Community > General Religion Chat

Previous 1 2 … 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 … 49 50 Next

Topic: Where in the Genesis is Jesus
CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Mon 09/12/11 08:21 PM
Again, the word Adam translates to mankind. He didn't take the rib from one singular person to make another singular person. It is a proven fact that men have one less rib then women. If God would have taken one just out of one man, their off spring would have had the original amount of ribs. Again, God took one rib from MANKIND, and made WOMEN. 2:7 is just a recap of the creation of mankind. Cowboy no matter how you try to spin it, it will still come up to inbreeding so let's go with your name theory that the rib from Adam was used to make all Women...so no matter who have sex with whom it would still be incest even if Adam had sex with Eve..it would be incest since she was made from his loins...Adam having sex with Eve would be the same as having sex with his female twin when God made Eve...he created someone for Adam to incestously sin with and gave the command for it to happen with "Be Fruitful and Multiply".....Man was created to Fall from Grace ??? What are you talking about? Would not be inbreeding. Do you know what inbreeding is? It is sexual intercourse between two people that have some form of relation to one another. Eve being made from one of Adam's ribs doesn't constitute any relation. They weren't brother and sister, not dad and daughter, not any form of relation, thus no inbreeding. it would be incest since she was made from his loins Again, what are you talking about? His loins? Do you know where your ribs are and where your loins are? They are not the same thing.

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Mon 09/12/11 08:23 PM
Why would he? God wasn't created in genesis. Genesis is an explanation of the creation of everything. God is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. He is and always will be. God wasn't created. So again, why would genesis say so since genesis is the history on the creation? cool...so you're admitting that God never mention anything about Jesus or any other Godheads in Genesis Spirits don't have a physical form, they can not reproduce. Man was made to reproduce. are angels spirits...if so then they were doing a pretty good job reproducing with naughty Earth Woman and creating little baby Nephilim ...didn't God cause a flood because of those horny little devils A spirit is a living soul. If it was a "dead" soul, it wouldn't be in existence now would it be? No, it would be dead. To be dead is to be none existent. Cowboy...the bible states that Adam was created as a living soul...this would mean that according to you Adam was created as a Spirit not as Flesh and Blood cool...so you're admitting that God never mention anything about Jesus or any other Godheads in Genesis You act like that's a big deal... like a big discovery. Of course it wouldn't have mentioned Jesus in exacts, Jesus was The Word at this time, he had not taken human form. Jesus is his name in Human form, he is The Word. Genesis also doesn't mention anything about The Word ....sorry... do you have any other aliases for Jesus that God might use to let us know that Jesus is in Genesis....

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Mon 09/12/11 08:28 PM Edited by funches on Mon 09/12/11 08:29 PM
??? What are you talking about? Would not be inbreeding. Do you know what inbreeding is? It is sexual intercourse between two people that have some form of relation to one another. Eve being made from one of Adam's ribs doesn't constitute any relation. They weren't brother and sister, not dad and daughter, not any form of relation, thus no inbreeding. if Eve was made from Adam's Rib...then Eve would have the exact same blood line as Adam...that makes Eve the same as a sister or a Mother ...those two may as well play the banjos in the movie "Deliverance" ... their marriage were clearly incestous

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Mon 09/12/11 08:30 PM
??? What are you talking about? Would not be inbreeding. Do you know what inbreeding is? It is sexual intercourse between two people that have some form of relation to one another. Eve being made from one of Adam's ribs doesn't constitute any relation. They weren't brother and sister, not dad and daughter, not any form of relation, thus no inbreeding. if Eve was made from Adam's Rib...then Eve would have the exact same blood line as Adam...that makes Eve the same as a sister or a Mother ...those two may as well play the banjos in the movie "Deliverance" ... there marriage were clearly incestous Not true. Incest is between two people related. Adam and Eve were not related. Eve was made for Adam.

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Mon 09/12/11 08:32 PM Edited by CowboyGH on Mon 09/12/11 08:35 PM
Why would he? God wasn't created in genesis. Genesis is an explanation of the creation of everything. God is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. He is and always will be. God wasn't created. So again, why would genesis say so since genesis is the history on the creation? cool...so you're admitting that God never mention anything about Jesus or any other Godheads in Genesis Spirits don't have a physical form, they can not reproduce. Man was made to reproduce. are angels spirits...if so then they were doing a pretty good job reproducing with naughty Earth Woman and creating little baby Nephilim ...didn't God cause a flood because of those horny little devils A spirit is a living soul. If it was a "dead" soul, it wouldn't be in existence now would it be? No, it would be dead. To be dead is to be none existent. Cowboy...the bible states that Adam was created as a living soul...this would mean that according to you Adam was created as a Spirit not as Flesh and Blood cool...so you're admitting that God never mention anything about Jesus or any other Godheads in Genesis You act like that's a big deal... like a big discovery. Of course it wouldn't have mentioned Jesus in exacts, Jesus was The Word at this time, he had not taken human form. Jesus is his name in Human form, he is The Word. Genesis also doesn't mention anything about The Word ....sorry... do you have any other aliases for Jesus that God might use to let us know that Jesus is in Genesis.... It's not a different alias. That's like saying Ice is another alias for water, or steam is another alias for ice. He took on a different form. Philippians 2:7 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Mon 09/12/11 08:37 PM
??? What are you talking about? Would not be inbreeding. Do you know what inbreeding is? It is sexual intercourse between two people that have some form of relation to one another. Eve being made from one of Adam's ribs doesn't constitute any relation. They weren't brother and sister, not dad and daughter, not any form of relation, thus no inbreeding. if Eve was made from Adam's Rib...then Eve would have the exact same blood line as Adam...that makes Eve the same as a sister or a Mother ...those two may as well play the banjos in the movie "Deliverance" ... there marriage were clearly incestous Not true. Incest is between two people related. Adam and Eve were not related. Eve was made for Adam. Eve was little more than Adam's Rib with a Vagina...sounds related to me

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Mon 09/12/11 08:40 PM
It's not a different alias. That's like saying Ice is another alias for water, or steam is another alias for ice. He took on a different form. Philippians 2:7 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Cowboy..Philippians is not Genesis ...

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Mon 09/12/11 08:41 PM
??? What are you talking about? Would not be inbreeding. Do you know what inbreeding is? It is sexual intercourse between two people that have some form of relation to one another. Eve being made from one of Adam's ribs doesn't constitute any relation. They weren't brother and sister, not dad and daughter, not any form of relation, thus no inbreeding. if Eve was made from Adam's Rib...then Eve would have the exact same blood line as Adam...that makes Eve the same as a sister or a Mother ...those two may as well play the banjos in the movie "Deliverance" ... there marriage were clearly incestous Not true. Incest is between two people related. Adam and Eve were not related. Eve was made for Adam. Eve was little more than Adam's Rib with a Vagina...sounds related to me And what might that relation be?

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Mon 09/12/11 08:44 PM
It's not a different alias. That's like saying Ice is another alias for water, or steam is another alias for ice. He took on a different form. Philippians 2:7 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Cowboy..Philippians is not Genesis ... Very good Funches :). Was merely posted as an example, The Word, Jesus, they aren't different "titles", they are different forms. Again just as Ice Water and steam.

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Mon 09/12/11 08:46 PM
??? What are you talking about? Would not be inbreeding. Do you know what inbreeding is? It is sexual intercourse between two people that have some form of relation to one another. Eve being made from one of Adam's ribs doesn't constitute any relation. They weren't brother and sister, not dad and daughter, not any form of relation, thus no inbreeding. if Eve was made from Adam's Rib...then Eve would have the exact same blood line as Adam...that makes Eve the same as a sister or a Mother ...those two may as well play the banjos in the movie "Deliverance" ... there marriage were clearly incestous Not true. Incest is between two people related. Adam and Eve were not related. Eve was made for Adam. Eve was little more than Adam's Rib with a Vagina...sounds related to me And what might that relation be? that they had the same blood line as a immediate family member would ...in today's lingo...Eve would be referred to as being a transgender clone of Adam ....

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Mon 09/12/11 08:51 PM
??? What are you talking about? Would not be inbreeding. Do you know what inbreeding is? It is sexual intercourse between two people that have some form of relation to one another. Eve being made from one of Adam's ribs doesn't constitute any relation. They weren't brother and sister, not dad and daughter, not any form of relation, thus no inbreeding. if Eve was made from Adam's Rib...then Eve would have the exact same blood line as Adam...that makes Eve the same as a sister or a Mother ...those two may as well play the banjos in the movie "Deliverance" ... there marriage were clearly incestous Not true. Incest is between two people related. Adam and Eve were not related. Eve was made for Adam. Eve was little more than Adam's Rib with a Vagina...sounds related to me And what might that relation be? that they had the same blood line as a immediate family member would ...in today's lingo...Eve would be referred to as being a transgender clone of Adam .... You didn't answer the question. You claim they would be related, you claimed this in your incest remark. So I'll ask again, how would they be related? They couldn't be brother and sister, for they do not have the same mom and dad, lol heck they don't even have a mom in the first place. They couldn't be cousins, for their were no other parties involved. So once again lol, what would be their relation to make your incest remark true?

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Mon 09/12/11 08:53 PM
??? What are you talking about? Would not be inbreeding. Do you know what inbreeding is? It is sexual intercourse between two people that have some form of relation to one another. Eve being made from one of Adam's ribs doesn't constitute any relation. They weren't brother and sister, not dad and daughter, not any form of relation, thus no inbreeding. if Eve was made from Adam's Rib...then Eve would have the exact same blood line as Adam...that makes Eve the same as a sister or a Mother ...those two may as well play the banjos in the movie "Deliverance" ... there marriage were clearly incestous Not true. Incest is between two people related. Adam and Eve were not related. Eve was made for Adam. Eve was little more than Adam's Rib with a Vagina...sounds related to me And what might that relation be? that they had the same blood line as a immediate family member would ...in today's lingo...Eve would be referred to as being a transgender clone of Adam .... You didn't answer the question. You claim they would be related, you claimed this in your incest remark. So I'll ask again, how would they be related? They couldn't be brother and sister, for they do not have the same mom and dad, lol heck they don't even have a mom in the first place. They couldn't be cousins, for their were no other parties involved. So once again lol, what would be their relation to make your incest remark true? And God may have altered the DNA of that rib, he did a little at the very least changing the DNA from male to female. So some more altering could have been done, thus them not being of the same blood line.

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Mon 09/12/11 08:55 PM
It's not a different alias. That's like saying Ice is another alias for water, or steam is another alias for ice. He took on a different form. Philippians 2:7 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Cowboy..Philippians is not Genesis ... Very good Funches :). Was merely posted as an example, The Word, Jesus, they aren't different "titles", they are different forms. Again just as Ice Water and steam. God also didn't mention any of those different forms or use them to describe himself in Genesis either... since you already admitted that Jesus or any Godheads are not mention in Genesis...then what's the point of you trying to prove they are there....unless it's to contradict yourself

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Mon 09/12/11 08:59 PM
It's not a different alias. That's like saying Ice is another alias for water, or steam is another alias for ice. He took on a different form. Philippians 2:7 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Cowboy..Philippians is not Genesis ... Very good Funches :). Was merely posted as an example, The Word, Jesus, they aren't different "titles", they are different forms. Again just as Ice Water and steam. God also didn't mention any of those different forms or use them to describe himself in Genesis either... since you already admitted that Jesus or any Godheads are not mention in Genesis...then what's the point of you trying to prove they are there....unless it's to contradict yourself Incorrect again. I've pointed out in many places in genesis where it speaks of God, and it speaks of LORD God. LORD God would be Jesus Christ. Jesus is our only lord, so it could not be referring to any other being but him. And wouldn't make much sense to give two different titles for the same exact being.

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Mon 09/12/11 09:03 PM
You didn't answer the question. You claim they would be related, you claimed this in your incest remark. So I'll ask again, how would they be related? how they are related is obvious...Eve was made from Adam .......you are in fact looking for ways to approve of their incestous relationship ..... you already admitted that you would be like woman to your Father and have his child ...you're following the same pattern Im beginning to wonder about your motives as to why you choose Christianity

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Mon 09/12/11 09:14 PM
It's not a different alias. That's like saying Ice is another alias for water, or steam is another alias for ice. He took on a different form. Philippians 2:7 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Cowboy..Philippians is not Genesis ... Very good Funches :). Was merely posted as an example, The Word, Jesus, they aren't different "titles", they are different forms. Again just as Ice Water and steam. God also didn't mention any of those different forms or use them to describe himself in Genesis either... since you already admitted that Jesus or any Godheads are not mention in Genesis...then what's the point of you trying to prove they are there....unless it's to contradict yourself Incorrect again. I've pointed out in many places in genesis where it speaks of God, and it speaks of LORD God. LORD God would be Jesus Christ. Jesus is our only lord, so it could not be referring to any other being but him. And wouldn't make much sense to give two different titles for the same exact being. where in Genesis does it states anything about the lord God being another God or Godhead

miticoman Joined Fri 05/20/11 Posts: 329	Mon 09/12/11 10:36 PM
the temple is in your heart, don't you trust so much in the ancient books, because they are not so ancient

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Tue 09/13/11 08:42 AM
It's not a different alias. That's like saying Ice is another alias for water, or steam is another alias for ice. He took on a different form. Philippians 2:7 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Cowboy..Philippians is not Genesis ... Very good Funches :). Was merely posted as an example, The Word, Jesus, they aren't different "titles", they are different forms. Again just as Ice Water and steam. God also didn't mention any of those different forms or use them to describe himself in Genesis either... since you already admitted that Jesus or any Godheads are not mention in Genesis...then what's the point of you trying to prove they are there....unless it's to contradict yourself Incorrect again. I've pointed out in many places in genesis where it speaks of God, and it speaks of LORD God. LORD God would be Jesus Christ. Jesus is our only lord, so it could not be referring to any other being but him. And wouldn't make much sense to give two different titles for the same exact being. where in Genesis does it states anything about the lord God being another God or Godhead IF they are not different, then why would there be two different titles? It's not like it used this title for a while, then went to that one. No, it uses God, then LORD God, then God, then LORD God, ect. Again, if it was the same being, why would it go back and forth using two different titles for the same being?

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Tue 09/13/11 10:59 AM
It's not a different alias. That's like saying Ice is another alias for water, or steam is another alias for ice. He took on a different form. Philippians 2:7 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Cowboy..Philippians is not Genesis ... Very good Funches :). Was merely posted as an example, The Word, Jesus, they aren't different "titles", they are different forms. Again just as Ice Water and steam. God also didn't mention any of those different forms or use them to describe himself in Genesis either... since you already admitted that Jesus or any Godheads are not mention in Genesis...then what's the point of you trying to prove they are there....unless it's to contradict yourself Incorrect again. I've pointed out in many places in genesis where it speaks of God, and it speaks of LORD God. LORD God would be Jesus Christ. Jesus is our only lord, so it could not be referring to any other being but him. And wouldn't make much sense to give two different titles for the same exact being. where in Genesis does it states anything about the lord God being another God or Godhead IF they are not different, then why would there be two different titles? It's not like it used this title for a while, then went to that one. No, it uses God, then LORD God, then God, then LORD God, ect. Again, if it was the same being, why would it go back and forth using two different titles for the same being? before anything was created...there would be the reason to refer to God as "Lord God" ...what exactly would he be Lord over ....when someone or some entity is refer to as Lord..it's generally use to assert dominance...it doesn't mean it's two seperate entities ....in the animal world it is called "The Pecking Order" allow me to use Darth Vader for an example...the rebels refer to him as Darth Vader but all those that was under his rule or aided him in asserting his dominance over the "Republic" would refer to him as Lord Vader when the bible refer to Lord God it is asserting God's rule and dominance over creation ...

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Tue 09/13/11 11:15 AM
It's not a different alias. That's like saying Ice is another alias for water, or steam is another alias for ice. He took on a different form. Philippians 2:7 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Cowboy..Philippians is not Genesis ... Very good Funches :). Was merely posted as an example, The Word, Jesus, they aren't different "titles", they are different forms. Again just as Ice Water and steam. God also didn't mention any of those different forms or use them to describe himself in Genesis either... since you already admitted that Jesus or any Godheads are not mention in Genesis...then what's the point of you trying to prove they are there....unless it's to contradict yourself Incorrect again. I've pointed out in many places in genesis where it speaks of God, and it speaks of LORD God. LORD God would be Jesus Christ. Jesus is our only lord, so it could not be referring to any other being but him. And wouldn't make much sense to give two different titles for the same exact being. where in Genesis does it states anything about the lord God being another God or Godhead IF they are not different, then why would there be two different titles? It's not like it used this title for a while, then went to that one. No, it uses God, then LORD God, then God, then LORD God, ect. Again, if it was the same being, why would it go back and forth using two different titles for the same being? before anything was created...there would be the reason to refer to God as "Lord God" ...what exactly would he be Lord over ....when someone or some entity is refer to as Lord..it's generally use to assert dominance...it doesn't mean it's two seperate entities ....in the animal world it is called "The Pecking Order" allow me to use Darth Vader for an example...the rebels refer to him as Darth Vader but all those that was under his rule or aided him in asserting his dominance over the "Republic" would refer to him as Lord Vader when the bible refer to Lord God it is asserting God's rule and dominance over creation ... Your theory would work, except there's a problem with it. Even after man was made it goes back and forth with God and LORD God. 3:1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 3:5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. So I'll ask again, if they are the same being, why would it swap back and forth between God and LORD God?