Legion Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 Legion. Jesus never visited Tibet. He only visited Egypt, Lebanon and what is now Jordan (the Greek Decapolis area). Jesus was not seen as exceptional by the people of Nazareth for that precise reason, as He was with them the whole time and as they were all conventionally Jewish and Israeli patriots, Jesus, sinless and all as He was, did not stand out. That accounts for the 'hidden' years. The people who think Jesus was a Buddhist misunderstand that Buddhism is not based on worshipping a god or God but is about the exctintion of desire, meditation on nothing, and gaining the bliss of nirvana, the escape from reincarnation and any need for heaven or real existence, and that Jesus was totally Jewish. He wore the prayer shawl, Mark talks of the hem of Jesus' garment, He preached and prayed in the Temple and synagogue, and nothing but a totally Jewish Jesus, Yeshua, will do. His ministry was confined to Israel and the Jews. "The Son of Man was sent only to the lost sheep of the tribes of Israel," He said, but He did authorise the disciples to preach the Gospel to all the nations once He ascended into Heaven, and He praised the centurion's faith, saying, "Never have I seen faith like this in all Israel." Jesus proclaimed that He was to bfring light to the Gentiles. He promised that the Holy Spirit would help the disciples preach to the Gentile rules when under arrest, so He intended to save the world, specifically as the Jewish Messiah and King of Israel. Jesus' gruesome death on the Cross is a gritty affirmation of the reality of the problems of life and not the denial of reality which Buddhists make. I will check out the reference to the monument to the lama who was wounded. That's a lead worth investigating, I'll try to find out for you. But remember, Legion, Jesus is Jewish. Read Matthew 5:17-20- oy vey, Jesus came to fulfil the Torah, the Jewish law. I take it your viewpoint is from a christian/new testemant stance rather than that of the combination of religeons based on a pagan seed, in which you will find that jesus (the man)'s legend was derived from a preacher born 2000 years ago and for the want of a universal religeon was attributed to some of the miracles associated with pagan and egyption sun worship, which created the "bastardised" jesus we know and love today. as that was the way conquering religeons worked, the adopted the beleifs of the new area they were if you take what is written in the bible as your factual guide, then you wont know what Im on about. the whole cross death you mentioned for jesus was infact a representation of the pagan worship of the sun as it passed through the vernal eqinox at easter time when comapred to the horizon created a cross. the birth of christ on the 25th of december is because thats when the sun (of god) has spent three days at its lowest point in the sky. better explained "In reality, the sun "dies" for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north. For those three days it might be said the Sun is in the grave. In December, the Virgin, the constellation Virgo precedes sunrise and thus, "Behold, a Virgin shall bring forth the sun/son," would be part of the story in the heavens. Matthew literalized the story in his reacing back into Isaiah for a story about a young woman that had virtually nothing to with prophecy of a literal virgin birth or Jesus himself." from here...http://www.ezinearticles.com/?The-Original-Sun-of-God&id=93709 makes intresting reading and writen by ex-priest who litteraly "saw the light" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 Originally posted by legion: Legion. Jesus never visited Tibet. He only visited Egypt, Lebanon and what is now Jordan (the Greek Decapolis area). Jesus was not seen as exceptional by the people of Nazareth for that precise reason, as He was with them the whole time and as they were all conventionally Jewish and Israeli patriots, Jesus, sinless and all as He was, did not stand out. That accounts for the 'hidden' years. The people who think Jesus was a Buddhist misunderstand that Buddhism is not based on worshipping a god or God but is about the exctintion of desire, meditation on nothing, and gaining the bliss of nirvana, the escape from reincarnation and any need for heaven or real existence, and that Jesus was totally Jewish. He wore the prayer shawl, Mark talks of the hem of Jesus' garment, He preached and prayed in the Temple and synagogue, and nothing but a totally Jewish Jesus, Yeshua, will do. His ministry was confined to Israel and the Jews. "The Son of Man was sent only to the lost sheep of the tribes of Israel," He said, but He did authorise the disciples to preach the Gospel to all the nations once He ascended into Heaven, and He praised the centurion's faith, saying, "Never have I seen faith like this in all Israel." Jesus proclaimed that He was to bfring light to the Gentiles. He promised that the Holy Spirit would help the disciples preach to the Gentile rules when under arrest, so He intended to save the world, specifically as the Jewish Messiah and King of Israel. Jesus' gruesome death on the Cross is a gritty affirmation of the reality of the problems of life and not the denial of reality which Buddhists make. I will check out the reference to the monument to the lama who was wounded. That's a lead worth investigating, I'll try to find out for you. But remember, Legion, Jesus is Jewish. Read Matthew 5:17-20- oy vey, Jesus came to fulfil the Torah, the Jewish law. I take it your viewpoint is from a christian/new testemant stance rather than that of the combination of religeons based on a pagan seed, in which you will find that jesus (the man)'s legend was derived from a preacher born 2000 years ago and for the want of a universal religeon was attributed to some of the miracles associated with pagan and egyption sun worship, which created the "bastardised" jesus we know and love today. as that was the way conquering religeons worked, the adopted the beleifs of the new area they were if you take what is written in the bible as your factual guide, then you wont know what Im on about. the whole cross death you mentioned for jesus was infact a representation of the pagan worship of the sun as it passed through the vernal eqinox at easter time when comapred to the horizon created a cross. the birth of christ on the 25th of december is because thats when the sun (of god) has spent three days at its lowest point in the sky. better explained "In reality, the sun "dies" for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north. For those three days it might be said the Sun is in the grave. In December, the Virgin, the constellation Virgo precedes sunrise and thus, "Behold, a Virgin shall bring forth the sun/son," would be part of the story in the heavens. Matthew literalized the story in his reacing back into Isaiah for a story about a young woman that had virtually nothing to with prophecy of a literal virgin birth or Jesus himself." from here...http://www.ezinearticles.com/?The-Original-Sun-of-God&id=93709 makes intresting reading and writen by ex-priest who litteraly "saw the light" you might also want to visit here wich mentions jesus's lost years and ancient documents found stating he spent them in tibet http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man in Black Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 Goonerman - the answer to your colossal posting is yes but no !?! What you have written about the historic position of Gnostics is true, probably out of a book again but, as with your selective use of The Bible, not entirely true and written to suit yourself. At the last count I was up to at least 13 different Gnostic sects around in the first century (one based on the Biblical John - the 'Johanine Gnostics' (which I am)) and NOT just the 2 you list. Some of these sects are far older than the New Testament (see Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hamadi Library) and none of them followed the same set of beliefs. Yet again you prove your ability to quote books and rubbish other religions but not to speak the whole truth. I believe The Bible - all of it - and if you want to know why then look up 'Septenary Design' which is almost exclusively a Jewish linguistic secret relating to the script God gave to Moses and in which ALL true scripture is written. This is the method used to establish what material made it into The Bible and, incidentally, proves the existance of God (yes 'the church' hasn't told you about this one !) My complaint against Goonerman is simple - if you want to write about the Bible then use it, quote it accurately, and stick to it - ALL OF IT. Satan's use of scripture at Jesus' temptation was correct but selective - SELECTIVE use of scripture is the "sin" here and it is this that comes from Satan and this that Jesus frequently stood against. Church authorities are still professionals at doing this today. The other thing worth saying (as a Gnostic !!!) is that if God is God then it made everything - unfortunately that includes Satan/Lucifer - and that means everything Satan has done from the beginning was in obedience to the plans of God. I don't believe there is a satisfactory answer to that unless you can argue that God is NOT the creator of everything or entirely in control - so I don't argue that, I accept it. God created Satan. At least the early Gnostics were brave enough to face this issue. All of my beliefs are based ONLY on the Bible - which unfortunately supports Gnosticism. The difference is I'm not conditioned or selective - in fact I'm actually rather "first century" in my approach. My sympathy with Whitches and Pagans lies in the fact that Goonerman's church burn't and tortured Gnostics too in an attempt to wipe them out - as Goonerman rightly points out. And while I think about it - the 'sin' of Cain in the Old Testament story had nothing to do with the fact he brought an offering of cearial and Abel one of blood (otherwise we could 'rubbish' bread and wine too) it was entirely their state of heart, specifically Cain's. He was a murderer with no idea of God - read ALL of the story. If I miss-read the Egypt thread I apologise - I just couldn't believe what I was reading (and the quantity !!!) I have no intention of responding at length but some examples should suffice: the oldest items found in direct archaeological association with the Great Pyramid are burial jars from 4200 BC / everyone knows the head of the Sphynx was stuck on at a later date and the body and quarry pit ARE water damaged from earlier times / Akhenaton is now favoured as the pharaoh to stand against Moses and Smenkhare as his first born son slain by the Biblical plagues etc. etc. etc. Strange how the various "2 scriptures" I asked for failed to turn up ? Why not just quote 2 verses DIRECLY RELEVANT to my questions so we can all go and look them up ? I asked those questions because I know the scriptures aren't there so Goonerman can't. Naughty but it legitimately proves my point. His generalisations to support his own views are clearly not the answer I asked for. Another example will do here: Jesus reference to Satan's fall being "like lightning from heaven" refers to the drama of the lighting from the heavens and NOT to the location of Satan in Heaven (Goonerman read your Greek) and Satan is actually referred to as a "Star" and one of the "Son's Of God" (ie' a created being) in Job and NEVER as an angel, the only reference to a 'Whitch' in the Bible is the one in the Old Testament consulted by Saul at Endor and no one has the foggiest idea what this 'witch' was like - the account actually refers to an act of spiritualism !!! My salvation, authiority, qualifications, beliefs etc. are not important here - this is not the place to publically debate ego's. What is important to me is that human beings arrive at a personal understanding of God by their own individual means - and not by some plackard-waving, pentecostal, Bible bashing, nut case trying to batter them into heaven and thinking they are doing God a favour !?!?! Anyone indulging in Christian over-kill simply has a problem with their own ego and insecurities. And I believe trying to impose your beliefs on someone else has killed far more people down the ages than polluted water ??? All you other guys out there - keep the varied debate going - please ! If anyone out there has a genuine desire to know the truth then I will debate any religion - otherwise Jesus had something interesting to say about 'pearls and swine' and the right he gave the disciples to judge who was speaking the truth of the Holy Spirit and who was not. As a Gnostic I know that this 'right' is based on experience of the Spirit of God and not on academic qualifications. Interesting Goonerman assumes he has the Holy Spirit and that I do not - I have stopped short of making such assertions as Jesus says "judge not lest you be judged." :angelwings: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man in Black Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 Hello Legion - fantastic post, and with the Web sites to support it. There are two views in connection with the Pagan Jesus material worthy of consideration: One view states that material from previous times has been attracted arround Jesus to create or expand the apparently mythical content of the Godspels. That's the view given by Legion and the Web sites and there is no doubt that connections clearly exist. The other view states that if God did send a messenger into the world of the first century, this messenger would have to be divine in ways that the society at the time would clearly recognise. Hence a factual Jesus would 'tick all the boxes' and fit human expectations. Personally I can accept both views. Slightly less convinced when it comes to Jesus in Tibet etc. as an apostle called John and often referred to as 'Jesus' is thought to have made it to that region by early in the second century and it is difficult to clearly identify aspects of this story. It would also not be unusual for a disciple called 'Jesus' to evangelise Tibet as Jesus was a common name rather like Smith, Jones etc. in the first and second century. No matter what you believe - we still have not found the body of Jesus the Messiah in Tibet, Israel, or anywhere else so he may as well have risen and ascended back to God !!! I guess if we could somehow collect every divine belief ever held by mankind into one archive then we may be getting somewhere close to the whole knowable revealed truth about God ? :angelwings: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 I think one important disclaimer we should all use is that we are all taking veiwpoints based on "best guesses" and logical assumptions rather than any facts. I dont think we will ever know the facts...but isnt that why its called faith ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 Exactly Legion - there is ancient evidence of some of the truth but it comes down to what a person believes, in their own way. At least it does for me. I do think paganism plays a part too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted August 11, 2007 Report Share Posted August 11, 2007 We have a "new paganism": every time someone is killed; we get a shrine of flowers on the spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goonerman Posted August 11, 2007 Report Share Posted August 11, 2007 Lots of interesting stuff here, and I will prepare a careful rebuttal later. I'm glad that I was able to draw out MIB and Legion's viewpoints more which will be the basis for some constructive discussion later when I have returned to here this evening. As we shall see, John's Gospel is anti -Gnostic and his forwarding letter with that Gospel, 1 John, is a specifically anti-Gnostic tract, as is Paul's Letter to the Colossians. Mary, again I agree on the filtering in of paganism into the Church. But to say my points are not relevant to the thread is bizarre. I have definite and considered views on this, which are that the Bible and paganism are in conflict and as you can see, MIB and his fellow Gnostics have to invent a secret code to make the Bible seem to justify paganism, note how he sidesteps the problem of Gnosticism versus Paganism (notwithstanding the fact that the crucial writings which influenced my views of Gnosticism are the teachings of the Gnostic theologians Valentinus and Basilides themselves). I say that the Church adopting paganism was a mistake. They should have stuck to their Jewish roots, lock stock and barrel, and had they done so the Church would never have fallen to the Dark Side. There are many misunderstandings, logical fallacies and historical inaccuracies there, and I will say once more, Mary, all of the important evidence is available and hopefully I will go a long way to remove the baggage of misunderstanding and the fact that God has laid down His principles clearly, and that there is no need for subjectivity- as the Bible itself teaches in Romans 1. MIB, far from being some angry intolerant bigot I think you will find that although I sharply disagree with you and Legion, I was actually cheering as I read your posts. This is the moment I've been waiting for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted August 11, 2007 Report Share Posted August 11, 2007 In his last paragraph, what G'man is saying is, that at long last he has some opponents who will give him some serious debate on the Religious subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Posted August 11, 2007 Report Share Posted August 11, 2007 Not I! Or should that be Not Me? Either way I do not discuss religion. To each their own is my way of thinking~ [ 11.08.2007, 21:28: Message edited by: Mary ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goonerman Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 Hi Legion. Thanks for your thoughts on this matter. "I take it your viewpoint is from a christian/new testemant stance rather than that of the combination of religeons based on a pagan seed, in which you will find that jesus (the man)'s legend was derived from a preacher born 2000 years ago and for the want of a universal religeon was attributed to some of the miracles associated with pagan and egyption sun worship, which created the "bastardised" jesus we know and love today." So your assumption is that the New Testament view of Jesus is a myth based on tons of pagan religions, and that this is legend. (At least you acknowledge a real preacher from 2000 years ago upon whom these 'legends' were built around, as opposed to having Him as an entiely fictional creature- though your insistence on Jesus visiting Tibet at least points to a conception of a real Jesus. My point of view is indeed from a Christian/New Testament stance, of the Jewish Jesus, which I am afraid is the only real Jesus Christ of Nazareth there is. "as that was the way conquering religeons worked, the adopted the beleifs of the new area they were" That's what the polytheistic Romans did, taking on the pantheon of foreign gods in each new country they conquered and relating them to their own pantheon, but the interesting thing is that they ended up persecuting two particularly awkward religions which did not fit into that mould- Judaism and its Messianic offspring, Christianity. Remember, the New Testament writings are from the 1st century, and it was not until the 4th century that the Roman Emperors began to take an interest in Christianity in a 'positive' way, and the syncretistic process in Christianity borrowing from pagan religions came in later centuries, leading to the origins of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. "if you take what is written in the bible as your factual guide, then you wont know what Im on about." I do indeed take what is written in the Bible as my factual guide, but I know exactly what you are on about- Jesus the copycat Saviour, based on all the other pagan deities from all over the place. In fact I would say it is more a case of certain religious personae or characters being created to meet a certain need which is universal to many religions. Jesus however is the reality. More than that, there are crucial differences in the conceptions of the other religious deities, such as Mithras, for example, which exclude the NT concept of Jesus being a copycat. Indeed, if anything, the Roman State developed certain aspects of Mithraism as the chosen religion of most of the troops as a distinct and deliberate rival to Jesus. See these links: http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html http://www.christian-thinktank.com/mq2.html See also my article on how the other religions copied Christianity in the Early Christians thread here in the History section. I'll read your stuff- the links, that is- when I get the time and feel less tired. Also, there is a good book by Ronald Nash on the topic. Check amazon. "the whole cross death you mentioned for jesus was infact a representation of the pagan worship of the sun as it passed through the vernal eqinox at easter time when comapred to the horizon created a cross." That is nonsense. The Cross was a form of Roman execution devised around 800 BC by the Phoenicians. Lots of people were crucified by the Romans, look at Spartacus' men in 72 BC, the young Julius Caesar crucifying the pirates who captured him when he was 17, the mass crucifixions of Jews during their many revolts against Rome and the super mass crucifixion of the Jews during the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70. Besides, Jesus didn't die at Easter. He died at Passover . Jesus' hanging at Passover is confirmed by the Jewish Talmud and His crucifixion by Josephus and Mara Bar Serapion. It isn't just in the Bible. Besides, did the crucifixion of the two bandits beside Him symbolise the sun god too? I think not. Rather, the theological significance of the Cross of Jesus lies in Moses' statement that he who hangs on a tree is under God's curse. Jesus was taking the wrath of His Father for the sins of the world so that we could be forgiven if we turn to Him from our sins. "the birth of christ on the 25th of december is because thats when the sun (of god) has spent three days at its lowest point in the sky." Again, since Jesus wasn't born on the 25th of December, then the point is irrelevant. He was born during the Feast of Tabernacles in October. When are people going to understand this? John even says, "The Word became flesh and he made his dwelling among us." The Greek for dwelling is skenos, referring to a tent, and this echoes not only the tent or Tabenacle which was the tent-shrine in which YHWH was worshipped and sacrificed to from the says of Moses to David (then replaced with the stone and wood Temple of Solomon), but the Sukkoth booths or temporary dwellings which the Jews were to build during the feast in memory of the tents they dwelled in during the Exodus and 40 years in the Sinai peninsula. Once again, Judaism is the key to understanding Jesus. "better explained" "In reality, the sun "dies" for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north. For those three days it might be said the Sun is in the grave." But that is a circular, cyclical action. Jesus' death and Resurrection was a single, historical one-off event. That's why Jesus said in Revelation, "I was dead, but now I am alive forever and ever ." Although I may not agree with the New Testament scholar EP Sanders on everything, one important thing is clear: Jesus, on behalf of His Father YHWH, proclaimed specifically as a Jewish ESCHATOLOGICAL prophet the end times coming for Israel when the Messianic Age would come. This was never in a million years the belief in reincarnation and the cycle of birth, death and rebirth. Eschatological refers to the Last Things. History is like an arrow reaching its target in God's will, not a spiral. "In December, the Virgin, the constellation Virgo precedes sunrise and thus, "Behold, a Virgin shall bring forth the sun/son," would be part of the story in the heavens. Matthew literalized the story in his reacing back into Isaiah for a story about a young woman that had virtually nothing to with prophecy of a literal virgin birth or Jesus himself." Again, since the Lord Jesus wasn't born in December, this point is of no relevance to Jesus' birth. Micah said that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem Ephrathah, in Micah chapter 5, and therefore the Bible says nothing about a Messiah being born in Heaven. The reference to Isaiah is much disputed, so I will clear a few things up for you. Kings Rezin of Aramea-Syria and Pekah of the Northern Kingdom of Israel are attacking the Southern Kingdom of Judah. So the prophet Isaiah with his little son Shear-Jashub go to King Ahaz of Judah to tell him that when the young woman of marriageable age (bethulah- which given Judaism's tight morality on no sex before marriage IS going to be called a virgin even if the word Almah is not used, plus the Greek translation of the OT made around 250 BC, by Alexandrian Jews known as the Septuagint translates bethulah as Virgin) gives birth to a son who will be called 'Immanuel'- God With Us. This child would be able to discern right from wrong by the time Rezin and Pekah are sent packing- by the King of Assyria. Which indeed is what happened. Isaiah goes to his wife the prophetess and they have a son called by the cracking name of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. This boy, as well as his older half-brother Shear-Jashub, is the guarantee of the time when Israel will be called Immanuel- God With Us, also. In other words, the boy that WAS born, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz is the boy who is the sign of Rezin and Pekah's defeat. Shear-Jashub, his older brother, well his name means 'A remnant will return.' Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz means 'quick to the loot, fast to the spoils'. (In Hebrew.) Both those names refer to other prophecies in which Isaiah foretold the destruction of Damascus and Samaria, the capital of northern Israel by the Assyrians. And so Judah can rejoice as Immanuel (see Isaiah 8 verses 8 and 10, where Immanuel is mentioned again twice in relation to the land, the second time translated in the NIV simply into the English, "God is with us". But then God speaks of the rebellion against Him which will prompt the destruction of northern Israel. But then comes the ultimate Immanuel promised in Isaiah 9 who will reverse the shame caused to the Northern Kingdom, specifically in the lands of the tribes of Naphtali and Zebulun- in other words the Galilee region- the man who will be King David's successor- the Messiah, who will be the "Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God Everlasting, Father, Prince of Peace." This King will be the eternal King. It is obvious when you read Isaiah chapters 7 right through to 9 that the Immanuel them culminates in this Divine Messianic descendant of David. Thats' the true context of the virgin birth prophecy, so in the end, little Maher-Shalal-Hashbaz, the boy named to symbolise the certainty of the King of Assyria destroying Damascus and Samaria, is only a type or shadow of the real Immanuel, not him, nor the land of Judah relieved from Syrian and northern Israeli threats, the real Immanuel, the descendant of David who would bring honour to Galilee and light, the Wonderful Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. That's why you need to see their verses in their context, ducky, to get the real meaning. Once again, Judaism is the true key to understanding Jesus. "from here...http://www.ezinearticles.com/?The-Original-Sun-of-God&id=93709 makes intresting reading and writen by ex-priest who litteraly "saw the light" you might also want to visit here wich mentions jesus's lost years and ancient documents found stating he spent them in tibet" That sounds like the Aquarian Gospel, which I have. And it shoots itself in the foot historically in the first few lines when it says that Jesus was born in the reign of Herod Antipas who reigned in Jerusalem. He was born in the reign of Herod the Great and Herod Antipas was only Tetrarch of Galilee and Ituraea from '4 BC' onwards, Jesus having really been born in 7 BC, and never reigned in Jerusalem, to his lifelong regret, though as with Jesus he could try Galileans while staying in Jerusalem in his father's palace (shared with the Roman governor) during feast times. It comes from the turn of the last century as was the product of a vision, but I will check out your source when I am less tired. Jesus' years were not lost. Ancient Graeco-Roman style biography may include the auspicious birth of a great figure, but its interest really starts when the adulthood and public career of the subject begins. As I said before, Jesus spent a boring and ordinary life as a conventionally pious Jew in Nazareth, and it was precisely because of this that His fellow villagers rejected Him. Had Jesus been missing all this time the comments, "All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. "Isn't this Joseph's son?" they asked." Lk. 4:22. Also, "Where did this man get those things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offence at him." Mk. 6:2b-3. Jesus' rueful remark in reaction says it all. "Only in his home town, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honour." The point is clear. Jesus had no lost years. Luke simply records His adventure in Jerusalem at the age of 12 as a sample of His youth, and then says simply, "And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men." Jesus was never anywhere except Israel in those formative years. The scroll Jesus shocked the people of Nazareth in the synagogue was not of Buddha's teachings but of the prophet Isaiah. The point is that the people of Nazareth knew Him and His whole family. To them He did not stand out. And given their close relationships, and their all being impoverished descendants of King David, they all had royal blood in spite of being peasants, and therefore all had an equal genealogical claim to the Messiahship. Isn't He the carpenter.... so who was it was sawing and hammering away in the workshop with Joseph all these years while Jesus was in Tibet... cutting those stones and contracted to the considerable building by Herod Antipas, why Jesus' parables betray years of working as a tekton in a peasant society, why His teaching of the Law is as sophisticated as any Yeshiva trained Rabbi? Why His parables again are steeped to the eyeballs in Rabbinic folklore and teaching methods in the Temple and the synagogue, and how Jesus uses all the memorisation poetry, parallelism, humour and Hebraic puns of the Rabbis? Jesus isn't some everyman whom anyone can paint in their own image. Jesus has a specific context without which He cannot be understood. The key to His teachings and miracles are the Old Testament and the intertestamental literature. Jesus MUST be seen in His Jewish context or there is no context at all. He cannot be moulded in our image. Or in some generic mystical tradition, because the real Jesus was too earthy and practical and totally Jewish to be divorced from that and His whole culture, manner, tendency to answer questions with questions, and proclamation that the Shema, the Jewish Creed, was the Greatest Commandment, and His teaching on fulfilling the Torah show the complete absence of any Tibetan influence on His thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goonerman Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 "What you have written about the historic position of Gnostics is true, probably out of a book again but, as with your selective use of The Bible, not entirely true and written to suit yourself." That's funny, I was using the teachings of Valentinus and Basilides. What you mean, that's not fair, you gave a different viewpoint! Oh dear. "At the last count I was up to at least 13 different Gnostic sects around in the first century (one based on the Biblical John - the 'Johanine Gnostics' (which I am)) and NOT just the 2 you list." In the 1st century it is more realistic to speak of them more truly as Docetic sects, the Gnostic perspectives did not fully take off in the Church until the 2nd century. I mean Marcion's influence predates the full-blown Gnostic teaching, in which he excised all the Jewish elements, jettisoning the OT, editing out the Jewish elements in Paul's letters, and having a very severely edited version of Luke, and he taught the two gods theory, the non-judgemental NT true God and Father of the Jesus who appeared (dokeo hence docetist) to be human, and the enemy Satan who was the inferior evil OT judging god who created the Universe. As for the Johannine Gnostics, apart from the fact that the Gnostics misused John's Gospel to justify calling themselves Christians, they did not exist. John never taught the things Gnostics believe in. He says explicitly that the Word became flesh. Flesh. And furthermore in his letter accompanying it he bluntly says, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our HANDS HAVE TOUCHED- this we proclaim concerning the Word of life," and later, "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can reocognise the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come IN THE FLESH is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world." See 1 John chapters 1 and 4. As I will say again, the Apostle John regarded the Gnostics as his opponents, to the point where he would not even spend time in the Roman Bath any longer when the Gnostic leader Cerinthus turned up. Why should Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John, be on the side of the real Christians versus the Gnostics? Of course some real Christians overreacted. A group of idiots decided to reject John's Gospel because of the misuse of it by the Gnostics, leading to the rest of the Christians rightly mockingly calling them the 'Alogoi', the men without the Word. A Johannine Gnostic is a contradiction in terms. How does the thirsty Jesus at Jacob's Well fit in with the Gnostic view of Him? Besides, Jesus says this to the Apostle John in Revelation in relation to the Gnostics in Ephesus, known as the 'Nicolaitans', a word suggesting that they boasted victory over the people, in their assertion of their lorship over them as false teachers in the Church and boasting of their special Gnosis or knowledge. "But you have this in your favour: You hate the practices of Nicolaitans, which I hate." Paul prophesied the coming of the Gnostics to Ephesus: "I knwo that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them." Acts 20:29-30. "Some of these sects are far older than the New Testament" There were dualist mystics, but originally they had nothing to do with Judaism and Christianity. Simon Magus, the Jewish mystic from Acts, was the one who began the rot. (see Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hamadi Library) Ah, no! The Dead Sea Scrolls are NOT Gnostic. They are Essene. Thoroughly Jewish- the contrast between light and darkness cannot be likened to the absolute Dualism of good spirit and evil matter. The Nag Hammadi library is not pre-Christian. Any pre-Christian Gnostic writings have no connection with Judaism at all. "and none of them followed the same set of beliefs." Well, in that case, it's about time you spelled out fully what you believe as a 'Gnostic'. "Yet again you prove your ability to quote books and rubbish other religions but not to speak the whole truth." Looking in the mirror, methinks, as we shall see soon enough! "I believe The Bible - all of it - and if you want to know why then look up 'Septenary Design' which is almost exclusively a Jewish linguistic secret relating to the script God gave to Moses and in which ALL true scripture is written. This is the method used to establish what material made it into The Bible and, incidentally, proves the existance of God (yes 'the church' hasn't told you about this one !)" As I thought. A kind of Kabbalism, or Bible Code, with the absurd premise that Moses should teach something under the surface which blatantly contradicts the surface teachings. Yes, that's really smart, that is, but then deliberate contradictions and lack of logic are stock-in-trade of Gnosticism and always have been, then they will boast about how we don't understand like you do! A code only for the elite, eh? Not for simple little muggles like me or the Born Again brigade! "My complaint against Goonerman is simple - if you want to write about the Bible then use it, quote it accurately, and stick to it - ALL OF IT." That's precisely what I do, it is you who's playing all the rip things out of context games. "Satan's use of scripture at Jesus' temptation was correct but selective" It was incorrect precisely because it was selective and making it look contradictory to the key commands of God. "SELECTIVE use of scripture is the "sin" here and it is this that comes from Satan and this that Jesus frequently stood against. Church authorities are still professionals at doing this today." Yes, and you did so when using the 'good guys form the Bible' doing 'pagan' things, tut tut tut. Yes, you mean the Catholics, Protestant Liberals, Orthodox, Mormons, JWs, Prosperity Gospel types, and the errr, Gnostics! Oh, and some poorly trained and obtuse real Christians doing poor exegesis who need to be taken aside and given some more solid teaching- puls people do goof up at times, we all do! But beware again of saying I am on the side of Satan- and the next bit is a piece of screwed up logic I will try and untwist: "The other thing worth saying (as a Gnostic !!!) is that if God is God then it made everything - unfortunately that includes Satan/Lucifer - and that means everything Satan has done from the beginning was in obedience to the plans of God. I don't believe there is a satisfactory answer to that unless you can argue that God is NOT the creator of everything or entirely in control - so I don't argue that, I accept it. God created Satan. At least the early Gnostics were brave enough to face this issue." IT?! God is not an IT!! That implies a lack of reverence for Him for a start. God indeed created the Anointed Cherub whom God sarcastically called 'Lucifer' when he fell in the initial rebellion. The Morning Star is actually a title of Jesus which Satan usurped making himself the Enemy. He was not created AS Satan! Everything Satan has done is in REBELLION against God. But it is a case of God's plans working in SPITE of Satan, not because of him. Satan's rebellions fail because somehow they achieve God's plans as God shows His sovereignty- like Satan wanting Jesus dead led to Jesus saving the world. So his crimes were twisted by God BACK into victory for the Sovereign Lord, not failure. Plus angels and humans were given free will to choose, otherwise they woiuld have been robots, and God considered saved veterans who were once sinners to be better than innocents who could fall. So although sin was not in His plan, His plan pre-Fall took that into consideration. So your 'solution' is a fallacy. The early Gnostics were not brave- they were downright blasphemous as they tried to justify supporting Satan's lie about us being gods. "All of my beliefs are based ONLY on the Bible - which unfortunately supports Gnosticism." You mean twisting the Bible! Plus you accept this pagan bit and that pagan bit, in spite of the incompatibility of paganism and Gnosticism! "The difference is I'm not conditioned or selective" Yo ho! What was the paganism and the good guys of the Bible bit all about??? "- in fact I'm actually rather "first century in my approach" Yes, like Simon Magus, Elymas Bar-Jesus and Cerinthus, you mean! "My sympathy with Whitches and Pagans lies in the fact that Goonerman's church burn't and tortured Gnostics too in an attempt to wipe them out" Goonerman's church did not!!! We won fair and square because we had the TRUTH and the Spirit on our side in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries! We had not been corrupted by Rome at that point, but were being persecuted by Rome. You have to go forward to the Middle Ages to the Catholic Church's Crusade massacring the Cathars in France in the 12th century, which was truly appalling, the Cathars being the successors to the Gnostics! The Cathars may have been heretics, but at least they were harmless unlike the heretics who killed them. Sorry, no cigar. Plus if witches and pagans were doing what I think they were doing, then that was murder on their parts. Plus if you want to quote Matthew Hopkins and Salem, Massachusetts, you will find that certainly with Salem the real witches were the teenage girls who said a spirit told them so and so were witches, who were good Christian women, while the court and jury who stitched the women up were immoral people who posed as Puritans! "And while I think about it - the 'sin' of Cain in the Old Testament story had nothing to do with the fact he brought an offering of cearial and Abel one of blood (otherwise we could 'rubbish' bread and wine too) it was entirely their state of heart, specifically Cain's. He was a murderer with no idea of God - read ALL of the story." If you are so theologically naive as to think that the offering of cerial was why God did not accept the sacrifice of Cain, then I will have to correct you. The motive behind the offering of cereal indeed was the problem- he thought his handiwork- even though the fruit and crops were really God's work- could do it. More importantly, it was precisely because he failed to understand that God wanted a blood sacrifice of an innocent lamb. Abel understood this knowing how his parents were clothed by God- hint hint. Cain murdered him specifically because he was jealous of God's reaction to Abel as opposed to him. So yes, his state of heart was wrong, but his outer action and more to the point what he did not do was wrong as a conseuqnece. Had he been right he would have shared the food offering and the blood sacrifice with Abel. But he did indeed act as a rival. I mean the crops were not bad in and of themselves. After all, what is Pentecost and Tabernacles all about? And the wave offerings of the crops, and so on? The cakes which were offered, the showbread, and remember, the bread and wine are symbolic of what? Christ's body and blood on the Cross! "If I miss-read the Egypt thread I apologise" No probs. "the oldest items found in direct archaeological association with the Great Pyramid are burial jars from 4200 BC / everyone knows the head of the Sphynx was stuck on at a later date and the body and quarry pit ARE water damaged from earlier times" Erm, what relevance has this got to do with the Exodus from a much later period? "Akhenaton is now favoured as the pharaoh to stand against Moses and Smenkhare as his first born son slain by the Biblical plagues etc. etc. etc." Actually, most scholars favour Ramesses II as the Pharaoh of the Exodus in 1250 BC according to the Late Date Theory of the Exodus. But if you take the Bible's own chronology, Amenhotep II is the Pharaoh of the Exodus and Moses' name makes more sense in the light of Tuthmosis III and the Egyptian princess who found him quite likely being Queen Hatshepsut. Akhenaten does not make sense being the Pharaoh of the Exodus, as God Himself clearly states that He in the Plagues was judging the gods of Egypt. Akhenaten decreed that only the hypostatic disc of the sun-god Amun-Ra, the Aten, should be worshipped- in which case only the Plague of Darkness would have been necessary. God's attack on Egyptian religion as well as putting pressure on Egypt to realise Israel makes sense inthe light of a normal polytheistic Egyptian Pharaoh as opposed to the unusual montheistic sun-worhsipping Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV). Plus, the Bible is clear on the topic of Solomon's Temple starting to be built- in the 480th year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt, and Solomon became King of Israel in 970 BC, when the Temple began to be constructed. "Strange how the various "2 scriptures" I asked for failed to turn up?" I did so successfully with the witches in 2 verses. As for Satan, you and I know there is no single verse saying "Satan is a fallen angel." You are the one who is being naughty here and I am under no obligation to specify 2 verses according to your arbitrary ruling. That's because the Bible is a high-context document from a high-context culture, and a detailed and patient study of all the verses will point that out, and anyway, the Jude references DO suffice. THEY ARE THE TWO VERSES! . We know Satan is a heavenly spiritual authority, although an evil rebellious one. So you are not telling the truth. Also, I said that the Devil is an angelic being, but I specifically called him... a Cherub! "Why not just quote 2 verses DIRECLY RELEVANT to my questions so we can all go and look them up ? I asked those questions because I know the scriptures aren't there so Goonerman can't. Naughty but it legitimately proves my point." So the answer is, I already have! Reminds me of a chess game cartoon where the British and Irish Governments keep giving Gerry Adams concessions (written on the chess pieces) with Gerry Adams saying, "Your move!" each time, with a whole crowd of chess pieces on the board. Don't think the Gerry Adams analogy has anything to do with me thinking you're an... because I am happily sure that you are nothing like Gerry Adams. Gnostics aren't noted for their violence. So I suggest to the dear readers to check the following out: Job chapters 1 and 2, Isaiah 14 (though do bear in mind that here the oracle is really about the King of Babylon though some of the hyperbolic digs at his pride sound like a quote from Satan when he fell), Ezekiel 27 as mentioned before (though bear in mind again that this is about the King of Tyre though the same techniques are used here by Ezekiel as by Isaiah), see Daniel chapter 10 for an indication for the rival angelic forces for good and evil, and the authority they have, look at Colossians 1:15-23 and note by the way, the distinctly anti-Gnostic claims of Paul like in verse 19 where he makes it clear that the Father allows His Pleroma, His fullness to dwell in Christ, in other words, Christ is His Father's Pleroma, and so the angelic powers of verse 16 have NO SHARE in the Pleroma! And in verse 22 Paul says the Father has reconciled us through Christ's PHYSICAL body through death. Amazing to think that Bultmann thought that Colossians was Gnostic! What Paul is actually doing is brilliantly using Gnostic termonology and making it blow up in the Gnostics' faces. Note that the angelic beings (I say angelic, not angels, so I call Satan angelic, but not strictly an angel as he is a Cherub and so more highly ranked than the angels bar Michael, but I use 'angelic' as shorthand for all the spirits who are not human and serve God or are in rebellion, these invisible thrones or powers or rules or authorities- since all things were created by Him and for Him (Christ in relation to His Father) then Christ is not an Aeon. He alone is the Pleroma, shared by the Spirit, of His Father, and so in fact only the hypostases (2nd and 3rd members of the Trinity) of the Father are Aeons and are the Pleroma. He also speaks of Jesus as the Word of God in its... fullness (Pleroma again), which doubles up here as referring to Jesus and to His Gospel. That's why I am in opposition to you: as Paul says, "See to it that no-one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition [your Septenary Design' for example which I have seen from an internet nutjob called Sylvius in TheologyWeb] and the basic principles of this world than on Christ." I love the next bit: get out of this one, a classic anti-Gnostic raspberry if ever there was one: For in Christ all the fulness [Pleroma in Greek!]of the Deity lives in bodily form [get the sick bag out, Gnostics!] and you have been given fulness [this gets even better, guess which one of us possesses a REAL Pleroma!] in Christ, who is the Head over every power and authority. Oh, and back we come to the letter of Jesus' little brother Jude. Here the Devil is clearly a what? A celestial being. Verses 8 and 9 again! Oh, and don't forget Hebrews 1. Plus, in Galatians Paul said that if even an angel tells you a different gospel, then let him be anathema. I wonder what angel that is??? "His generalisations to support his own views are clearly not the answer I asked for." Oh, hear that? They are clearly not the answer you asked for. That's errr, too bad, isn't it? "Another example will do here: Jesus reference to Satan's fall being "like lightning from heaven" refers to the drama of the lighting from the heavens and NOT to the location of Satan in Heaven (Goonerman read your Greek) and Satan is actually referred to as a "Star" and one of the "Son's Of God" (ie' a created being) in Job and NEVER as an angel" How very naive. Actually, Jesus' reference is a joyful remark to His disciples when they were delighted at casting out demons. He's agreeing with them. Your exegesis is sooo poor. And if Satan is referred to as a star, then you shoot yourself in the foot as God tells of the stars singing for joy at the creation, of Satan the dragon, that ancient sperpent in Revelation 12 dragging down a third of the stars to earth, later on Revelation makes it clear that a star is apocalyptic symbolism for... an angel, not least Apollyon or Abaddon. Plus the reference to Satan being a star is God's sarcastic reference to him being 'Lucifer' and the initial expulsion from Heaven. And in the Millennium he will be imprisoned in the Abyss, reserved for renegade angels, the demons, like the Legion who pleased with Jesus not to be cast into the Abyss. "the only reference to a 'Whitch' in the Bible is the one in the Old Testament consulted by Saul at Endor and no one has the foggiest idea what this 'witch' was like - the account actually refers to an act of spiritualism !!!" I didn't quote all the references to witches and witchcraft, and you are in denial of the quotes I made. Plus, had you read my reference to Saul at Endor properly, you would have seen my ironic tone made it clear I regarded the 'witch' as a medium, and spiritualism is also condemned in Scripture. "My salvation authiority, qualifications, beliefs etc. are not important here - this is not the place to publically debate ego's." It was you who slagged off my qualifications, actually. So that's just sheer hypocrisy. "What is important to me is that human beings arrive at a personal understanding of God by their own individual means" Indeed, with the Holy Spirit guiding them through their conscience, enlightened by the Bible, and challenged by mugs like me. "and not by some plackard-waving, pentecostal, Bible bashing, nut case trying to batter them into heaven and thinking they are doing God a favour !?!?! Anyone indulging in Christian over-kill simply has a problem with their own ego and insecurities." Errr, what was it you were saying about rubbishing other religions? Let's see, OK, I don't wave placards, that's not very nice about poor old Pentecostals-at least they don't think they've got a special exclusive secret code God has given to no-one else, blah di blah di blah, and I'm Presbyterian, I read the Bible, though they get bashed up through constant use, how can anyone batter anyone into Heaven? Ah, so you are a psychiatrist as well, then. Typical Gnostic arrogance. How could I do GOD a favour? Ha! I'm only getting into Heaven because of the blood of Jesus. As Peter teasingly said to me, "You can lead a horse to water..." EXACTLY. I'm just the messenger boy, the carrier pigeon, the pencil, one key in a very big keyboard. A mere character on a computer screen. The HOLY SPIRIT does the converting! "And I believe trying to impose your beliefs on someone else has killed far more people down the ages than polluted water ???" No, I'm afraid not. You see, there are rather more of us now than those in the past. And since most wars weren't religious, then that's a myth anyway. The death toll of even say the Inquisition was surprisingly small, but not so considering the total pre-Industrial Revolution population. Besides, I wouldn't dream of imposing any beliefs on anyone, but if we reasoned that way, perhaps I could say the same thing about you? Oh of course, that's different ! Discussion on a message board is hardly imposing anything on anyone! "All you other guys out there - keep the varied debate going - please !" Yip. Fire away. "If anyone out there has a genuine desire to know the truth then I will debate any religion - otherwise Jesus had something interesting to say about 'pearls and swine' and the right he gave the disciples to judge who was speaking the truth of the Holy Spirit and who was not. As a Gnostic I know that this 'right' is based on experience of the Spirit of God and not on academic qualifications. Interesting Goonerman assumes he has the Holy Spirit and that I do not - I have stopped short of making such assertions as Jesus says "judge not lest you be judged." Oink oink. I'm the swine, I suppose. (Wait a minute, you were speaking of your archaeology and your lecturing and study, oh wait, that's different. I didn't raise the issue of academic qualifications, not made insinuations about them. And the last sentence is unintentionally funny, as you yourself said I was more like the Satanists. I love the way the ad hominems flow while you do special pleading that you don't do that or think certain people or persons have ego problems. And it's a bit rich for a Gnostic to say that, given Gnostic beliefs. "here are two views in connection with the Pagan Jesus material worthy of consideration:" Hmm, can't be Jesus of Nazareth, then! "One view states that material from previous times has been attracted arround Jesus to create or expand the apparently mythical content of the Godspels. That's the view given by Legion and the Web sites and there is no doubt that connections clearly exist." Ho hum. See above, ducky. Look at my links. Read Nash. "The other view states that if God did send a messenger into the world of the first century, this messenger would have to be divine in ways that the society at the time would clearly recognise. Hence a factual Jesus would 'tick all the boxes' and fit human expectations." That could be used against Gnosticism as well as against Christianity. But Jesus did tick all the boxes, and His brother James was able to encourage Paul with the news that thousands of Jews believed in Jesus at that time. The tragedy of the Christian/Jewish split came later. See Acts 21:20. Also, for those who rejected Jesus, there was also willful blindness through wanting to follow their own agenda. "Personally I can accept both views." I can too, on condition that the Gospels in question are the Apocryphal ones, but not the Gnostic ones, as the Gnostics were poles apart from the pagans. "Slightly less convinced when it comes to Jesus in Tibet etc. as an apostle called John and often referred to as 'Jesus' is thought to have made it to that region by early in the second century and it is difficult to clearly identify aspects of this story. It would also not be unusual for a disciple called 'Jesus' to evangelise Tibet as Jesus was a common name rather like Smith, Jones etc. in the first and second century." Alas, no historical evidence for such a thing but if there was someone called John or Jesus preaching to the Tibetans, they would not have been lamas. The Apostle Thomas is the best candidate- assuming he DID get to China. He definitely got to India, as did Nathaniel Bartholomew. And indeed 'Jesus', as 'Iesous' or 'Yehoshua' or 'Yeshua' was common. Something like 1800 Jesuses are known through burial sites in Israel, none of them THE Jesus. Jesus Justus was a disciple and a relative of Paul. And while we mention it, and did those feet in ancient times walk upon England's pleasant green? I think not. "No matter what you believe - we still have not found the body of Jesus the Messiah in Tibet, Israel, or anywhere else so he may as well have risen and ascended back to God !!!" Amen! Hold on a minute, the Gnostic Jesus was never born, didn't die, and therefore didn't need to rise from the dead! "I guess if we could somehow collect every divine belief ever held by mankind into one archive then we may be getting somewhere close to the whole knowable revealed truth about God ?" Not if Evangelical Christianity was one of those divine beliefs, since you have already clear that I am full of Christian ********! (Saying that is not a good qualification for Aeonship or joining the Pleroma again, surely!) So to the next round... Oh, and Obbs' statement has just disproved the Theory of Evolution from yet another angle! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man in Black Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 Now it's getting REALLY sad :sleeping: !!!! I have a job/family/life and a personal hatred of the Internet for the way it robs people of 'real life' - so why would I ever want to continue this entirely pointless thread with Goonerman ? I have told Goonerman that I have read the Bible (at least 13+ times since 1978) and more than proved it, I am amply qualified in Ministry, I BELIEVE THE BIBLE - so why is this endless quoting of scripture continuing ? Who benefits except Goonerman ? Everything Goonerman has written just attacks every other belief system no matter what it is (except 'Presbytarianism' of course). I do not wish to be involved in this process any more and, unfortunately, will not be answering any more of Goonerman's rants (sorry Peter). I do not appreciate constantly being set up to take Goonerman's imagined 'falls' and him resorting to lies, deliberate omissions and information over-kill to do it. Goonerman knows that what I say is entirely true and invariably ends up supporting it - mischievous behavior at best, demonic at worst. For example (and for the last time): NOWHERE in the Old Testament is God made to be male !!!! All references from 'El' to 'YHWH' are NEUTRAL in Hebrew for the Bible states clearly "God is spirit" (If anything God is probably both if we are "in God's image" - or does Goonerman also hate women ?) Making any image of God breaks the first commandment - great one Goonerman, that makes you a Pagan if your God is a 'He'. There is no scripture that links 'Stars' to 'Angels' - they are always seperate, indeed appearing seperately at the same locations at the same time (see: Job). The Dead Sea Scrolls are emphatically NOT 'Essene' as there is absolutely no connection between the caves where they were found and the community above - archaeologically they both date from different periods - and the Nag Hamadi material is known to be copied from and based on older sources (obviously)! Despite Goonerman's views the 'Johanine Gnostics' are still here and are based on the BIBLICAL teachings of John who DOES NOT speak anything against the Gnostics whatsoever. The Bible "code" (Septenary Design) is a seperate issue known by the Jews (and the later Greek writers) since the beginning and only the anti-semitic Western churches ignore it (and no it's not Michael Drosnin's laughable attempt either !!!) It is the language of Moses given directly by God and Goonerman can't even be bothered to Web search for it !?! I argue from evidence - Goonerman argues from quotes, pedudice and ignorance. '2 verses' are universally required as the absolute bare academic MINIMUM to build any Bible doctrine - Goonerman should know this - and the verses to support Goonerman's views are JUST NOT THERE. Debate over. Despite his vast knowledge of Gnosticism Goonerman does not know what I believe and I intend to keep it that way as Gnostics don't publicise or evangelise. We wait for people who GENUINELY want to know to ask. And don't take this as defeat - a difference of opinon yes - an unwillingness to clog up this forum with stuff that no one else can understand yes - a very low opinion of Goonerman yes (I've said my piece already and I'm sticking to it) - a waste of my valuable time on earth yes, yes, yes etc ! Game over ........................ :angelwings: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex padgate girl Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 Blooooomin eckkkk!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 Forums are ideal ways of displaying useless information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man in Black Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 Couldn't agree more :biggrinbounce: Now what was that about Paganism ? :angelwings: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 The core of all of today's religions, but none will ever admit to that what's your views on paganism ? and NO please don't start dragging it into the 'satanic' world because it's NOTHING to do with that Thank TMM for beginning a very long discussion!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goonerman Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 OK, with Man In Black having finished his case, I will rest my case with this final post in this thread. "I have a job/family/life and a personal hatred of the Internet for the way it robs people of 'real life' - so why would I ever want to continue this entirely pointless thread with Goonerman ?" You don't have to discuss anything with me if you don't want to. "I have told Goonerman that I have read the Bible (at least 13+ times since 1978) and more than proved it, I am amply qualified in Ministry, I BELIEVE THE BIBLE - so why is this endless quoting of scripture continuing ?" Reading and understanding are two clean different things. And once again, it isn't me who brought up the issue of qualifications in the first place. " Who benefits except Goonerman ? Everything Goonerman has written just attacks every other belief system no matter what it is (except 'Presbytarianism' of course)." Ahem, I defended the Pentecostals in the same paragraph as mentioning that I was Presbyterian, and have happily worked with Pentecostals, Brethren, Baptists, Anglicans, Methodists, Free Methodists, Nazarenes, Messianic Jews, Reformed Presbyterians, etc. "I do not wish to be involved in this process any more and, unfortunately, will not be answering any more of Goonerman's rants (sorry Peter)." They aren't rants, and if you don't want to continue, OK, but I at least deserve a chance to answer some of the points you raise here one last time. "I do not appreciate constantly being set up to take Goonerman's imagined 'falls' and him resorting to lies, deliberate omissions and information over-kill to do it. Goonerman knows that what I say is entirely true and invariably ends up supporting it - mischievous behavior at best, demonic at worst." Beware of slander- once again, the demonic charge. You know fine well I do not agree with you. "For example (and for the last time): NOWHERE in the Old Testament is God made to be male !!!! All references from 'El' to 'YHWH' are NEUTRAL in Hebrew for the Bible states clearly "God is spirit" (If anything God is probably both if we are "in God's image" - or does Goonerman also hate women ?)" I made it clear in an earlier post to you that God is neither male nor female, He is suprasexual and masculinity and femininity are delegated aspects of His nature granted to humans. God mad man male and female, indeed the Hebrew word 'Isshah' means 'female man'. God is called He and Father to point out that His relationship to the Universe is like that of a Father rather than a Mother. Funny, Jesus said of Himself that 'Wisdom is vindicated by her children' and said He longed to wrap Himself round the Jews like a hen gathers her chicks under her wing. I do not hate women- the insinuation is false, I hate no-one. And the pronouns for God are always masculine. "Making any image of God breaks the first commandment - great one Goonerman, that makes you a Pagan if your God is a 'He'." Sorry, no cigar. "There is no scripture that links 'Stars' to 'Angels' - they are always seperate, indeed appearing seperately at the same locations at the same time (see: Job)." Revelation 10:10-11 and note the parallelism between Rev. 12:4 and 12:8-9. And who were the singing stars of Job 38:7? "While the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?" In Hebrew poetry, parallelism is saying the same thing in one sentence then repeating it differently in the next one. You should have known that. "The Dead Sea Scrolls are emphatically NOT 'Essene' as there is absolutely no connection between the caves where they were found and the community above - archaeologically they both date from different periods" That's baloney. I've read many books on the Dead Sea Scrolls and none of them say what you are saying. Like Allegro and Van Der Kam, for example, and FF Bruce. VERY different scholars with VERY different views, though thankfully this is before Allegro flipped. And the Essenes were entirely Jewish and not a sect of Christianity, being founded by an exiled member of the priestly Hasmonean family. " - and the Nag Hamadi material is known to be copied from and based on older sources (obviously)!" What? Like the Gospel of Thomas, which denigrates women, funny enough, with Mary Magdalene having to turn male in order to inherit the Kingdom of God? Naaaa. " Despite Goonerman's views the 'Johanine Gnostics' are still here and are based on the BIBLICAL teachings of John who DOES NOT speak anything against the Gnostics whatsoever. " Mere assertion- then tell me what John was on about then with his anti-Gnostic verses and why did he flee the Ephesian Roman baths to escape from the Gnostic teacher Cerinthus? "The Bible "code" (Septenary Design) is a seperate issue known by the Jews (and the later Greek writers) since the beginning and only the anti-semitic Western churches ignore it (and no it's not Michael Drosnin's laughable attempt either !!!) It is the language of Moses given directly by God and Goonerman can't even be bothered to Web search for it !?! I argue from evidence - Goonerman argues from quotes, pedudice and ignorance." I was genuinely tired and I have now since read through the relevant stuff through Google, and what did I find- a claim that there is a Divine pattern and design showing patterns of the number 7 through Hebrew numerals in the way the text is written, ditto with the Aramaic numerals and the Greek numerals in the Greek New Testament. But nothing more. Apparently the mathematics is flawed (not least where there are textual variants due to ancient manuscript errors), but I am not in a position to know that. However, it is ironic that the groups who support this are: Evangelical Christians! Messianic Jews in the main. One of them funny enough was a Pentecostal Messianic fellowship. And Messianic Jews through their Jewish culture believe the same things I do. Personally my reaction was, "So what?" This still is not a key to secret doctrines hidden in the Bible in code which contradict the outer stuff. You've been found out. There is such a Septenary design believed by modern Gnostics, but you'll find that is something devised by Madame Blavatsky to do with evolutionary biology 'proving' God created the animal kingdom by means of Theistic Evolution in a septenary pattern in the family tree of animal biology and nothing to do with the Bible. There is no secret code as you claim, as I suspected. Finally, the charge of anti-semitism does not stick since I have contantly been on about Jesus' Jewishness and it is the Gnostics who are the anti-semites. "'2 verses' are universally required as the absolute bare academic MINIMUM to build any Bible doctrine - Goonerman should know this - and the verses to support Goonerman's views are JUST NOT THERE. Debate over." The critical 2 verses WERE provided: Jude verses 8 and 9. Anyway, your definition is arbitrary especially as the Bible was not even divided into its verses until the 16th century. This system of reference was devised by the French printer Robert Estienne (Robertus Stephanus). The modern chapter divisions were created by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, the brains behind the Magna Carta, in around 1200, and he actually got the chapter divisions wrong- such as the end of Acts 8 and Acts 9, for example, where legend says his horse slipped as he did the divisions! (Interestingly the chapter and verse division is different in the Book of Zechariah in Jewish translations aas opposed to Christian ones, though the text is the same.) And anyway, a far more important doctrine is that of salvation and for THAT I only need ONE verse! John 3:16- "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." "Despite his vast knowledge of Gnosticism Goonerman does not know what I believe and I intend to keep it that way as Gnostics don't publicise or evangelise. We wait for people who GENUINELY want to know to ask." That's because firstly you know what will happen if you fully reveal your beliefs, which I have deduced from your posts and from prior knowledge of Gnosticism, and secondly, because you are an elitist who wants to hog the truth and selfishly keep your beliefs to yourself. "And don't take this as defeat - a difference of opinon yes - an unwillingness to clog up this forum with stuff that no one else can understand yes - a very low opinion of Goonerman yes (I've said my piece already and I'm sticking to it) - a waste of my valuable time on earth yes, yes, yes etc !" I really couldn't care less whether you have a low opinion of me or not. Since you are a Gnostic this is precisely what I would expect from you anyway. "Game over ........................" Indeed, especially when you consider the following in closing: I looked at the Original Sun of God article. Here are my thoughts: To quote from the site first of all: "The history of sun worship, so seemingly foreign to the Western mind has, in fact, manifested itself into Christianity in many ways as the story of Jesus in the Gospels. So little was known about the life of Jesus, any and all writing styles from Midrash (searching past scriptures for "hints" of how they might apply to the present) to discerning the story of the Zodiac and it's constellations were used to fill in what was clearly missing in the literal record." GOONERMAN: Midrash is to do with interpreting some of the Messianic prophecies, such as "He will be called a Nazarene" being wordplay on the Messiah being called the Branch and 'Nazareth' meaning New Branch, and referring to the Messiah honouring Galilee, for example, nothing to do with the sun god. "Consider our "modern" terms, Horizon and Sun Set. These terms belie their ancient history. Horus-sun (Horizon) was sunrise as Horus was the Egyptian god of light and the day light portion of the 24 hour cycle. Set, was the god of darkness and night. He came on the scene at "Sun Set" and is the Jackal headed god of the Egyptian underworld. When we say "what a beautiful Sun Set," we don't realize we are speaking as one might in ancient Egypt. Darkness was the time of Set, god of darkness. Night time was not a good time in most ancient mythologies. This is why many a priest stood every morning acting as if by incantation and arm waving, he could bring back the Sun/Son from the Underworld of darkness and fear. The sun descending into hell is something it did every Sun-Set. There was relief every morning when the sun/son was reborn. Set murdered Osiris and in turn, Horus, son of Osiris, killed Set. Sunrise on the Horus-Sun defeats the night which began at Sun Set. Pretty cool huh? Jesus struggles with Satan (Set or Sata) in just the same way Horus battles with Set. It's all dualism. It's Light and Dark, good and evil, God and Satan." GOONERMAN: Except that God and Satan are not equals and in Hebrew 'Satan' means 'Adversary' or 'Enemy'. It is no good making Egyptian and Hebrew match. It won't work. Egyptian was a Hamitic language, Hebrew Semitic. "Set kills Osiris and scatters his body, then claims the throne of the gods for his own. He is later struck down by Horus, the son of Osiris, who restores order to the world and sets up the pharaohs as the guardians of Maat. Set and Horus continue to battle for control of the world, setting up an epic conflict of good versus evil." (Light and Dark) David C. Scott Website. Gods and Mythology of Egypt. Consider the fact that Jesus is surrounded by 12 disciples and the events of Jesus life are like the Sun of God surrounded by the 12 signs of the Zodiac that make up the way of the sun across the heavens in one year. Just as the 12 sons of Jacob and the 12 tribes of Israel are astro-theology personified and are in fact references to the zodiac and the story it tells. We might not watch the heavens anymore, and we know precious little about the zodiac, the characters and the revolving story they tell, but our ancestors read the heavens as we read books today." GOONERMAN: Yes, I can tell that people don't know much about the Zodiac. Being into Astronomy, I can announce that there are THIRTEEN constellations in the Zodiac, they all forget about Ophiuchus! "For instance, many of the world's crucified god men have their traditional birthday on December 25th ("Christmas"). This was a basic understanding we had in WCG and was not off the mark. Today, there is many times more material to show this connection." GOONERMAN: Only one major religious figure in history was ever crucified, apart form Rabbi Akiva by the Emperor Hadrian in AD 135. Plus, I'll say it again, Jesus was born in OCTOBER, during the Feast of Tabernacles! John Chrysostom, the Greek Christian preacher from the 4th century recalled in one of his sermons that when he was 10 years old, Christmas was moved to 25 December for the first time. Before that it was celebrated in June, which was when the real St Nicholas gave his presents out to the children of Myra! (And note that June was the wrong time of year as well! Besides, it is too darn cold in Bethlehem at night in December for the shepherds to be out watching their flocks by night- Bethlehem is as wintry as here is during Christmas, having seen the Arab Christian kiddies singing 'Silent Night' in Manger Square in the snow proves my point! "This is because the ancients recognized that (from an earthcentric perspective) the sun makes an annual descent southward until December 21st or 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops moving southerly for three days and then starts to move northward again. During this time, the ancients declared that "God's sun" had "died" for three days and was "born again" on December 25th. So Xmas really is the Birthday of the SUN/SON in every way. The ancients realized quite abundantly that they needed the sun to return every day and that they would be in big trouble if the sun continued to move southward and did not stop and reverse its direction. Thus, these many different cultures celebrated the "sun of God's" birthday on December 25th. In reality, the sun "dies" for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north. For those three days it might be said the Sun is in the grave." GOONERMAN: Already answered in a previous post. "In December, the Virgin, the constellation Virgo precedes sunrise and thus, "Behold, a Virgin shall bring forth the sun/son," would be part of the story in the heavens. Matthew literalized the story in his reacing back into Isaiah for a story about a young woman that had virtually nothing to with prophecy of a literal virgin birth or Jesus himself. Remember the alternative explanation of Isa. 14 and "how thou art fallen, oh Lucifer, (light Bringer-Venus precedes sunrise), thou bright and morning star," (Venus). Remember how Venus appears to rise and then descends back into the earth and how this IS the origin of the story of Satan's fall for trying to ascend to God's Throne, which is astro-theologically NOON. Everyone sees "Satan fall as lightening from heaven" at one time or another during the year if you know what Venus looks like just before Sun rise on the Horus-sun, or even shortly after Sun-Set. Something that bright got humanity's attention and the stories of it's apparent motion followed and then were literalized by the theologically ignorant. Venus always was and always will be a planet on the inside orbit between earth and the sun. It behaves as it does because it is as it is. Whole theologies have grown up around that which could not then be explained but now can be easily explained. Once you have the true explanation, you can drop the false one." GOONERMAN: Already answered. "The Jesus story in the gospels may also be the story of the Sun/Son of God. The sun is the "Light of the World." Just as Jesus. GOONERMAN: See the Feast of Tabernacles and Hanukkah as the true source of this. The sun "cometh on clouds, and every eye shall see him." Just as Jesus. GOONERMAN: No, Jewish apocalyptic is the key, see the Book of Zechariah chapter 14. The sun rising in the morning is the "Savior of mankind." Just as Jesus." GOONERMAN: Rival theological systems making theological claims, but YHWH's sovereignty OVER the Sun, a mere created object is seen in Genesis 1 and the Plague of Darkness in Exodus. The sun wears a corona, "crown of thorns" or halo. Just as Jesus. GOONERMAN: No, its source lies in the bizarre bullying games of Roman troops. How could the glorious Corona be like thorns? Has anybody seen an Eclipse of the Sun? Hello? The sun "walks on water." Just as Jesus. GOONERMAN: Yes, a stormy, swirly night really represents the Sun walking on water. Right on. The sun can turn water (rain) into wine (grapes) Just as Jesus. GOONERMAN: The real key to understanding this one is Isaiah 55! The Messiah replaces the water of the Old Covenant with the new wine of the New Covenant with Israel and Judah. The sun's "followers," "helpers" or "disciples" are the 12 months and the 12 signs of the zodiac or constellations, through which the sun must pass. Just as Jesus. GOONERMAN: Considering there are really 13 constellations in the zone of the sky where the Sun, Moon and planets appear, and the Earth's orbital angle, this is just gobbledegook. Just because Jacob had 12 sons! The sun at 12 noon is in the house or temple of the "Most High"; thus, "he" begins "his Father's work" at "age" 12. Just as Jesus. GOONERMAN: I didn't know Jesus' ministry began at the age of 12, it wasn't until He was in His thirties, in the 15th year of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius! The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30?; (30x12=360 degrees) hence, the "Sun of God" begins his ministry at "age" 30. Just as Jesus. GOONERMAN: I thought you said Jesus' ministry began at the age of 12! Besides, with Jesus born in 7 BC, and Luke using the Syrian reckoning of eras, then he counted Tiberius' two years sharing the tribunician powers with Augustus as well as his reign as sole Emperor, then Jesus' ministry began in AD 27, making Jesus 34, so no cigar. Luke said Jesus was ABOUT thirty! (Blame Dionysius Exiguus for setting the Anno Domini timescale wrongly!) "The sun is hung on a cross or "crucified," which represents its passing through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter, at which time it is then resurrected. Just as Jesus. GOONERMAN: Already answered. Jesus died at PASSOVER, not Easter! 3 April AD 33 is NOT the Vernal Equinox!! Duh! (Archarya S.-- Suns of God/The Christ Conspiracy) GOONERMAN: Acharya S, I should have known! She's loop the loop, and anyway, she says Jesus never existed at all but is completely myth! MIB and Legion, are you two daft or what? Acharya S does not believe that Jesus existed. YOU DO!!! Dear oh dear oh dear! "The rejection of Cain's grain offering (Agricultural Goddess and fertility recognition of the religions surrounding Israel) and the acceptance of Abel's (roasted meat) offering was a symbol of the change to come in Israel from Matriarchy and female based religion, to Patriarchy, Priesthood and cultic temple worship and sacrifices. The story is not true, the message was clear! Women are now property and men own them, no matter what the "pagan" nations around practice or respect in the mysteries of the feminine and fertility. (sex if you must know!)" So I was right about Cain being pagan! Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot! But the Israel life situation is false- the story is Mesopotamian, after all, the Hebrews are descended form a wandering Aramean. "Little has changed in the Christian Patriarchy since which is why for years I allowed myself to say the words, "who gives this woman..." in marriage ceremonies. I stopped including that in the wedding ceremony at the end. The Father always formally transferred his property to the qualified and selected male and I had to be the priest in the middle negotiating the transaction! Men have had way too much time to screw up the planet and it's time perhaps to let the feminine spirit restore the right side of the brain in humans! It's time to act as the one we really all are inspite of that which divides us." GOONERMAN: And since Eve was deceived by the serpent, the ladies, no disrespect, will not do any better! "The physical sun has always fascinated human beings. It "rises" in the east to bring it's warmth, light, and "sets" in the West, plunging the world into darkness with all the associated insecurites and dangers. It was truly a miracle and a most welcomed relief when every morning, the Sun rose from the land of the dead to bring it's light and protection for yet another day. It's cycles and apparent motion through the constellations has told the story of mankind for thousands of years, with all our hopes and fears. The physical Sun has been much of the inspiration of the spiritual son mythologies. We're all still sun/son worshippers at heart." GOONERMAN: And with my Hydrogen Alpha telescope, I hope to study the Sun as a fascinating and important created physical object for many years to come. THE LOST YEARS OF JESUS: THE LIFE OF SAINT ISSA: "He was shown two large yellowed volumes containing the biography of St. Issa. Notovitch enlisted a member of his party to translate the Tibetan volumes while he carefully noted each verse in the back pages of his journal." GOONERMAN: How convenient that the manuscripts have never been made public, unlike the thousands of Biblical ancient manuscripts in museums and libraries all over the world. "He passed his time in several ancient cities of India such as Benares. All loved him because Issa dwelt in peace with Vaishas and Shudras whom he instructed and helped. But the Brahmins and Kshatriyas told him that Brahma forbade those to approach who were created out of his womb and feet. The Vaishas were allowed to listen to the Vedas only on holidays and the Shudras were forbidden not only to be present at the reading of the Vedas, but could not even look at them." GOONERMAN: Funny, we know Jesus was immersed in the Torah, the Psalms and the Hebrew prophets, but did not even as much as mention these guys. Besides, I have already demonstrated why Jesus never went to Tibet. ""Not only shall you not make human offerings, but you must not slaughter animals, because all is given for the use of man. Do not steal the goods of others, because that would be usurpation from your near one. Do not cheat, that you may in turn not be cheated .... " GOONERMAN: Funny, this is supposed to be the Jesus who ate fish, and said 'not one jot or tittle' shall be removed from the Law until all is fulfilled', which included the sacrifical system, and His Last Supper was a Passover meal, which involved the eating of a lamb- which funny enough symbolised HIMSELF. (If Jesus did not approve of the Levitical system, why did He send the healed leper to be inspected by the priest in the Temple? Why did Jesus worship in the Temple?) "I tried to revive the laws of Moses in the hearts of the people. And I say unto you that you do not understand their true meaning because they do not teach revenge but forgiveness. But the meaning of these laws is distorted." If Jesus really said this upon His return to Israel, then so much for Him being vegetarian. "Thou just man, "said the disguised servant of the ruler of Jerusalem approaching Issa, "Teach us, should we fulfill the will of Caesar or await the approaching deliverance?" "But Issa, recognizing the disguised servants, said, "I did not foretell unto you that you would be delivered from Caesar; but I said that the soul which was immersed in sin would be delivered from sin." GOONERMAN: Derivative of the incident with Caesar's coin. Note also how these bogus scriptures are translated by a Russian to look like the Authorised King James Version in style! Funny, these bogus scriptures always sound suscpiciously Jacobean. Book of Mormon, for example... "As light divides itself from darkness, so does woman possess the gift to divide in man good intent from the thought of evil. Your best thoughts must belong to woman. Gather from them your moral strength, which you must possess to sustain your near ones. Do not humiliate her, for therein you will humiliate yourselves. And all which you will do to mother, to wife, to widow or to another woman in sorrow-that shall you also do for the Spirit." GOONERMAN: Jesus honoured women, but His teaching would have centred on Himself as the acid test, and this is epitomised by Him answering, "Rather, blessed are they who hear the Word of God and obey it!" when some woman shouted to Him, "Blessed is the woman who bore you and nursed you!" See Luke 11:27-28. "Near Lhasa was a temple of teaching with a wealth of manuscripts. Jesus was to acquaint himself with them. Meng-ste, a great sage of all the East, was in this temple. Finally Jesus reached a mountain pass and in the chief city of Ladak, Leh, he was joyously accepted by monks and people of the lower class .... And Jesus taught in the monasteries and in the bazaars (the market places); wherever the simple people gathered--there he taught. Not far from this place lived a woman whose son had died and she brought him to Jesus. And in the presence of a multitude, Jesus laid his hand on the child, and the child rose healed. And many brought their children and Jesus laid his hands upon them, healing them." GOONERMAN: John's Gospel explicitly states that Jesus' first ever miracle was at the wedding of Cana in His adult ministry, of turning the water into wine. If anyone did that stuff in Ladak, it was the Apostle Thomas on his Master's behalf. Please also see this link: http://www.tentmaker.org/books/FamousBiblicalHoaxes.html And with that I shall finish. I will not be contributing to this thread any longer. I've got other projects coming up, such as more work on preparing for eventually teaching English as a Foreign Language, and Open University stuff. I'll contribute small items on the other threads now. Byeeee! Discuss as much on paganism as you like, I've said my piece and my peace too. God bless, everybody, including MIB and Legion, and the Obbster, too, well, just about everyone! Satisified, Mary? I have now finished. I wish you'd stop trying to suppress me at every turn. [ 12.08.2007, 18:33: Message edited by: Goonerman ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 Well, alrighty then! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 Well, alrighty then! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goonerman Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 [ 12.08.2007, 21:39: Message edited by: Goonerman ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man in Black Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 Right - what shall we talk about now Goonerman's gone ? Hey - what about Paganism ? Anyone got any opinions on the subject ? Personnally I think it has been largely absorbed by the church in many ways down the ages. As a professional archaeologist and practising minister of the Christian faith I can accept this as a long standing fact so - over to you guys :angelwings: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 Do any of you realise just how much space you take up on this board with these excessively LONG posts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man in Black Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 PS: Goonerman should actually READ my texts and not assume what I believe. Everyone else can read them too - if you can find them !!! I'll talk to anyone ........................ except Goonerman :angelwings: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goonerman Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 "practising minister of the Christian faith" Dear help us all! Now we know who the real Dark Lord of the Sith is! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.