will be in loose pieces and to be glued together again. Leave alone if something has to be forwarded for threehundred years. A guy will start with sweaty feet and end up walking on water.

As to the prophecies that are fulfilled, Here's just one, Matthew 7:21-23. There would be 'Christians' they would do 'funny' stuff and would be working lawlessness. I'll let you find those fulfillments. Also, not words of Jesus but in the Bible, is 2 Peter 2:1-3 Sects? Check! Hypocrisy? Check! That is pretty much why many people don't like "Christians"

Pretty easy to predict, knowing human nature.

And I'll throw in one you might be interested in for free. History and the Bible both are clear that the first century Christians (and Christ) didn't involve themselves with politics. See John 18:36 or John 6:15

...So???

As to the raising from the dead, I agree there is no proof that it happened other than the Bible. Really how could we prove anything about Alexander or Constantine or anyone else from history other than King Tut? (we have his body)

Uhhh....maybe the fact there are *more* scriptures mentioning them?

I do remember that a card carrying scientist (I remember not who) on npr said to 'resurrect' someone, all you would need is their dna and a really good MRI... (or some kind of 'brain backup') Scientifically theoretically possible.

Oh yeah, they had plenty of that stuff 2000 years ago, that is common knowledge!

Here is something interesting though, Pretty much every "Messiah" back at that time was thoroughly excoriated by the Jews. But they mention nothing at all about Jesus. Even if he was made up, surely they would point out that fact seeing as Jesus had followers that history does talk about. See the burning of Rome 64 CE. Tacitus talks about it here: Great Fire of Rome

Maybe there was some guy called Jesus, thinking he was 'The Son Of God' and some believing that. But the NT was written about 300 years after his death. If I fall and scratch my pinky, after it has been forwarded five times I will have broken my neck and after ten times I will be in loose pieces and to be glued together again. Leave alone if something has to be forwarded for threehundred years. A guy will start with sweaty feet and end up walking on water.

As to the prophecies that are fulfilled, Here's just one, Matthew 7:21-23. There would be 'Christians' they would do 'funny' stuff and would be working lawlessness. I'll let you find those fulfillments. Also, not words of Jesus but in the Bible, is 2 Peter 2:1-3 Sects? Check! Hypocrisy? Check! That is pretty much why many people don't like "Christians"

Pretty easy to predict, knowing human nature.

And I'll throw in one you might be interested in for free. History and the Bible both are clear that the first century Christians (and Christ) didn't involve themselves with politics. See John 18:36 or John 6:15

...So???

As to the raising from the dead, I agree there is no proof that it happened other than the Bible. Really how could we prove anything about Alexander or Constantine or anyone else from history other than King Tut? (we have his body)

Uhhh....maybe the fact there are *more* scriptures mentioning them?

I do remember that a card carrying scientist (I remember not who) on npr said to 'resurrect' someone, all you would need is their dna and a really good MRI... (or some kind of 'brain backup') Scientifically theoretically possible.

Oh yeah, they had plenty of that stuff 2000 years ago, that is common knowledge!

Here is something interesting though, Pretty much every "Messiah" back at that time was thoroughly excoriated by the Jews. But they mention nothing at all about Jesus. Even if he was made up, surely they would point out that fact seeing as Jesus had followers that history does talk about. See the burning of Rome 64 CE. Tacitus talks about it here: Great Fire of Rome

Maybe there was some guy called Jesus, thinking he was 'The Son Of God' and some believing that. But the NT was written about 300 years after his death. If I fall and scratch my pinky, after it has been forwarded five times I will have broken my neck and after ten times I will be in loose pieces and to be glued together again. Leave alone if something has to be forwarded for threehundred years. A guy will start with sweaty feet and end up walking on water.

As to the prophecies that are fulfilled, Here's just one, Matthew 7:21-23. There would be 'Christians' they would do 'funny' stuff and would be working lawlessness. I'll let you find those fulfillments. Also, not words of Jesus but in the Bible, is 2 Peter 2:1-3 Sects? Check! Hypocrisy? Check! That is pretty much why many people don't like "Christians"

Pretty easy to predict, knowing human nature.

And I'll throw in one you might be interested in for free. History and the Bible both are clear that the first century Christians (and Christ) didn't involve themselves with politics. See John 18:36 or John 6:15

...So???

As to the raising from the dead, I agree there is no proof that it happened other than the Bible. Really how could we prove anything about Alexander or Constantine or anyone else from history other than King Tut? (we have his body)

Uhhh....maybe the fact there are *more* scriptures mentioning them?

I do remember that a card carrying scientist (I remember not who) on npr said to 'resurrect' someone, all you would need is their dna and a really good MRI... (or some kind of 'brain backup') Scientifically theoretically possible.

Oh yeah, they had plenty of that stuff 2000 years ago, that is common knowledge!

Here is something interesting though, Pretty much every "Messiah" back at that time was thoroughly excoriated by the Jews. But they mention nothing at all about Jesus. Even if he was made up, surely they would point out that fact seeing as Jesus had followers that history does talk about. See the burning of Rome 64 CE. Tacitus talks about it here: Great Fire of Rome

Maybe there was some guy called Jesus, thinking he was 'The Son Of God' and some believing that. But the NT was written about 300 years after his death. If I fall and scratch my pinky, after it has been forwarded five times I will have broken my neck and after ten times I will be in loose pieces and to be glued together again. Leave alone if something has to be forwarded for threehundred years. A guy will start with sweaty feet and end up walking on water.

As to the prophecies that are fulfilled, Here's just one, Matthew 7:21-23. There would be 'Christians' they would do 'funny' stuff and would be working lawlessness. I'll let you find those fulfillments. Also, not words of Jesus but in the Bible, is 2 Peter 2:1-3 Sects? Check! Hypocrisy? Check! That is pretty much why many people don't like "Christians"

Pretty easy to predict, knowing human nature.

And I'll throw in one you might be interested in for free. History and the Bible both are clear that the first century Christians (and Christ) didn't involve themselves with politics. See John 18:36 or John 6:15

...So???

As to the raising from the dead, I agree there is no proof that it happened other than the Bible. Really how could we prove anything about Alexander or Constantine or anyone else from history other than King Tut? (we have his body)

I do remember that a card carrying scientist (I remember not who) on npr said to 'resurrect' someone, all you would need is their dna and a really good MRI... (or some kind of 'brain backup') Scientifically theoretically possible.

Here is something interesting though, Pretty much every "Messiah" back at that time was thoroughly excoriated by the Jews. But they mention nothing at all about Jesus. Even if he was made up, surely they would point out that fact seeing as Jesus had followers that history does talk about. See the burning of Rome 64 CE. Tacitus talks about it here: Great Fire of Rome

As to the prophecies that are fulfilled, Here's just one, Matthew 7:21-23. There would be 'Christians' they would do 'funny' stuff and would be working lawlessness. I'll let you find those fulfillments. Also, not words of Jesus but in the Bible, is 2 Peter 2:1-3 Sects? Check! Hypocrisy? Check! That is pretty much why many people don't like "Christians"

And I'll throw in one you might be interested in for free. History and the Bible both are clear that the first century Christians (and Christ) didn't involve themselves with politics. See John 18:36 or John 6:15

As to the raising from the dead, I agree there is no proof that it happened other than the Bible. Really how could we prove anything about Alexander or Constantine or anyone else from history other than King Tut? (we have his body)

I do remember that a card carrying scientist (I remember not who) on npr said to 'resurrect' someone, all you would need is their dna and a really good MRI... (or some kind of 'brain backup') Scientifically theoretically possible.

Here is something interesting though, Pretty much every "Messiah" back at that time was thoroughly excoriated by the Jews. But they mention nothing at all about Jesus. Even if he was made up, surely they would point out that fact seeing as Jesus had followers that history does talk about. See the burning of Rome 64 CE. Tacitus talks about it here: Great Fire of Rome

As to the prophecies that are fulfilled, Here's just one, Matthew 7:21-23. There would be 'Christians' they would do 'funny' stuff and would be working lawlessness. I'll let you find those fulfillments. Also, not words of Jesus but in the Bible, is 2 Peter 2:1-3 Sects? Check! Hypocrisy? Check! That is pretty much why many people don't like "Christians"

And I'll throw in one you might be interested in for free. History and the Bible both are clear that the first century Christians (and Christ) didn't involve themselves with politics. See John 18:36 or John 6:15

As to the raising from the dead, I agree there is no proof that it happened other than the Bible. Really how could we prove anything about Alexander or Constantine or anyone else from history other than King Tut? (we have his body)

I do remember that a card carrying scientist (I remember not who) on npr said to 'resurrect' someone, all you would need is their dna and a really good MRI... (or some kind of 'brain backup') Scientifically theoretically possible.

Here is something interesting though, Pretty much every "Messiah" back at that time was thoroughly excoriated by the Jews. But they mention nothing at all about Jesus. Even if he was made up, surely they would point out that fact seeing as Jesus had followers that history does talk about. See the burning of Rome 64 CE. Tacitus talks about it here: Great Fire of Rome

As to the prophecies that are fulfilled, Here's just one, Matthew 7:21-23. There would be 'Christians' they would do 'funny' stuff and would be working lawlessness. I'll let you find those fulfillments. Also, not words of Jesus but in the Bible, is 2 Peter 2:1-3 Sects? Check! Hypocrisy? Check! That is pretty much why many people don't like "Christians"

And I'll throw in one you might be interested in for free. History and the Bible both are clear that the first century Christians (and Christ) didn't involve themselves with politics. See John 18:36 or John 6:15

As to the raising from the dead, I agree there is no proof that it happened other than the Bible. Really how could we prove anything about Alexander or Constantine or anyone else from history other than King Tut? (we have his body)

I do remember that a card carrying scientist (I remember not who) on npr said to 'resurrect' someone, all you would need is their dna and a really good MRI... (or some kind of 'brain backup') Scientifically theoretically possible.

Here is something interesting though, Pretty much every "Messiah" back at that time was thoroughly excoriated by the Jews. But they mention nothing at all about Jesus. Even if he was made up, surely they would point out that fact seeing as Jesus had followers that history does talk about. See the burning of Rome 64 CE. Tacitus talks about it here: Great Fire of Rome

As to the prophecies that are fulfilled, Here's just one, Matthew 7:21-23. There would be 'Christians' they would do 'funny' stuff and would be working lawlessness. I'll let you find those fulfillments. Also, not words of Jesus but in the Bible, is 2 Peter 2:1-3 Sects? Check! Hypocrisy? Check! That is pretty much why many people don't like "Christians"

And I'll throw in one you might be interested in for free. History and the Bible both are clear that the first century Christians (and Christ) didn't involve themselves with politics. See John 18:36 or John 6:15

Kano points out the verse from 1 Corinthians, but there's also 1 Timothy 1:10. The word translated "homosexual" is arsenokoites. This word is derived from arsen, meaning "man", and koite which is the root for the Latin "coitus". There's also Romans 1:26-27. Now clearly there's some disagreement on what these verses actually mean, but it seems clear to me, at least, that Paul agreed with the Mosaic view that homosexuality was abhorrent to God.

Kano points out the verse from 1 Corinthians, but there's also 1 Timothy 1:10. The word translated "homosexual" is arsenokoites. This word is derived from arsen, meaning "man", and koite which is the root for the Latin "coitus". There's also Romans 1:26-27. Now clearly there's some disagreement on what these verses actually mean, but it seems clear to me, at least, that Paul agreed with the Mosaic view that homosexuality was abhorrent to God.

"I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." (Luke 10:18)
in Hebrew,
baraq (Qal) to flash lightning, cast forth (lightning),
bamah 1) high place, ridge, height, bamah (technical name for cultic platform)
  a) high place, mountain
  b) high places, battlefields
  c) high places (as places of worship)
  d) funeral mound?
therefore Luke 10:18 could be spoken as "I saw Satan as Baraq Ubamah"; so now if you pull your tin-foil hat down tight, squint your eyes and tilt your head just right , you' see that Obama's secret identity is Satan aka Lucifer.

"I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." (Luke 10:18)
in Hebrew,
baraq (Qal) to flash lightning, cast forth (lightning),
bamah 1) high place, ridge, height, bamah (technical name for cultic platform)
  a) high place, mountain
  b) high places, battlefields
  c) high places (as places of worship)
  d) funeral mound?
therefore Luke 10:18 could be spoken as "I saw Satan as Baraq Ubamah"; so now if you pull your tin-foil hat down tight, squint your eyes and tilt your head just right , you' see that Obama's secret identity is Satan aka Lucifer.

as for the Blood soul thing, Genesis 9:4. The word translated life there is nephesh, the word for soul. Gesenius's Lexicon has some interesting points. Here

1 John 5:19

Ah yes, the "Buddhists will burn" clause.

OK here is where my op could have been a book. Like I said, different denominations teach different things. And different translations translate differently. Read also Matthew 25:46 Click on g2851 and check out definition. Also see Matthew 7:13 Life or destruction, not heaven or hell.

For further reading, see Ecclesiastes 9:5,6 and 10 and Ezekiel 18:4 and 20 and John 11:11-14 and the kicker in Revelation 20:13 and 14 Notice it says that Hell (hades) and death get thrown into lake of fire. and Lake of fire is second death, not second death is living forever in a lake of fire. The idea of a burning hell for immortal souls is a Greek idea. I invite you to look up the basic definition of Soul in Hebrew. And know it applies to animals also.

Please don't forget to point out that faith without works can get you into trouble too, I meet way too many "christians" who wouldn't know the difference between a sheep and a goat.

Damn, but you don't want to be stuck on his left hand side.

I agree 100% about the faith w/o works. Anyone who *practices* things not Christian can't really be called a christian. Matthew 7:15-23 I will never tell you or anyone that they will burn in Hell forever. Because it's just not true. See Revelation 20:13 again. Also see Acts 24:15

As for why mainline Christendom teaches eternal Hellfire and immortal soul, that is another book. Let me know if you want me to publish it here.

Ah yes, the "Buddhists will burn" clause.

OK here is where my op could have been a book. Like I said, different denominations teach different things. And different translations translate differently. Read also Matthew 25:46 Click on g2851 and check out definition. Also see Matthew 7:13 Life or destruction, not heaven or hell.

For further reading, see Ecclesiastes 9:5,6 and 10 and Ezekiel 18:4 and 20 and John 11:11-14 and the kicker in Revelation 20:13 and 14 Notice it says that Hell (hades) and death get thrown into lake of fire. and Lake of fire is second death, not second death is living forever in a lake of fire. The idea of a burning hell for immortal souls is a Greek idea. I invite you to look up the basic definition of Soul in Hebrew. And know it applies to animals also.

Please don't forget to point out that faith without works can get you into trouble too, I meet way too many "christians" who wouldn't know the difference between a sheep and a goat.

Damn, but you don't want to be stuck on his left hand side.

I agree 100% about the faith w/o works. Anyone who *practices* things not Christian can't really be called a christian. Matthew 7:15-23 I will never tell you or anyone that they will burn in Hell forever. Because it's just not true. See Revelation 20:13 again. Also see Acts 24:15

As for why mainline Christendom teaches eternal Hellfire and immortal soul, that is another book. Let me know if you want me to publish it here.

Ah yes, the "Buddhists will burn" clause.

OK here is where my op could have been a book. Like I said, different denominations teach different things. And different translations translate differently. Read also Matthew 25:46 Click on g2851 and check out definition. Also see Matthew 7:13 Life or destruction, not heaven or hell.

For further reading, see Ecclesiastes 9:5,6 and 10 and Ezekiel 18:4 and 20 and John 11:11-14 and the kicker in Revelation 20:13 and 14 Notice it says that Hell (hades) and death get thrown into lake of fire. and Lake of fire is second death, not second death is living forever in a lake of fire. The idea of a burning hell for immortal souls is a Greek idea. I invite you to look up the basic definition of Soul in Hebrew. And know it applies to animals also.

Please don't forget to point out that faith without works can get you into trouble too, I meet way too many "christians" who wouldn't know the difference between a sheep and a goat.

Damn, but you don't want to be stuck on his left hand side.

I agree 100% about the faith w/o works. Anyone who *practices* things not Christian can't really be called a christian. Matthew 7:15-23 I will never tell you or anyone that they will burn in Hell forever. Because it's just not true. See Revelation 20:13 again. Also see Acts 24:15

As for why mainline Christendom teaches eternal Hellfire and immortal soul, that is another book. Let me know if you want me to publish it here.

Ah yes, the "Buddhists will burn" clause.

OK here is where my op could have been a book. Like I said, different denominations teach different things. And different translations translate differently. Read also Matthew 25:46 Click on g2851 and check out definition. Also see Matthew 7:13 Life or destruction, not heaven or hell.

For further reading, see Ecclesiastes 9:5,6 and 10 and Ezekiel 18:4 and 20 and John 11:11-14 and the kicker in Revelation 20:13 and 14 Notice it says that Hell (hades) and death get thrown into lake of fire. and Lake of fire is second death, not second death is living forever in a lake of fire. The idea of a burning hell for immortal souls is a Greek idea. I invite you to look up the basic definition of Soul in Hebrew. And know it applies to animals also.

Please don't forget to point out that faith without works can get you into trouble too, I meet way too many "christians" who wouldn't know the difference between a sheep and a goat.

Damn, but you don't want to be stuck on his left hand side.

I agree 100% about the faith w/o works. Anyone who *practices* things not Christian can't really be called a christian. Matthew 7:15-23 I will never tell you or anyone that they will burn in Hell forever. Because it's just not true. See Revelation 20:13 again. Also see Acts 24:15

As for why mainline Christendom teaches eternal Hellfire and immortal soul, that is another book. Let me know if you want me to publish it here.