Islamo-fascist-street cleaners plot to pop Pope

Your'e worn out from all you've been through. I just know you're cured and going to be back to giving me all kinds of grief by the holidays!

Stephanie wrote:Your'e worn out from all you've been through. I just know you're cured and going to be back to giving me all kinds of grief by the holidays!

I ho-ho-hope.

Now that we have the actual idols of the Moon-god, it is no longer possible to avoid the fact that Allah was a pagan god in pre-Islamic times. Is it any wonder then that the symbol of Islam is the crescent moon? That a crescent moon sits on top of their mosques and minarets? That a crescent moon is found on the flags of Islamic nations? That the Muslims fast during the month which begins and ends with the appearance of the crescent moon in the sky?

TH Keli, Mohammed wasn't no dummy ........ no more than Constantine was.

As a matter of fact, Mohammed most assuredly knew what Constantine did to gain the loyalty of the Christians and to unite the pagans and the Christians under his control and leadership ........ and thus Mohammed employed the same tactics. To wit:

From 312-320 Constantine was tolerant of paganism, keeping pagan gods on coins and retaining his pagan high priest title "Pontifex Maximus" in order to maintain popularity with his subjects, possibly indicating that he never understood the theology of Christianity. From 320-330 he began to attack paganism through the government but in many cases persuaded people to follow the laws by combining pagan worship with Christianity. He made December 25th, the birthday of the pagan Unconquered Sun god, the official holiday it is now--the birthday of Jesus. It is likely that he also instituted celebrating Easter and Lent based on pagan holidays.

From 330-337 Constantine stepped up his destruction of paganism, and during this time his mother, Helen, made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and began excavations to recover artifacts in the city. This popularized the tradition of pilgrimages in Christianity. http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/easteurope/ConstantineConverts.html

Just goes to show ya, no matter whether they are pagans or Christians, they were/are gullible believers.

Thus, to paraphase part of your above quote, to wit:

"Now that we have the actual facts about Constantine's actions, it is no longer possible to avoid the fact that many Christian beliefs and practices had their origin in pagan beliefs and practices of pre-Constantine times".

.

Stephanie wrote:Oh, you get it.

I asked why anyone should believe god wants anyone to favor and protect Israel and the Jews when they reject his son. Mike said, and you agreed with, god used the word "forever" back in the OT.

But Jesus, who you believe to be one in being with God the father, is quoted in the NT

Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 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. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

That is a direct contradiction of the assertion you and Mike have made regarding favor for the Israelis.

Stephanie, I do not understand where you are going with this, so let me make some very unpopular statements.

Evangelical/fundamentalist/born again Christians such as Keli and I believe that salvation is found exclusively in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is by faith in Him and what He did that saves, and if an Israeli or a Gentile does not believe on the Lord Jesus, then they are lost. As for the Jews who rejected Jesus, I see no hope for them, despite the nation's priviledged status.

Consider the Old Testament. The prophet Habbakuk complains to God that the Israelis are acting foolishly and doing their own thing. God responds (showing that there is indeed a relationship there of God with a given nation, Israel) by saying that He is sending down the Assyrians who are going to exact judgement.

So, while Israel is a nation that has been set apart by God, given Israelis may (and I fear usually are) just as lost as anyone else who does not trust in Jesus Christ.

I'm stating that even if the OT God exists, and promised protection and favor to the Jews, the NT God made it quite clear that favor and protection ended for those who rejected Christ. Christ/God are one being according to not only the Orthodox and Catholic churches, but to Baptists and most other Christian denominations as well. Nearly every Christian on the planet believes those words

If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God;
Ye are of your father the devil,
He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

The God of the OT chose the Jews to bring Christ into the world. That is not my theory, that is what every Christian believes. That is the basis of "the covenant". When the Jews of the NT rejected the "great gift" given to them, the NT God, in the person of Jesus Christ, clearly states to them they are NOT of God, they are of the devil. They are lost, lustful, murderous liars just like their father, the devil.

The old covenant ended, the new covenant began. Those are the words in your Bible, Mike. Based upon the text contained in YOUR version of the Bible there is no reason to suspect the Jews of later times are to receive any sort of special favor or protection from ANYONE. They are on their own. Unless, of course, you can show where Jesus promises those Jews of future generation who reject him some sort of special extension. He clearly made no such promises to the Jews of his own time. In fact, he did quite the opposite, if that scripture is accurate and my understanding is that your particulary branch of Christianity believes it word for word.

In the passage you cite, was Jesus speaking to all Israelis, all Jews, or particular people in His hearing?

Who was Jesus speaking to whenever he spoke publicly?

Evangelical/fundamentalist/born again Christians such as Keli and I believe that salvation is found exclusively in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is by faith in Him and what He did that saves, and if an Israeli or a Gentile does not believe on the Lord Jesus, then they are lost. As for the Jews who rejected Jesus, I see no hope for them, despite the nation's priviledged status.

When the Jews of the NT rejected the "great gift" given to them, the NT God, in the person of Jesus Christ, clearly states to them they are NOT of God, they are of the devil. They are lost, lustful, murderous liars just like their father, the devil.

Now the Jews of the OT got along pretty good under Mosaic Laws for almost 1,200 years before Jesus Christ came on the scene, so tell me, just why in the world should/would they believe some young robe wearing preacher of questionable birth and unknown rearing that strolled around the country side telling them that he was speaking on behalf of their God of the OT …… given the fact that their God of the OT had always previously spoken directly to them or one of theirs?

I don’t really think that any of you self professed Christians would be that gullible so why do you think that the OT Jews should have been said?

I’m absolutely sure that none of you self professed Christians would believe “such a story”, but would require some form of concrete evidence presented directly to you by your “God image” for your consideration.

Thus, me thinks it is the height of arrogance for anyone to claim that any Jews or gentiles that doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ “are lost, lustful, murderous liars just like their father, the devil”.

And that is regardless of the fact that Moses was an Egyptian of Royal bloodline and his followers were of Egyptian ancestry. And their ancestry goes far, far, farther back than even Moses or any of the Pharaohs were aware of, to wit:

Since the declassification of the new ground-penetrating radar 2 years ago, the most staggering data has emerged of complex and labyrinthine underground systems in various parts of the world. At places like Guatemala in the South Americas, tunnels have been mapped under the Mayan pyramid complex at Tikal, which extend a full 800 kilometers to the opposite side of the country. Investigators remarked, it was possible to understand how half a million Mayan Indians escaped the decimation of their culture.

In similar fashion, the SIRA radar was deployed in Egypt as early as 1978, mapping an extraordinary subterranean complex beneath the Egyptian pyramids. Arrangements made with President Sadat of Egypt, resulted in three decades of top secret excavations to penetrate the system. At a recent meeting in Australia, one of the key scientists on the Giza project, Dr. Jim Hurtak, showed film footage of work in progress called, CHAMBERS OF THE DEEP, due to be released at the end of the century. As of yet, this footage has never come to light.

The film reveals the discovery of a vast megalithic metropolis, 15,000 years old, reaching several levels below the Giza plateau. While the rest of the Nu-Age speculates about a hidden chamber under the left paw of the Sphinx, the legendary "City Of The Gods", lays sprawled beneath. Complete with hydraulic underground waterways, the film shows massive chambers, the proportions of our largest cathedrals, with enormous statues, the size of the Valley of the Nile, carved in-situ. Researchers, risking their lives with lights and cameras, carefully negotiated rubber dinghies across subterranean rivers and kilometer-wide lakes, to penetrate sealed chambers beyond. Already, remarkable caches of records and artifacts have been found.

Extracted from: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_origenes_egipto_1.htm

Stephanie wrote:Who was Jesus speaking to whenever he spoke publicly?

It depends. He spoke to tax collectors, prostitutes, disciples, Pharisees, etc. Do you always speak to everyone, at all times, everywhere? Sometimes you should like your words for a mass audience, such as these forums, but sometimes statements directed at particular individuals are simply that.

Mike, you're going to have to forgive me if I've misunderstood the location of this speech and the audience involved. I am nothing approaching a biblical scholar. Even back in the day when I was a practising Catholic, not much Bible study going on. Catholics don't carry their own copies around with them loaded with bookmarks and so on like the fundamentalists do.

MY understanding is this speech took place in a temple, that there was a crowd of Jews along with the Pharisees. I would imagine, given the time and culture and the limitations of travel and communication that this was about as public an audience as anyone could expect. In other words, I think this is a VERY public speech meant to target an audience as large as he could find at that time in that area. I believe his words were meant for not only the Jews present, but for their friends and relations and decendents.

Why would you disagree?

Catholics don't carry their own copies around with them loaded with bookmarks and so on like the fundamentalists do.

Now that was a goodern.

Man, that didn't come across the way I meant it, I swear it didn't.

I thought I was reading it just like you meant it.

Many do have "quick find" tabs pasted everywhere in their Bibles so they can find & read the scripture to you really quick.

Stephanie wrote:Mike, you're going to have to forgive me if I've misunderstood the location of this speech and the audience involved. I am nothing approaching a biblical scholar. Even back in the day when I was a practising Catholic, not much Bible study going on. Catholics don't carry their own copies around with them loaded with bookmarks and so on like the fundamentalists do.

MY understanding is this speech took place in a temple, that there was a crowd of Jews along with the Pharisees. I would imagine, given the time and culture and the limitations of travel and communication that this was about as public an audience as anyone could expect. In other words, I think this is a VERY public speech meant to target an audience as large as he could find at that time in that area. I believe his words were meant for not only the Jews present, but for their friends and relations and decendents.

Why would you disagree?

The Pharisees were a particular group of Jews, little different than if I were addressing the LaSalle County Democrats, most all of which happen to be white Americans, my statements to them would be specific to LaSalle County Democrats, perhaps extrapolatable to Democrats in general, but surely not to all Americans.