Thoughts on Christianity

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Postby hoi.polloi on June 21st, 2014, 4:46 pm

Interesting points, Dcopymope. Thanks for sharing.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: The Truth About Christianity

Postby Sukiari on June 27th, 2014, 8:04 am

dblitz wrote:This theory has been discussed on clues forum before. Well, it's not going to change any Christian's mind as it is so feeble and full of holes, and there is no point attempting to debunk it because anyone who does the due diligence to check this theory against the earliest original sources, writings and documents of the Church will see it's flaws and contradictions and move on.

Believers have generally studied the history and early writings of the Church as part of their intellectual/spiritual journey are not going to melt down in cognitive dissonance and despairing disillusionment after being confronted with an idea so thin. It's just silly.

Why would the architects and schemers behind the creation of the worlds grandest psy-op renounce all their possessions, never make a single cent in their lives and live in tiny cells and caves in extreme asceticism until death, if they were only inventing a manipulating cult in pursuit of power and material gain?

Read the life of Saint John Chrysostom (an honest enquirer into the origins of Christianity would have done so already) and tell me why this man was persecuted and exiled by the Empress more than once for his denunciation of her corruption. The people rioted until she allowed him back. The sermons of Saint John were the clues forum of the day, who else would have the courage to denounce the Empress and challenge authority? Oh no, those evil Church writers were developing modern miiiiind control. Please.

Again and again we see this clever (or is it genuine ignorence?) distortion of the facts: Saying the Catholic Papacy was created by Constantine as a psy-op when there was no Papacy or Roman Catholic church in existence until 1000 years later. Amazing how so many writers and researchers have swallowed this historical re-write and regurgitate it for their readers without even asking what the differences are between the Church as it was founded and the Ceasero-papist tyranny the western kings and bishops turned it into. And sadly, they are promoting the very historical distortion created by the Papist system to obscure the history of the Eastern Empire and create the actual psy-op the western elites rely on to keep a lid on what happened to Russia and why.

Do you realize these saints and fathers, who lived in poverty and celibacy, also created the first free health care? I don't get how 'debunkers' of the Church are not embarrassed by the idea that it was all sinister plot to manipulate and steal. Are you aware that the city environment was alive with the finest architecture, gold and silver work, mosaics and icons, statues - they didn't have to buy there culture in a shop, Constantinople was like a habitable artwork, their mentality was on of abundance and opulence, beauty, refinement and invention. Does that sound like the blueprint or seed for the modern consumer culture? I could go on but I don't think there are many people here interested in researching Christianity or I would have sparked an actual discussion when I put forward similar objections last time the idea came up but the thread died.


It is encouraging to see that another truth seeker has read Fomenko and taken him seriously. While I do not necessarily agree with Fomenko's reconstruction as I understand it (sadly I only was able to read the volumes that made it into English translation) it is pretty clear that there is indeed a massive psyop that is being actively curated and maintained to this day both by what the Soviets would have called "useful idiots" as well as people who are clued into the nature of the hoax.

The 9/11 hoaxers have nothing on Scaliger, that's for sure.

Perhaps it's time for a Fomenko thread here.
Sukiari
Member
 
Posts: 44
Joined: October 15th, 2013, 12:06 am

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Postby hoi.polloi on June 27th, 2014, 4:41 pm

Fomenko has been brought up before. Feel free to start a thread, as long as it's presented with your own clear research. We don't usually like pure 're-posting' with no comment. We expect people to conduct and organize their own research with their own reason rather than purely adopting someone else's. If you do completely endorse Fomenko, and it sounds like you don't, at least supplement it with something of your own understanding. Even if it's just a sentence.

Dcopymope, I think that is somewhat lacking in your posts sometimes, as well. You could actually try to explain for those who don't watch the videos what is happening in the videos, the points raised, where you agree or disagree and so on.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Postby nimblehorse on June 28th, 2014, 2:20 am

Thanks Dcopymope for your response. I should say that I am unable to view video(due to grinding poverty) & so cant reply to the content of your video post.

Also, these posts are my personal findings, posted in 'Thoughts on Christianity' I'm not looking for a theological argument.

Your right about the 'Gap Theory' being an tenuous conclusion from the scant verbiage of genesis 1-2, however, that Idea is expanded upon in the books of Jasher & Enoch.

Its "ludicrous" in the minds of those that are of the world that would like you to believe that your ancestors were apes, and quite frankly, I don't feel a need to explain a "judeo-christian" idea as you call it that's plainly stated in the inspired word of God. The basic definition of the word 'evolution' is when something becomes better or more complex than what it is. The entire idea originates with the lie Satan told Adam and Eve, that if they eat this "fruit" they can become something different or more than what they were, as "gods", and we see all the false religions of the world still preaching the same tripe under the banner of the new age movement. According to the world, the Princess and the Frog was a real event. This is what the heathen would like you to believe despite the real evidence showing that quite the exact opposite has occurred on all accounts, as everything we see in creation is in its fallen or cursed state. If by "evolution" you mean the observable phenomenon of variation within a kind resulting in loss of genetic information overtime, then that's not "evolution" by its most basic definition.


I don't know what your getting at here ? I'm not actually saying that Genesis 1 is describing 'evolution'.

I am pointing out, how in the original Paleo Hebrew word definitions, a more logical and scientifically accurate interpretation, can be achieved, rather than the KJV English translation(interpretation) of Creation being six, 24 hour days where God magic's all the life forms into existence then goes off for a kip on the seventh.

You've not really touched on the idea that Adam is the Aw dawm...the rosy cheeked Aryan, created male & female, at the same time.

Note: In Genesis 1, the word used for 'Creation' where God Creates, is Bara, H1254 meaning just that, to create from scratch. With Genesis 2 we find God forms, Yatsar, H3335 as a potter works some pre-existing material into a useful vessel.

My personal opinion on the narrative of Genesis 1, is that, God the creator (Yahweh Elohim) created all things firstly in his minds eye, as it were. Through Gods consciousness, archetypes were/are constructed. In Genesis 2, these archetypes were/are brought into existence, are given the life breath.

Secular science suggests matter was born from some singularity big bang and from that dead matter, somehow, consciousness emerged. I feel it's the other way around. Through consciousness(god), energy/matter, atoms, were/are born. The immense timespan needed for the evolutionary theory to have a hope in hell, some 15 billion years (an Talmudic reference) are no doubt, fictitious. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in-between 15 billion years & 7000 years ?
nimblehorse
Member
 
Posts: 23
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 7:24 am

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Postby hoi.polloi on June 28th, 2014, 8:10 am

Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in-between 15 billion years & 7000 years ?


Yes, and it's quite a gap, itself, to try to guess.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Postby nimblehorse on June 29th, 2014, 2:47 am

'Thoughts on Christianity'
Genesis 2-3

I am going to post the complete verse from KJV, Genesis 2 & 3 with my comments in blue.

Genesis 2
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
[Verse 5 suggesting no rainfall & a time before agriculture. Could that be an allusion to the 'Ice age' where the water was locked up as Arctic ice ?]
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.[And/or, higher atmospheric pressure. One theory is that an asteroid hit the North Atlantic, circa 10,000bc sending trillions of tonnes of water vapour high into the stratosphere, surrounding the earth with a thick layer of ice crystals and instigating a 'green house' effect.]

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground,[man as biological organism is composed of earth elements.] and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.[Aw-dawm the race/archetype was created in the previous chapter and here in chapter 2, from the race of Aw-dawm, God takes one individual Aw-dawm, forms him, moulds him and places him in 'the garden'.]

8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.[an allusion to early agriculture.]

9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.[Ok, here im going to suggest that 'trees' are Family Trees, as this occurs throughout the Bible. Nations are referred to as trees. Israel are the Olive tree, Assyria was the Cedar, the Fig tree for the Jews/Edomites.]

10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden[this word garden, 'gan' H1588 means an protected area, fenced or walled.] of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
[Adam got the job as head gardener.]

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:['eat' has sexual connotations. I'm saying there were other hominids in the garden with whom Adam could procreate.]

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.[There was a particular family/race, that Adam was to avoid.]

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man[where you read 'man' in these verses, the original hebrew is Aw-dawm.] should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 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.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field;[Adam invents Botany/Biology, a work in progress.] but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 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;[This is an odd verse, the word for 'rib' is tsela]
H6763; a rib (as curved), literally (of the body) or figuratively (of a door, that is, leaf); hence a side, literally (of a person) or figuratively (of an object or the sky, that is, quarter); arcitecturally a timber (especially floor or ceiling) or plank (single or collectively, that is, a flooring)

[One idea is that the rib is one of the best sources for stem cells ? I see it simply stating that Adam found his perfect genetic match, his compliment, his better half.]

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.


Genesis 3 in the next post
(If your wondering where I'm going with this, after Genesis 3, I want to jump into the New Testament & show how Jesus was NOT a Jew.)

Also, here is a link to a free electronic KJV Bible with concordance (Hebrew lexicon)
http://www.e-sword.net/
nimblehorse
Member
 
Posts: 23
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 7:24 am

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Postby Dcopymope on June 29th, 2014, 5:55 am

nimblehorse wrote:Thanks Dcopymope for your response. I should say that I am unable to view video(due to grinding poverty) & so cant reply to the content of your video post.

Also, these posts are my personal findings, posted in 'Thoughts on Christianity' I'm not looking for a theological argument.

Your right about the 'Gap Theory' being an tenuous conclusion from the scant verbiage of genesis 1-2, however, that Idea is expanded upon in the books of Jasher & Enoch.

Its "ludicrous" in the minds of those that are of the world that would like you to believe that your ancestors were apes, and quite frankly, I don't feel a need to explain a "judeo-christian" idea as you call it that's plainly stated in the inspired word of God. The basic definition of the word 'evolution' is when something becomes better or more complex than what it is. The entire idea originates with the lie Satan told Adam and Eve, that if they eat this "fruit" they can become something different or more than what they were, as "gods", and we see all the false religions of the world still preaching the same tripe under the banner of the new age movement. According to the world, the Princess and the Frog was a real event. This is what the heathen would like you to believe despite the real evidence showing that quite the exact opposite has occurred on all accounts, as everything we see in creation is in its fallen or cursed state. If by "evolution" you mean the observable phenomenon of variation within a kind resulting in loss of genetic information overtime, then that's not "evolution" by its most basic definition.


I don't know what your getting at here ? I'm not actually saying that Genesis 1 is describing 'evolution'.

I am pointing out, how in the original Paleo Hebrew word definitions, a more logical and scientifically accurate interpretation, can be achieved, rather than the KJV English translation(interpretation) of Creation being six, 24 hour days where God magic's all the life forms into existence then goes off for a kip on the seventh.

You've not really touched on the idea that Adam is the Aw dawm...the rosy cheeked Aryan, created male & female, at the same time.

Note: In Genesis 1, the word used for 'Creation' where God Creates, is Bara, H1254 meaning just that, to create from scratch. With Genesis 2 we find God forms, Yatsar, H3335 as a potter works some pre-existing material into a useful vessel.

My personal opinion on the narrative of Genesis 1, is that, God the creator (Yahweh Elohim) created all things firstly in his minds eye, as it were. Through Gods consciousness, archetypes were/are constructed. In Genesis 2, these archetypes were/are brought into existence, are given the life breath.

Secular science suggests matter was born from some singularity big bang and from that dead matter, somehow, consciousness emerged. I feel it's the other way around. Through consciousness(god), energy/matter, atoms, were/are born. The immense timespan needed for the evolutionary theory to have a hope in hell, some 15 billion years (an Talmudic reference) are no doubt, fictitious. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in-between 15 billion years & 7000 years ?


The only thing the Big Bang has in common with the Biblical account is that the universe had a beginning and that man was the last in creation, the similarities end there. Each flash in the chart below shows a contradiction between the Biblical account and the Big Bang, which is basically evolution applied to the universe.

Image

The Big Bang model is so flawed that even some secular scientists have stated their opposition to the entire theory as shown below as observational science continues to contradict their own Big Bang model. The model violates the very laws of physics, as space, according to their own model, already had a uniform temperature much larger than light could have traveled some 300,000 years after the big bang. So instead of discarding the entire theory as fundamentally flawed and starting over, as is the case with biological evolution, they make up a never ending stream of nonsensical, imaginary sub theories for cosmological evolution in an attempt to save and bolster their beliefs.

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.


Source: http://homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy/cosmologystatement.html

Part of my next video was going to be about the last episode of 'Cosmos: A spacetime Odyssey', the show that all the heathens are foaming at the mouth over. A continuation of my short campaign to rip Satan and all his disciples apart from the inside out. Unfortunately, I'm being stalled because you have to jump through a ton of hoops just to able to download a video off of Hulu's website. If I manage to find a way to download it, it will not only be just about the last episode, but in showing everybody just how much of a hypocrite Neil Tyson really is regarding his past statements about sticking to real, observable science and not imaginations of the mind to prop up an ever faltering, inconsistent theory. The entire show, the last episode especially was like getting a lecture from a new ager about science.

Cosmos: Unafraid of the Dark - http://www.hulu.com/watch/644910

Dark Matter, which is what most of the Cosmos finale was about, is the central focus of my first video in the link below. It sums up what New Ager's believe that God really is. I explain that like evolution itself and every other idea that's been filtered down to the public as brand new, there is nothing at all that is new or "scientific" about Dark Matter. What Mr. Neil Tyson conveniently failed to mention was that the idea is as old as the first civilizations where primitive, or rudimentary forms of Dark Matter/Dark Energy was also taught. To put it simply, it is a combination of eastern mysticism and the old Atomist religions of ancient Greek. The idea makes for the perfect disguise for Satan and his Demonic hoard to present himself as a force of nature, as the "god particle" or "cosmic intelligence" guiding the universe and all living things.

The Antichrist and the media's role in promoting him
Dcopymope
Member
 
Posts: 670
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 2:59 am

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Postby nimblehorse on June 30th, 2014, 2:02 am

Genesis 3
King James Version (KJV)

My comments in blue.
1 Now the serpent[Nachash (H5172)] was more subtil[arum (H6175)] than any beast of the field[Huminoid other than an Adamite] 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?
H5172
nâchash
naw-khash'
A primitive root; properly to hiss, that is, whisper a (magic) spell; generally to prognosticate...certainly, divine, enchanter, use enchantment, learn by experience, diligently
observe. A primitive root; properly, to hiss, ie Whisper
[Note: In the book of Enoch, Nachash is referred to as 'Gadrael' Satan General.]
H6175
‛ârûm
aw-room'
Passive participle of H6191; cunning (usually in a bad sense)

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.[Adam & Eve were warned not to miscegenate with the Family/Race that practised good & evil.]

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:[This Nachash character slips in 1 word 'NOT' into gods commandment.]

5 For 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.[Eve was sexually seduced by Nachash.]

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.[Adam also mixed with the Nachash clan.]

7 And the eyes of them both were opened[They became self aware.], and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.[It was a sexual sin, otherwise why cover their genitals ?]

8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.

9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled[nasha (H5377)] me, and I did eat.
H5377
nâshâ'
naw-shaw'
A primitive root; to lead astray, that is, (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce


14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:[Its hardly a curse, to make a snake, a snake. One idea is, Nachash is cursed to be an outcast, sneaking/slithering from place to place, cursed above all creatures to wander the dusty roads.]

15 And I will put enmity[eybah (H342)] between thee and the woman, and between thy seed[zera (H2233)] and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.[This is the important verse, I will refer to later.]
H342
'êybâh
ay-baw'
From H340; hostility

H2233
zâra‛
zaw-rah'
A primitive root; to sow; figuratively to disseminate, plant, fructify...1. to sow, scatter seed
a. (Qal)
1. to sow
2. producing, yielding seed
b. (Niphal)
1. to be sown
2. to become pregnant, be made pregnant
c. (Pual) to be sown
d. (Hiphil) to produce seed, yield seed


16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.[Again the reference to sex & childbirth.]

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.[Eve is a contraction of chavvah (H2332) meaning 'living' Eve was the mother, not of 'all living' but the mother of all her future descendants.]

21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.


I need to bring you Genesis 4 to conclude this particular aspect. Eve was impregnated by Nachash, and in my next post, the evidence suggests Eve had an Heteropaternal superfecundation pregnancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfecundation
nimblehorse
Member
 
Posts: 23
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 7:24 am

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Postby nimblehorse on July 2nd, 2014, 11:33 pm

Genesis 4
King James Version (KJV)

My comments in blue
1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man[H376] from the Lord[Yahweh].
H376
'ı̂ysh
eesh
Contracted for H582 (or perhaps rather from an unused root meaning to be extant); a man as an individual or a male person; often used as an adjunct to a more definite term (and in such cases frequently not expressed in translation.)

[Eve exclaims that she has 'gotten a man(iysh) from the Lord God' ? Not that she 'got an 'Aw-dawm'(ruddy), from her husband Adam' ?]


2 And she again[H3254] bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
H3254
yâsaph
yaw-saf'
A primitive root; to add or augment (often adverbially to continue to do a thing)

[And she 'continued in labour' and bore his brother(fraternal twin) Able.]


3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.

4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
[They both came of age to make the sacrifice/offering, at the same time, another reason to suggest Cain & Able were twins.]

5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
[Able brought to the alter, his first born lamb from his flock for a burnt offering. Where Cain brought a couple of beat up cabbages and a turnip or three.]

6 And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

9 And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
[The 1st murder ?]

11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;
[Like father like son.]

12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

13 And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear.

14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
[Cain found a wife/s from among the other hominids living in the land of Nod and in the verses below, we see the start of his recorded genealogy.]

18 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.

19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.

21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.

24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
[Here we see the start of Adams recorded genealogy with Seth.]
26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.


Genesis 5
King James Version (KJV)

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man[Aw-dawm], in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
[Adam begets a son 'in his own likeness' ? (whereas Cain looked like his father, Nachash.)]


So there you have it, a summary of 'two seedline theory'.
Throughout scripture, this meme of two distinct races, Cain and his descendants and Adam and his descendants, forever at odds with each other, enmity and hatred between the two.

Jesus himself taught two seedline.
Addressing the Pharisee Edomite Jews, he says...
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
nimblehorse
Member
 
Posts: 23
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 7:24 am

Re: Numbers and Semiotics in the News: Why?

Postby Pilgrim on July 3rd, 2014, 11:30 pm

Nick Java wrote:
trying to find significance inside that has anything to do with finding out the nature of the psychology of the perps

Hey Hoi, I hear you!

Identifying the recurring numbers really only helps in identifying the presence of the perps. They are a superstitious/religious lot that run their operations based on information given to them by psychics, astrologers, numerologists and high priests, all of which are heavily ensconced in the 'magic' of numbers, planetary allignment and the roll of dice or other mystical determinants. As far as I can tell, the presence of these numbers can tell us no more than that.

The Christian bible is a collection of chapters or "books". The Old testament has 39 (3x13) and the New Testament has 27 (3x9), 66 (2x3x11) in total. And that's just the beginning of the number play regarding Christianity. I can guarantee you that is by design. Why, because it feels good. There is comfort in the predictability of numbers. And, casting out nines has been a popular pastime for ages, it's cool how you can take a big number and reduce it to one, one that can confirm whether or not a calculation is accurate, and it's universal and easily taught to the absorbent masses. When something can be proved with arithmetic and you associate allegories with the math, in most minds it proves the story, plus it makes it easier to recall.


If the Bible is true, then why should be a there be problem with numbers presenting by both sides at all? Obviously 6 is the number of man as he was created on the sixth day. Can you present your argument in syllogistic/deductive logic style and show your premises to be true by logic from the conclusion?
For example you seem to be saying:
Numbers are Bullshit apart from comfort or memes.
The Bible uses Numbers
Therefore the Bible is bullshit.

This argument is fallacious and fails the test of deductive logical reasoning and is called "affirming the consequent"
As in:
If it rains the pavement gets wet
The pavement is wet
Therefore it's raining.
The only truth here is the wetness but that come from other sources than rain.


Bottom line just because the perps use "numbers" does not prove Christianity to be false and is a false association.
Pilgrim
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 10:33 pm

Re: Numbers and Semiotics in the News: Why?

Postby hoi.polloi on July 4th, 2014, 3:29 am

Move the theological stuff to the Christian thread, please.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Numbers and Semiotics in the News: Why?

Postby Pilgrim on July 5th, 2014, 12:07 am

hoi.polloi wrote:Move the theological stuff to the Christian thread, please.

I hope Nick Java does so in future as he was the one that even bought it up. My (non theological) refutation to him was based on pure logical reasoning and deduction and showing his fallacious argument of affirming the consequent and falsely connecting Christianity to the same (or sometimes not) use of numbers by the so-called occult powers that be and falsely claiming they are the same (which even the doctrines of the Bible oppose such,as believing in worldly science and such BS and worldly social engineering ) which he has neither proven or even given us a syllogistic argument proof for his case, while i have shown by logic the argument and any "necessary" association to be false.
: Edited for clarity
Pilgrim
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 10:33 pm

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Postby hoi.polloi on July 5th, 2014, 3:06 am

Alright, I agree with you, but I'm sorting it here for now, and adding a link to this discussion in that thread.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Postby nimblehorse on July 10th, 2014, 12:53 am

Nick Java wrote:
The Christian bible is a collection of chapters or "books". The Old testament has 39 (3x13) and the New Testament has 27 (3x9), 66 (2x3x11) in total. And that's just the beginning of the number play regarding Christianity. I can guarantee you that is by design. Why, because it feels good. There is comfort in the predictability of numbers. And, casting out nines has been a popular pastime for ages, it's cool how you can take a big number and reduce it to one, one that can confirm whether or not a calculation is accurate, and it's universal and easily taught to the absorbent masses. When something can be proved with arithmetic and you associate allegories with the math, in most minds it proves the story, plus it makes it easier to recall.


Image

27 bones
The human hand has 27 bones, not including the sesamoid bone, the number of which varies between people. 14 of which are the phalanges (proximal, intermediate and distal) of the fingers. The metacarpals are the bones that connects the fingers and the wrist. Each human hand has 5 metacarpals and 8 carpal bones.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand
http://www.ou.edu/class/ahi4263/byzhtml/p02-09.html
nimblehorse
Member
 
Posts: 23
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 7:24 am

Re: Thoughts on Christianity

Postby Dcopymope on July 17th, 2014, 5:07 am

In this video, I give a solid definition for the pivotal Biblical event referred to as the coming "strong delusion". This is basically a continuation of my first video titled "The Antichrist and the media's role in promoting him". So if you've seen my previous videos, then you should already know what the "strong delusion" really is. I don't know how long this video is going to be up, since I'm being harassed about alleged "copyright infringement".

Understanding the Strong Delusion:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JWR3n5dP0g
Dcopymope
Member
 
Posts: 670
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 2:59 am

PreviousNext

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests