100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The Third Testament | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
What you are doing Funches is siting examples of each. If someone says "You are rightious" - they are siting that one as an example of rightiousness, not the definition of it. Their opinion is a subjective one. The definition of rightiousness would not change whether their perseption of someone as an example of it is correct or not - nor whether anyone else agree's with them or not. They may both be incorrect. It does not change the absoluteness of the definition of rightiousness. "Eljay" everyone before the bible in the bible and since the bible including God have either killed or feed off of something that was once alive which is why there is no such thing as absolute rightousness or an absolute rightous act because there is always an alternative motive.. .. if you believe that an absolute rightous person exist that cannot be disputed that they are in fact absolutely rightous ...then name them There's only been one Rightious person. It was Jesus. No one else has "fit the profile". "Eljay" ...Jesus had a conniption fit in the temple with the money changers and start destroying their stuff ...wouldn't a rightous person just explain to the money changers why it was a disrespect to sell their wares inside the temple instead of going berserk ..I mean isn't Jesus philosophy one of Love ...wasn't to much Love shown in that temple imagine if a pastor, preist or the pope start turning over stuff in their church would you then say that such behavior is that of a righteous man Jesus's himself showed disrespect in the temple by reacting in such a manner but yet comdemn others in the temple for showing disrespect ...this is clearly hypocritical and clearly not the hallmark of a righteous person ...you may need to name someone as an example of rightousness other than Jesus ... Jesus' philosophy was of a "love of God the father" - he showed no love to the hypocrites who passed themselves off as the teachers and leaders of men. He condemned the hypocracy of the temple practices - hardly a display of hypocracy on his part. You have attempted to establish Jesus as a representative of "love" as interpreted as "tolerance". Examine the serons of Jesus and you will not find this to be so. He was intollerant of the evil that men did to one another - of the manner in which they judged, without examining themselves first - and of their legalististic interpretation of the law towards their own gain without consideration for the spirit of the law, and for their putting oral tradition before the inspired commands of God. How is this an example of unrightious behavior? Perhaps your not understanding the term. "Eljay" so Jesus committing an act of unnecessary violence in his father's temple against the money changers instead of just explaining to the money changers in a non-hostile manner how they were disrespecting the temple is what you considered as being the hallmark for rightousness .. so when someone disrespect you ...just do an act of unnecessary violence because that is what Jesus would do ...I guess Jesus did show the way |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
funches.....
i spoke my peace..... did what i wrote antagonize you? did i seek to defame you? did i seek to ridicule you? do you feel as though your words spoken in jest and mockery of others, have no effect? it matter not to me hwo they effect me, but you do this to many, and ensare others unto lack of confidence, and destroy the feelings of others to raise yourself and your pride higher? good for you i do not reside in feelings as you do, and your intent unto me matters not.... do you feel as though you are so small that you wish to be taller than all others? your pic would indicate so...... wish to be the bully.... certainly this was not created within you without it first being done unto you, but each one in the world has been treated unfairly many times, and abused by all environment, however, must not each human admit and totally take repsonsiblity for itself creating all things around itself, as ALL HAVE AT LEAST 50% reaction ability, WHICH CAN CHANGE AND SHAPE THE NEXT SECOND, so no matter why you do such, when it has reached to the place that self does not begin to see it's words with accountability, and use them to only create more crap for others, and these words meet me, then i will reach to extend kindness, and seek common greater solution, but these you cut down, and destroy, and defame, and until you know no matter what has been done to yourself, no matter what past pain, to use it to take from others, leave many in the wake behind you, with you thinking and saying you had nothing to do with it? again as before, these words you will not have trouble understanding, as these are a different sort, and this alone DID CAUSE YOU TO DOUBT YOUR OWN ACTIONS...... all words be creating still the same, no matter whether you see it or not, as who else is here but mankind, all and each one, so who else it causing all things around yourself to run away in fright.... indeed, you know not the power of your own words, and this one must learn, before they go just trampling anywhere, and listen not to their own doubt, even when it was greater than normal this time........ i have accessed your words as true to inspect for truth of your words inside myself, and torture i did not..... so you make this up, for th sake of what? do you think your cool? sexy their boy? it is not missed just what anyone that speak such words as your, treats others that need a hand, and not a slapdown, for the sake of your insecurities...... have i not reached forth my hand to you in all ways, trying to create accord, providing you all manner of gental but firm words when you have done such in days past? do you access me to be as someone you have met in days past? the things you jest of? do you feel some threat by these? no doubt you do not believe in any greater things spoken for the actual purpose of creating common understandings of things made to be complex and of doctrine that ensnare and lead to many things being believed by the mind that have no OTHER POSSIBILITY BUT TO CREATE DIVIDE AND WAR FOR ALL THAT BELIEVE? but clearly these things do not even cross you mind, and the welfare of others as equal to yourself be as far removed...... many interpretations of text only used to lift certain ones to greatness, by lowering all others..... perhaps you have not been lowered yourself to see just how emotionally painful it can be, and so do not yet see any others pain or satisfaction or value? the things written as they are is to try to most avoid debate of doctrine and dogma, as all such things are do not come from want of common good, but most to prove self right, by making others wrong, and this destroy all equality of any human beings, and so therefore is of the upmost concern and care and passion and endeavor that i find satisfaction in...... there be no greater satisfaction than to see s smile on others face, and joy in the heart, that does last longer than the next bad thing that happen to self...... i have given all compassion to you for your own concern, to try to help you from doing such things, seeing not what you speak about and do with things that are for different purpose than your own..... yourself is your chioce, as i spoke, but to seek such at the expense of others, since they have now become directed at me, are now my concern...... such satisfaction in lifting yourself up for the sake of what? what most good have you ever gained from it? you steal all good things from yourself doing such things, as each word spoken either add to others, or take from them, and this no human beings has any other choice but to do, so the choice is being made each second, whether one wish to know it or not..... i wish to tell you, as this you do unto all things you deem waker than yourself, so you must have accessed me as weaker than youself, as the ones you know will not tolerate, you do not do to, so in this way, you destroy only the weak with your words chosen..... so after this day, you now know it, and since you do, now youo are accountable for it, and your heart will remind you each time, these words ring back in your head, as they will, as we both know they are true, no matter how much you deny it to yourself, grabbing all manner of data and thought to disprove anything you do not wish to hear about self...... no doubt we discussed this before, and i spoke plainly then what and who i was and my intentions, and if you have doubt of these, then ask of me, but intead you only wish to engage in more of these type things you think are games? funches dear one..... all words have a effect...... you are creating your own misery and all things thus far less than happy in your own life.... why do you access these things unto me? we had words once before, and you heeded your heart and let well enough alone.... now you must feel on top lately, to wish to lower others again, and use ways that are way below your most potential..... simply to maintain your own "good impressions"? for who? anything good you wish to have in others, will not respect such things anyhow, and only draw unto yourself ones as yourself, which will only further the illusion that you are not repsonsible for any your own words unto all other living things, all other humans said to be as children of god, and of great value? will you allow having to have the last word to build self up cause more undoing of yourself? it is understood why this inert desire rest and live in all things when youthful, as there does come as time when each one will have the ultimtae last word, but before this time, one must pass thru hearing all the words they have run, each and every last negative spoken to self since the days of birth, and accept all error of self, with the wanting to see it so bad, that seeing one's own error is like the only worth in the unniverse, and then learn what be most important, and how to create what be most important, which be nothing more than the common good for all things around self, no longer serving the self interest alone, as this cause all troubles within any soul..... i was most trying to avoid such things with you hoping you adult enough to see the effect of your own words, and correct yourself when the heart try to warn tell what be better, and did not want what would only ensnare you unto your own pain the more...... you knew the second before you hit that post button there was doubt, even unto fear, and you did not heed it? IF there be any god, that you believe in, then it only speak thru each feeling that come into the body, and heeding the ones as doubt and fear, as you have well spoken in days past, to know god it to doubt god, showing forth i do hear and value your words, but the same, your own DOUBT JUST AS YTOU SPOKE, LEAD YOU TO MORE GOOD, BUT YOU ONLY USE IT TO TRY TO IMPRESS OTHERS, AND MAKE IT SOME GUIDE FOR THEM, WHEN YOU HAVE NOT USED YOUR OWN INNER VOICE TO GUIDE YOURSELF FIRST? follow this and guide yourself out of the present path, that we both know it most unpleasant for you right now, as those tears the other day were not tears of joy we both know, so cling to most good for others, and heed all the words of your loved one's you have scorned, as these you have belittled you have had their pain added to YOU? did not anybody ever tell you such things? surely so, but in the spirit of unity and compassion, and common brotherhood, then today why do not we start fresh, and leave such things behind, and know such things need to pass away, and are the only thing that will satisfy the hunger that you seek to fill each day one here, as what you seek be what you left behind, in your haste and ignorance, and your heart has been empty each day more since...... if you had some real concern for me, and my tortured soul you access me to have, then you would have peace within yourself, but then likewise true concern would never say such, and you only speak forth your own torture, that has caused youo to even do things yourself does not believe you have done? this we could do in private, but since you ridicule in public, then in pulic you have chosen...... if this be enough to cause you to look into yourself and heed yourself, then all is well, and will turn that torture for yourself around, and if not, when you write to me again, use my personal email for such things as these, and we can solve them in private, and speak more about the things that trouble your weary passionless alone desperate heart, that has no peace..... one must most wish to solve the pains caused others before any peace come to self in any life in any realm, and not for the sake wanting self to be a better person, as this motive has caused many to deceive self as if it see others...... stop thinking all others are to blame, and see you have 100% ability to react to solve, AND THIS WILL LEAD TO YOUR OWN INFINITE WISDOM THAT YOU SEEK TO CONVINCE YOURSELF YOU ALREADY HAVE, by pushing all others less than yourself, as each one you are drowning to keep above water, and the water you wish to stay afloat on in only pride, to hide insecurity, to hide self doubt, to hide fear of HOW TO BE A GOOD PERSON, but this day you have been told, and if you indeed try, not being missed it has come at the cost of your pride, the thing on the surface that seperate from all good, was worth it...... if you heed the words you know are true, and cling to them, knowing all good things for self come not thru pleasure, but thru courage to see how you can love those dear one's you are no longer connected to in heart, and in just a matter of weeks, hearing all their grievences as true, will restore your sight of all things looked at as beautiful, even in a couple months, no more constant negative feelings that come to overwhelm and steal as strength, and even restore the good feelings of overwhelming love you had with that first precious women..... oh, but that is not the one....... it is the ex....... she has hurt you, and made you feel as insecure.... do you not remember the stroy of samson and delilah? she cut of his strength.... stole his self confidence....... how? each women a man love, WAS SENT TO YOU BY GREATER WISDOM TO DO THIS, TO SHOW YOU THE WAY? to make the man listen to womens words, knowng thy are HER FEELINGS, and these are real, and not just spoken to hurt, but because you have hurt her, or she would not speak them? if when she says such things, you only say baclk how she has hurt you, and how she has wronged, THEN WHAT GOOD? to prove each word as valid, resisting the temptation to even speak, could never come for anything, till it no longer focus on it's own pain, as then solving the others as more important, will create all you wish, but the universe, and all others people will offer all you want, it never coming from self trying to manipulate to get it, to PLEASE TO ONLY GET IT, TO CARE FOR TO GET IT....... the wish to be loved followed pull anything down to the pits of despair, until the sight of it was all for self, all all along somehow we did not see it......... none was meant to, until the perfect time and destiny in each path..... your be ahead good and precious man, and many things as these must be tended to so that the awesome things that you were sent here for and have not eyt found, can be completed, and THESE, WILL GIVE YOU SO MUCH PASSION THAT YOU WILL AWAKE WITH WIGOR AND NO LACK OF STRENGTH AND ERASE ALL PAIN FROM THE MORTAL BODY.......... would you ever possibly believe such words? why would i assume either way? i do not wish to judge what you are capable of hearing as a man of wisdom and strength and character, as this be no way i do not speak to any close friend, that show it's troubles by seekng to lower others, and each one is a friend, so this show most i consider you most as equal, and deem you not man enough to take what your own words from your heart bring back from my heart....... peace dear funches..... scrap the guilt dear friend, go and undo, as only your words of how you have made others feel, them agreeing your words describe exactely how you made them feel, and HOW YOU CREATED THEM NOT BELIEVING IN THEMSELF, and you wanting NOTHING BACK EVER, with no concern for the pain or consequence it bring upon yourself, will restore and give what you have sought long for and with many tears as many, but has avoided you, for these very reasons, will bring the REAL FUNCHES OUT, THAT NONE COULD HELP BUT LIKE AND LOVE AND WISH TO PRAISE, BUT THE NEW FUNCHES WILL EQUALIZE ALL PRAISE, AND not accept it as once before, seeing this be your lifeline to all things good that uncover the eternal love you have in your soul that just must find a place to be given....... peace you seek? your here in the religious forum for what? WHAT DO YOU WANT FUNCHES? FIND IT.... WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT THEN ALL GIVING SELF ALL IT WISH? give it to yourself in your mind, pretending as all are doing and being your love and every need slaves, serving as you are a king? you will know then in an instant what you want....... NO ONE ON EARTH FUNCHES BUT YOU..... THERE ALL GONE AND IT IS JUST YOU? WHAT WOULD YOU LONG FOR, and want so much that you don't give a **** what happen to you..... seems to me it be that ex lover of yours..... you do love her, so how shall you win her, if you do not prove your love to her is not BASED ON WHAT SHE GIVE YOU? this and only this will any women ever trust, so then NEVER ABLE TO LOVE YOU, even though she may want to with all her heart, and to the man, just thinking a women does not truth him be devasting to all he wish to be..... trust is earned dear friend, and the kind that is earned from the words sujch as these, will ignite a firestorm in your heart, that nothing can extinguish....... you really wish to know if god be real? if you do as spoken, your own angel that speak as yourself, your own greater self, will come in few days if you hold to what you know to be most true, no matter how difficult, as the effort to this is simple, compared to dealing with all the pain from not....... may you muster the courage to stop the all the facade and go and find the peace that awaits you, that bring back all things as FUN and no solution of any negative ever elude you...... accept unpeace for self and seek peace for others, and all will give it to you 10 fold what the mind ever imagine....... peace my friend, and may you from this day all that you have ever sought with bitter tears.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What you are doing Funches is siting examples of each. If someone says "You are rightious" - they are siting that one as an example of rightiousness, not the definition of it. Their opinion is a subjective one. The definition of rightiousness would not change whether their perseption of someone as an example of it is correct or not - nor whether anyone else agree's with them or not. They may both be incorrect. It does not change the absoluteness of the definition of rightiousness. "Eljay" everyone before the bible in the bible and since the bible including God have either killed or feed off of something that was once alive which is why there is no such thing as absolute rightousness or an absolute rightous act because there is always an alternative motive.. .. if you believe that an absolute rightous person exist that cannot be disputed that they are in fact absolutely rightous ...then name them There's only been one Rightious person. It was Jesus. No one else has "fit the profile". "Eljay" ...Jesus had a conniption fit in the temple with the money changers and start destroying their stuff ...wouldn't a rightous person just explain to the money changers why it was a disrespect to sell their wares inside the temple instead of going berserk ..I mean isn't Jesus philosophy one of Love ...wasn't to much Love shown in that temple imagine if a pastor, preist or the pope start turning over stuff in their church would you then say that such behavior is that of a righteous man Jesus's himself showed disrespect in the temple by reacting in such a manner but yet comdemn others in the temple for showing disrespect ...this is clearly hypocritical and clearly not the hallmark of a righteous person ...you may need to name someone as an example of rightousness other than Jesus ... Jesus' philosophy was of a "love of God the father" - he showed no love to the hypocrites who passed themselves off as the teachers and leaders of men. He condemned the hypocracy of the temple practices - hardly a display of hypocracy on his part. You have attempted to establish Jesus as a representative of "love" as interpreted as "tolerance". Examine the serons of Jesus and you will not find this to be so. He was intollerant of the evil that men did to one another - of the manner in which they judged, without examining themselves first - and of their legalististic interpretation of the law towards their own gain without consideration for the spirit of the law, and for their putting oral tradition before the inspired commands of God. How is this an example of unrightious behavior? Perhaps your not understanding the term. "Eljay" so Jesus committing an act of unnecessary violence in his father's temple against the money changers instead of just explaining to the money changers in a non-hostile manner how they were disrespecting the temple is what you considered as being the hallmark for rightousness .. so when someone disrespect you ...just do an act of unnecessary violence because that is what Jesus would do ...I guess Jesus did show the way They understood perfectly what was going on. These had charge of the Temple and was making profit from it. Yahshua running them out like he did was propheside that He would enter with Zeal. He quoted prophesy in that passage that upset the temple bearers. They understood the prophecy was directed towards them and if you read it says from that moment they planned on how they were going to kill him.. They were not innocent at all. They did what they wanted throwing the Temples duties in the peoples face as if it was thier Temple. This is why he called it his Fathers house is a House of Prayer and they had made it a den of thieves. What happened afterwards that upset the Temple Bearers also? Blessings..Miles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
funches..... i spoke my peace..... did what i wrote antagonize you? did i seek to defame you? did i seek to ridicule you? do you feel as though your words spoken in jest and mockery of others, have no effect? it matter not to me hwo they effect me, but you do this to many, and ensare others unto lack of confidence, and destroy the feelings of others to raise yourself and your pride higher? good for you i do not reside in feelings as you do, and your intent unto me matters not.... do you feel as though you are so small that you wish to be taller than all others? your pic would indicate so...... wish to be the bully.... "DavidBen" ...it be you taking cheap shots at people talking in parables so they don't understand what you are actually saying and many have complained to you about it so i figure if I start translating your posts that you will get mad enough at me that you would respond in somewhat understandable english and not your mumbo jumbo parables ...and lord and behold it worked..you have been healed my son now when you start that parable crap people will know you are playing games ...if you wish to debate then do it so people can understand what you are saying it's only respectful and if you choose to speak in parables don't complain if people reacted in a way that gets you angry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They understood perfectly what was going on. These had charge of the Temple and was making profit from it. Yahshua running them out like he did was propheside that He would enter with Zeal. He quoted prophesy in that passage that upset the temple bearers. They understood the prophecy was directed towards them and if you read it says from that moment they planned on how they were going to kill him.. They were not innocent at all. They did what they wanted throwing the Temples duties in the peoples face as if it was thier Temple. This is why he called it his Fathers house is a House of Prayer and they had made it a den of thieves. What happened afterwards that upset the Temple Bearers also? Blessings..Miles "Milesoftusa" .. the temple wasn't Yahshua's temple it was his father's temple which mean Yahshua shouldn't have disrespected his father's temple with unnecessary acts of violence which made him no better than the money changers ... and then you said that it was prophetized that he would get angry ...wouldn't this mean that Yahshua knew ahead of time that he would get angry but yet decided to fullfilled the prophecy anyway which means he has no control over himself ... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Thu 01/15/09 08:37 AM
|
|
Here I will help you. I threw in the animal discrepancy as a bonus. First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3) Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image Genesis 2:18-19 (Second Account Genesis) (Humans were created before the other animals.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. These are not two separate accounts - they are two perspectives on the same event. Then why are they totally different? Because Genesis 1:1- Genesis 2:3 is the summary of the creation. It's focus is primarily on Earth, and the life forms on it. From Genesis 2:4 - which says "This is the account of the heavens and earth when they were created (emphasis mine) an indication of an event that had occured in the writing of the first chapter of Genesis - and not a second creation itself, and it's main focus thereafter is on Man (Adam and Eve) and as Genesis progresses - it becomes the account of Adam's line - the account of Noah - the account of Shem, Ham, and Japheth - the account of Shem - the account of Terah - the account of Abraham's son Ishmeal - the account of Abraham's son Isaac - tha account of Esau - and finally the account of Jacob. It is a funnel perspective on man, and more specifically the line that leads to, and through Abraham, the Patriarch of the Jewish peoples (and following that - religion). It is not an account of "two" creations. Then WHY is it still the topic of debate by religious scholars and theologians today? And the ORDER in which when man and woman is created is changed? That is no small detail. It was done deliberately. The FIRST account was simultaneous creation. Do you think something like this would just be accepted and not questioned? I will leave out all of the smaller discrepancies (the order of creation and the animals and so forth) and focus on this point. I want the VERBIAGE addressed. Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them You are assuming he created them simultaniously. In the first chapter of Genesis there are no great details as to HOW God created anything - nor in the specific order that they were created other than the day on which they were created. Where do you get the idea that he created them simultaniously, because they are used together in the same sentence? You are reading your own interpretation into the passage. All you know from this passage is that God created man and female. You know nothing else about the event based on the information supplied in the passage. And then Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. Here you are clearly reading into the passage criteria that you are presumming in order to support your premise that the order of creation is contradictory. It is not. Your analysis is contradictory. The second chapter of Genesis is not describing the order or process of creation - that had already been expressed in the first chapter. It is merely recounting events which had already occured, and describing in more detail the creation of man and woman, and refering to the plants and animals as having been created. How do we know this you ask. By the text. In Genesis 2:2 we read: "By the seventh day god had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work creating that he had done. From this passage - we know that creation was completed. So anything from the second chapter of Genesis on is an account of something other than creation. It is giving a different perspective of what was already accounted for - not a contradictory one. If your perspective is that the first chapter contradicts the first - then it is you who are confused and mis-interpreting it, for given the fact that this passage has been recorded for well over a few thousands years without extensive documentation to point this apparent contradiction out (to what you seems to be obvious anyway) seems a little suspect that all of a sudden - now, in the twentieth and twenty first century that "scholars" are finally figuring this out. Look a little closer at the criteria you are swallowing for these claims of "Biblical Scholars", if there is anything in serious doubt - it is their scholarship. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What you are doing Funches is siting examples of each. If someone says "You are rightious" - they are siting that one as an example of rightiousness, not the definition of it. Their opinion is a subjective one. The definition of rightiousness would not change whether their perseption of someone as an example of it is correct or not - nor whether anyone else agree's with them or not. They may both be incorrect. It does not change the absoluteness of the definition of rightiousness. "Eljay" everyone before the bible in the bible and since the bible including God have either killed or feed off of something that was once alive which is why there is no such thing as absolute rightousness or an absolute rightous act because there is always an alternative motive.. .. if you believe that an absolute rightous person exist that cannot be disputed that they are in fact absolutely rightous ...then name them There's only been one Rightious person. It was Jesus. No one else has "fit the profile". "Eljay" ...Jesus had a conniption fit in the temple with the money changers and start destroying their stuff ...wouldn't a rightous person just explain to the money changers why it was a disrespect to sell their wares inside the temple instead of going berserk ..I mean isn't Jesus philosophy one of Love ...wasn't to much Love shown in that temple imagine if a pastor, preist or the pope start turning over stuff in their church would you then say that such behavior is that of a righteous man Jesus's himself showed disrespect in the temple by reacting in such a manner but yet comdemn others in the temple for showing disrespect ...this is clearly hypocritical and clearly not the hallmark of a righteous person ...you may need to name someone as an example of rightousness other than Jesus ... Jesus' philosophy was of a "love of God the father" - he showed no love to the hypocrites who passed themselves off as the teachers and leaders of men. He condemned the hypocracy of the temple practices - hardly a display of hypocracy on his part. You have attempted to establish Jesus as a representative of "love" as interpreted as "tolerance". Examine the serons of Jesus and you will not find this to be so. He was intollerant of the evil that men did to one another - of the manner in which they judged, without examining themselves first - and of their legalististic interpretation of the law towards their own gain without consideration for the spirit of the law, and for their putting oral tradition before the inspired commands of God. How is this an example of unrightious behavior? Perhaps your not understanding the term. "Eljay" so Jesus committing an act of unnecessary violence in his father's temple against the money changers instead of just explaining to the money changers in a non-hostile manner how they were disrespecting the temple is what you considered as being the hallmark for rightousness .. so when someone disrespect you ...just do an act of unnecessary violence because that is what Jesus would do ...I guess Jesus did show the way So you are now interjecting premises that are not agreed upon. First that the act was a violent one. I have a different idea of violence than you do. Turning over tables hardly fits my criteria. And second - that it was unnecessary. What are you basing this assumption on? since I know you weren't there, how are you presupposing to know what was going on at the time to precipitate this event. And you also cannot state with any certainty that Jesus had not in fact calmly discussed the matter with Temple leaders. Recall that the temple leaders considered little of what Jesus said of any value in their day to day tasks. As a matter of fact - they conspired to have him murdered. I don't think it beyond reason that it didn't matter how calm Jesus was in attempting to point out the injustice - he wasn't going to be listened to. I just don't think your spending much time thinking out your conclusions here Funches. Trying to site Jesus' overturning tables as an example of "unrightiousness" is viewing the event with an agenda. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 01/15/09 09:09 AM
|
|
Here I will help you. I threw in the animal discrepancy as a bonus. First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3) Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image Genesis 2:18-19 (Second Account Genesis) (Humans were created before the other animals.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. These are not two separate accounts - they are two perspectives on the same event. Then why are they totally different? Because Genesis 1:1- Genesis 2:3 is the summary of the creation. It's focus is primarily on Earth, and the life forms on it. From Genesis 2:4 - which says "This is the account of the heavens and earth when they were created (emphasis mine) an indication of an event that had occured in the writing of the first chapter of Genesis - and not a second creation itself, and it's main focus thereafter is on Man (Adam and Eve) and as Genesis progresses - it becomes the account of Adam's line - the account of Noah - the account of Shem, Ham, and Japheth - the account of Shem - the account of Terah - the account of Abraham's son Ishmeal - the account of Abraham's son Isaac - tha account of Esau - and finally the account of Jacob. It is a funnel perspective on man, and more specifically the line that leads to, and through Abraham, the Patriarch of the Jewish peoples (and following that - religion). It is not an account of "two" creations. Then WHY is it still the topic of debate by religious scholars and theologians today? And the ORDER in which when man and woman is created is changed? That is no small detail. It was done deliberately. The FIRST account was simultaneous creation. Do you think something like this would just be accepted and not questioned? I will leave out all of the smaller discrepancies (the order of creation and the animals and so forth) and focus on this point. I want the VERBIAGE addressed. Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them You are assuming he created them simultaniously. In the first chapter of Genesis there are no great details as to HOW God created anything - nor in the specific order that they were created other than the day on which they were created. Where do you get the idea that he created them simultaniously, because they are used together in the same sentence? You are reading your own interpretation into the passage. All you know from this passage is that God created man and female. You know nothing else about the event based on the information supplied in the passage.
And then Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. Here you are clearly reading into the passage criteria that you are presumming in order to support your premise that the order of creation is contradictory. It is not. Your analysis is contradictory. The second chapter of Genesis is not describing the order or process of creation - that had already been expressed in the first chapter. It is merely recounting events which had already occured, and describing in more detail the creation of man and woman, and refering to the plants and animals as having been created. How do we know this you ask. By the text. In Genesis 2:2 we read: "By the seventh day god had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work creating that he had done. From this passage - we know that creation was completed. So anything from the second chapter of Genesis on is an account of something other than creation. It is giving a different perspective of what was already accounted for - not a contradictory one. If your perspective is that the first chapter contradicts the first - then it is you who are confused and mis-interpreting it, for given the fact that this passage has been recorded for well over a few thousands years without extensive documentation to point this apparent contradiction out (to what you seems to be obvious anyway) seems a little suspect that all of a sudden - now, in the twentieth and twenty first century that "scholars" are finally figuring this out. Look a little closer at the criteria you are swallowing for these claims of "Biblical Scholars", if there is anything in serious doubt - it is their scholarship. Eljay be reasonable here. Creationists call us to believe the Biblical creation story as a literal account of historical events. However, Genesis contains two distinctly different creation accounts. Which creation story are they calling us to "literally" believe? For generations, serious students of Scripture have noted stark divisions and variations in the age of the Hebrew, its style and language within Genesis. As we have it now, Genesis is actually a composite of three written primary sources, each with its own character, favorite words and distinctly different names for God. Such differences all but evaporate when translated into English, but they are clear in the ancient Hebrew text. The first creation account, Genesis. 1:1 to Genesis. 2:4, was written during or after the Jews' Babylonian captivity. This fully developed story explains creation in terms of the ancient near eastern world view of its time. A watery chaos is divided by the dome (firmament) of the sky. The waters under the dome are gathered and land appears. Lights are affixed in the dome. All living things are created. The story pictures God building the cosmos as a supporting ecosystem for humanity. Finally, humanity, both male and female, is created, and God rests. The second Creation story, Genesis 2:4 to 2:25, found its written form several centuries before the Genesis. 1:1 story. This text is a less developed and much older story. It was probably passed down for generations around the camp fires of desert dwellers before being written. It begins by describing a desert landscape, no plants or herbs, no rain; only a mist arises out of the earth. Then the Lord God forms man of the dust of the ground, creates an oasis-like Garden of Eden to support the "man whom he had formed." In this story, God creates animal life while trying to provide the man "a helper fit for him." None being found, God takes a rib from the man's side and creates the first woman. These two creation stories clearly arise out of different histories and reflect different concerns with different sequences of events. Can they either or both be literal history? Obviously not. Dont be ridiculous. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you are now interjecting premises that are not agreed upon. First that the act was a violent one. I have a different idea of violence than you do. Turning over tables hardly fits my criteria. And second - that it was unnecessary. What are you basing this assumption on? since I know you weren't there, how are you presupposing to know what was going on at the time to precipitate this event. And you also cannot state with any certainty that Jesus had not in fact calmly discussed the matter with Temple leaders. Recall that the temple leaders considered little of what Jesus said of any value in their day to day tasks. As a matter of fact - they conspired to have him murdered. I don't think it beyond reason that it didn't matter how calm Jesus was in attempting to point out the injustice - he wasn't going to be listened to. I just don't think your spending much time thinking out your conclusions here Funches. Trying to site Jesus' overturning tables as an example of "unrightiousness" is viewing the event with an agenda. "Eljay" ...it may be possible for you to claim that Jesus was a moral person and thats why he overturned tables in the temple but a rightousness person would not have resorted to violence to get their point across ... if you don't equate overturning a few tables as being an act of violence then go into any court room that's in session and overturn the tables in there ..I'm pretty sure the police will explain it to you more clearly and this is why Jesus cannot be claimed to be absolutely righteous because he clearly cannot control his anger .. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus had a temper. There is no doubt in my mind about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus had a temper. There is no doubt in my mind about that. and Jesus clearly had an overblown ego...but some will deny that Jesus made any claims of being God or the son of God or the Messiah but whatever Jesus believed it clearly started with his mother Mary telling him whatever |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here I will help you. I threw in the animal discrepancy as a bonus. First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3) Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image Genesis 2:18-19 (Second Account Genesis) (Humans were created before the other animals.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. These are not two separate accounts - they are two perspectives on the same event. Then why are they totally different? Because Genesis 1:1- Genesis 2:3 is the summary of the creation. It's focus is primarily on Earth, and the life forms on it. From Genesis 2:4 - which says "This is the account of the heavens and earth when they were created (emphasis mine) an indication of an event that had occured in the writing of the first chapter of Genesis - and not a second creation itself, and it's main focus thereafter is on Man (Adam and Eve) and as Genesis progresses - it becomes the account of Adam's line - the account of Noah - the account of Shem, Ham, and Japheth - the account of Shem - the account of Terah - the account of Abraham's son Ishmeal - the account of Abraham's son Isaac - tha account of Esau - and finally the account of Jacob. It is a funnel perspective on man, and more specifically the line that leads to, and through Abraham, the Patriarch of the Jewish peoples (and following that - religion). It is not an account of "two" creations. Then WHY is it still the topic of debate by religious scholars and theologians today? And the ORDER in which when man and woman is created is changed? That is no small detail. It was done deliberately. The FIRST account was simultaneous creation. Do you think something like this would just be accepted and not questioned? I will leave out all of the smaller discrepancies (the order of creation and the animals and so forth) and focus on this point. I want the VERBIAGE addressed. Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them You are assuming he created them simultaniously. In the first chapter of Genesis there are no great details as to HOW God created anything - nor in the specific order that they were created other than the day on which they were created. Where do you get the idea that he created them simultaniously, because they are used together in the same sentence? You are reading your own interpretation into the passage. All you know from this passage is that God created man and female. You know nothing else about the event based on the information supplied in the passage.
And then Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. Here you are clearly reading into the passage criteria that you are presumming in order to support your premise that the order of creation is contradictory. It is not. Your analysis is contradictory. The second chapter of Genesis is not describing the order or process of creation - that had already been expressed in the first chapter. It is merely recounting events which had already occured, and describing in more detail the creation of man and woman, and refering to the plants and animals as having been created. How do we know this you ask. By the text. In Genesis 2:2 we read: "By the seventh day god had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work creating that he had done. From this passage - we know that creation was completed. So anything from the second chapter of Genesis on is an account of something other than creation. It is giving a different perspective of what was already accounted for - not a contradictory one. If your perspective is that the first chapter contradicts the first - then it is you who are confused and mis-interpreting it, for given the fact that this passage has been recorded for well over a few thousands years without extensive documentation to point this apparent contradiction out (to what you seems to be obvious anyway) seems a little suspect that all of a sudden - now, in the twentieth and twenty first century that "scholars" are finally figuring this out. Look a little closer at the criteria you are swallowing for these claims of "Biblical Scholars", if there is anything in serious doubt - it is their scholarship. Eljay be reasonable here. Creationists call us to believe the Biblical creation story as a literal account of historical events. However, Genesis contains two distinctly different creation accounts. Which creation story are they calling us to "literally" believe? For generations, serious students of Scripture have noted stark divisions and variations in the age of the Hebrew, its style and language within Genesis. As we have it now, Genesis is actually a composite of three written primary sources, each with its own character, favorite words and distinctly different names for God. Such differences all but evaporate when translated into English, but they are clear in the ancient Hebrew text. The first creation account, Genesis. 1:1 to Genesis. 2:4, was written during or after the Jews' Babylonian captivity. This fully developed story explains creation in terms of the ancient near eastern world view of its time. A watery chaos is divided by the dome (firmament) of the sky. The waters under the dome are gathered and land appears. Lights are affixed in the dome. All living things are created. The story pictures God building the cosmos as a supporting ecosystem for humanity. Finally, humanity, both male and female, is created, and God rests. The second Creation story, Genesis 2:4 to 2:25, found its written form several centuries before the Genesis. 1:1 story. This text is a less developed and much older story. It was probably passed down for generations around the camp fires of desert dwellers before being written. It begins by describing a desert landscape, no plants or herbs, no rain; only a mist arises out of the earth. Then the Lord God forms man of the dust of the ground, creates an oasis-like Garden of Eden to support the "man whom he had formed." In this story, God creates animal life while trying to provide the man "a helper fit for him." None being found, God takes a rib from the man's side and creates the first woman. These two creation stories clearly arise out of different histories and reflect different concerns with different sequences of events. Can they either or both be literal history? Obviously not. Dont be ridiculous. Who are you reading that has so confused you in this way? Serious students of scripture you say... someone's got you conned. Are you trying to state that two diferent people wrote Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 at different times? And that Genesis 2 was written before Genesis 1? Read Genesis 2:2 & 2:3 again and explain to me what these serious students are telling you about it. What do you think it means? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is that your rebuttal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you are now interjecting premises that are not agreed upon. First that the act was a violent one. I have a different idea of violence than you do. Turning over tables hardly fits my criteria. And second - that it was unnecessary. What are you basing this assumption on? since I know you weren't there, how are you presupposing to know what was going on at the time to precipitate this event. And you also cannot state with any certainty that Jesus had not in fact calmly discussed the matter with Temple leaders. Recall that the temple leaders considered little of what Jesus said of any value in their day to day tasks. As a matter of fact - they conspired to have him murdered. I don't think it beyond reason that it didn't matter how calm Jesus was in attempting to point out the injustice - he wasn't going to be listened to. I just don't think your spending much time thinking out your conclusions here Funches. Trying to site Jesus' overturning tables as an example of "unrightiousness" is viewing the event with an agenda. "Eljay" ...it may be possible for you to claim that Jesus was a moral person and thats why he overturned tables in the temple but a rightousness person would not have resorted to violence to get their point across ... if you don't equate overturning a few tables as being an act of violence then go into any court room that's in session and overturn the tables in there ..I'm pretty sure the police will explain it to you more clearly and this is why Jesus cannot be claimed to be absolutely righteous because he clearly cannot control his anger .. A court room and the temple are not analogous. And just because we have laws against disturbing the peace does not make them rightious. Those are man's laws - not God's. I just don't think we have the same semantic view of rightiousness. We see the term differently. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Thu 01/15/09 11:21 AM
|
|
Is that your rebuttal?
Rebuttal? How can I rebut something you don't understand? I've asked you to clarify your claim, I didn't presume to rebut it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 01/15/09 11:24 AM
|
|
It would appear I have a clearer if not at the very least more realistic understanding of these two accounts found in Genesis than yourself. I can not rebut unless you somehow discredit what I have brought to the table. If you do not understand there is nothing I can do to make it any more clear for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 01/15/09 11:39 AM
|
|
Even the alleged man called Josephus wrote an account of the beginning of creation. It is similar in many ways. Plagiarism was done a lot back then. There is no way to know who wrote what. Most people could not even read anyway. They were dependent on their church leaders to read and interpret scripture.
That is not the case today. We read and we study and we learn. We don't take everything on faith that is told to us. At least some of us do. Krimsa is correct in that scholars have discovered two different writing styles and accounts of that story. The authors of the books in the bible are really unknown. To claim that the men were "divinely inspired by God" can no way be verified or proven. You might convince some people of that assertion, but get serious. People need to start looking at ancient scripture for what it is. It is not the word of God. Stop believing that age old con job. I assert that Josephus may well have been a pen name and a fictional character, just as Jesus was a fictional character based on one or maybe two real persons. “The New Testament, the Church and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso) family, who were Roman aristocrats. The New Testament and all the characters in it - Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, John the Baptist - all are fictional. The Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story to a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is fictiotional!) characters.” Ref: (The True Authorship Of The New Testament by Abelard Reuchlin) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you are now interjecting premises that are not agreed upon. First that the act was a violent one. I have a different idea of violence than you do. Turning over tables hardly fits my criteria. And second - that it was unnecessary. What are you basing this assumption on? since I know you weren't there, how are you presupposing to know what was going on at the time to precipitate this event. And you also cannot state with any certainty that Jesus had not in fact calmly discussed the matter with Temple leaders. Recall that the temple leaders considered little of what Jesus said of any value in their day to day tasks. As a matter of fact - they conspired to have him murdered. I don't think it beyond reason that it didn't matter how calm Jesus was in attempting to point out the injustice - he wasn't going to be listened to. I just don't think your spending much time thinking out your conclusions here Funches. Trying to site Jesus' overturning tables as an example of "unrightiousness" is viewing the event with an agenda. "Eljay" ...it may be possible for you to claim that Jesus was a moral person and thats why he overturned tables in the temple but a rightousness person would not have resorted to violence to get their point across ... if you don't equate overturning a few tables as being an act of violence then go into any court room that's in session and overturn the tables in there ..I'm pretty sure the police will explain it to you more clearly and this is why Jesus cannot be claimed to be absolutely righteous because he clearly cannot control his anger .. A court room and the temple are not analogous. And just because we have laws against disturbing the peace does not make them rightious. Those are man's laws - not God's. I just don't think we have the same semantic view of rightiousness. We see the term differently. well since Jesus was Christian or Jewish then go into a Christian temple and once they start passing the money plate around then you start overturning tables and I'm pretty sure they will say that you are a rightous man..... or crazy "Eljay"...you keep trying to justify violence because you are on the side of the one committing the violent act ...which is the same mentality used to justify the violence in Holy Wars |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That’s another thing. None of this matters because more than a few stories in the bible were plagiarized anyway from the Sumerians. I forgot about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a matter of fact - they conspired to have him murdered. "Eljay"...if Jesus is God ..why would he be worried about someone plotting to kill him ...heck didn't Satan try it and those temple money changers were nowhere in the same league as Satan also if Jesus is God then wouldn't Jesus also be omniscient and would have already known that it wouldn't have been the money changers that would ultimately kill him so there would be no reason for jesus to get angry in the temple and start overturning tables also why would Jesus be worried period about getting killed your attempts to justify the violence act of jesus only proves how he's not God |
|
|
|
|
