Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?

@NealNealNeal,

Yet you said it was true.

Can you see a pattern?

@Frank Apisa,

Frank---I have thought it through. If I were God I would have all people go to hell. However, I lack the love that God has.
Words can not describe how amazing the love of God is.

2 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

NealNealNeal wrote:

Frank---I have thought it through. If I were God I would have all people go to hell. However, I lack the love that God has.
Words can not describe how amazing the love of God is.

We agree there.

The Bible, for instance, describes a GOD totally devoid of love...and almost as narcissistic as Trump.

The GOD of the Bible is NOT a god of love. It is a god of vengeance, revenge, anger, almost comical demands...a vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty GOD.

The GOD is not worthy of LIKE, let alone LOVE. Anyone pretending to love it is almost certainly motivated by an abiding fear of the wrath of that GOD.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Yet you said it was true.

Can you see a pattern?
Yes. I only quoted the first part of 1 Corinthians 1:18 to show that I understand and have sympathy with the thoughts of people like you and Frank.
However, the rest of 1 Cor 1:18 is true whether or not I like it.
Similarly, physical laws are true whether or not I like it.

0 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

It comes down to this:
Humans want God to conform to theirr thinking. God wants people to be transformed to the Holiness of Jesus.
It makes sense to me that God should have final say. He is Creator. We are His creation.

0 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

Continued from my previous post in this thread.

Quote:

Baptism is about a move from death to new life, it's about a commitment to God. But it's not a change of parents.

Christ is the English term for the Greek Χριστός (Khristós) meaning "the anointed one" It is a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ), usually transliterated into English as Messiah or Mashiach. The Hebrew word translated "anointed" is the verb form of the noun "Messiah."

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, is the only man in scripture, to have been taken up to the throne of “The Lord of Creatures”, the Most High in the creation, and anointed as his successor.

"The Book of the Secrets of Enoch" 22: 8; "And I fell prone and bowed down to the Lord, and the Lord with his lips said to me: "Have courage, Enoch, do not fear, arise and stand before ‘MY’ face into eternity."

And the archistratiege Michael lifted me up, and led me before the Lord’s face.
[Archistratege. Or, "the commander of the armies of the nations, named Michael."]

And the Most-High said to the glorious creatures that surrounded him, tempting them: "Let Enoch stand before ‘MY’ face into eternity," and the glorious creatures bowed down to the Lord, and said: "Let Enoch go [Or be released] according to Thy word." Enoch, was the first to be released.
And the Lord said to Michael: "Go take Enoch from out his earthly garments, and anoint him with my sweet ointment, and put him into the garments of my glory."

And Michael did thus as the Lord told him. He anointed me, and dressed me, and the appearance of that ointment is more than the great light, and his ointment is like sweet dew, and its smell mild, shining like the sun’s rays, and I looked at myself, and was like one of his glorious ones.

To translate something is to change it from one form to another. Hebrews 11: 5; “By faith Enoch was translated so that he should not experience death, and he was not found because God had translated him.”

The author of Hebrews could not have known that Enoch was translated so that he should not experience death, unless he had read from "The Book of the Secrets of Enoch", but then, Jesus and his apostle taught from the words of righteous Enoch.

The writings of Enoch were held in great reverence by the early church fathers, including Irenaeus, Origen and Tertullian, and were cherished by the early Christians, up until the fourth century, when, they were banned by dogmatic Roman authorities such as Hilary, Jerome and Augustine, and by the end of the fourth century, (Which is the beginning of the fifth century) they were condemned as being heretical, and they finally passed out of circulation by the middle of the fifth century (550 A.D. See Imhotep) and were thought lost for millennia.

Enoch was the one from the earlier age of Man that was destroyed by water, who was chosen to serve God before the body of Adam into all eternity.

Baptism is seen by Peter as being symbolic of the flood, in which the old body of Adam was submerged and the new body of Enoch, the heir to the throne of ‘The Most-High in the creation,” arose from those waters. You enter the baptismal waters as the old Adamite man, and arise from the waters as a Son of Enoch, who sits on the throne of the Most-High in the creation.

Noah, his wife, their three sons and their wives are all direct genetic descendants of Enoch, (The Anointed one,) through his six sons, Methusulah, Rigam, Riman, Urchan, Cherminian, and Giadad.

It was the spiritual Enoch, who, after spending three days, or rather three thousand years in the valley of Man, which is that spiritual dimension that co-exists within our three dimensional world, whose spirit filled the man Jesus, and who abandoned his chosen heir and successor on the cross when Jesus gave up the Spirit, crying' "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" and who then ceased to be an individual entity, by releasing all the righteous spirits that had been gathered to him in his evolution up until the days of Jesus.

At the very moment that the spirit abandoned his chosen heir on the cross, the graves of the saints were opened, but it was not until three days later, that they came out of their graves and entered the Holy city and revealed themselves as the risen body of the Anointed one, whose head was now 'JESUS.'

It was not the man Jesus who gave his life for the salvation of the race of mankind, but our Lord God and saviour, who was anointed as the heir and successor to the throne of the Most-High in the creation, in which throne, our brother Jesus, who has been appointed as our king and high priest now sits, until the lord God defeats all enemies and puts them under his feet.

1 Corinthians 15: 25; " For Christ must rule until God defeats all enemies and puts them under his feet." 27; "For the scripture says, “God put all things under his feet.” It is clear, of course, that the words “all things” do not include God himself, who puts all things under Christ."

Acts 17: 31; For He (The Lord) has fixed a day in which he shall judge the whole world with Justice by means of the 'MAN' He has 'CHOSEN. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising that 'MAN' from death.

I will continue to respond to your rubbish after I finish my morning chores, time permitting and God willing.

1 Reply

@The Anointed,

Continued from my previous post.

Quote:

You seriously mocked me as being gullible enough to believe in the resurrection.

You are not only a biblically ignorant person, who is so gullible as to be deceived into believing in the so-called virgin birth of Jesus, you are now proven to be a lying, biblically ignorant, gullible person, because never have I mocked you as being gullible enough to believe in the RESURRECTION.

The resurrection of the man Jesus, is one of the main themes of the majority of my posts.

The only way that you can now remove the title of “LIER”, is for you to prove that I have ever mocked you as being gullible enough to believe in the ‘RESURRECTION’, something that you will never be able to do.

Quote:

Virgin birth is not a Roman teaching. Again.

The “Virgin birth of Jesus”, 'IS' a teaching of the Roman church, the Roman Church may not be the only one, down through the history of man in whose culture there is the ‘virgin birth’ myth, but, only a biblically ignorant, and gullible person, would be so blind as to believe that the virgin birth is not a teaching of the Roman Church of Emperor Constantine.

Quote:

“Thus says the LORD, ‘Write this man down childless / A man who will not prosper in his days / For no man of his descendants will prosper / Sitting on the throne of David / Or ruling again in Judah’.”

Your quote is to be found in Jeremiah 22: 30; and is in reference to King Jehoiachin and any male of his seed, as recorded in Matthew’s genealogy of ‘Joseph the son of Jacob’ of the tribe of Judah a descendant of Solomon through Jehoiachin, who married Mary after she had given birth to Jesus, the biological son of her half-brother, ‘Joseph the son of Heli' a descendant of Nathan, the half-brother to Solomon.

Joseph the son of Jacob, a descendant of Solomon, should not be confused with Joseph the son of Heli, a descendant of Nathan, the half-brother to Solomon.

Quote:

The line of Joseph CANNOT be the Messiah, nor the King of the Jews.

So, you believe that no descendant of ‘Joseph the son of Jacob’, the foster father of Jesus, and descendant of Solomon through the cursed line of Jehoiachin, could ever be the Messiah, nor King of the Jews?

Well then, what do you reckon about Joseph the son of Heli, a descendant of Nathan, the son of King David and half-brother to Solomon?

Quote:

Therefore, it must be on Mary's line that Jesus is King of the Jews. Notice I say "he" despite the fact that Jesus is really a she. This is because God (and by extension Jesus) is always ALWAYS referred to in male pronouns. Why?

WHY? Because Jesus was a male through and through, whose foreskin was circumcised at the age of 8 days, in accordance to the law of Moses as seen in Leviticus12: 1-4; The LORD gave Moses the following regulations for the people of Israel. For seven days after a woman gives birth to a son, she is ritually unclean, as she is during her monthly period. On the eighth day, the child shall be circumcised. Then it will be 33 more days before she is ritually clean from her loss of blood; she must not touch anything that is holy or enter the sacred Tent/Temple until the time of her purification is completed.

Quote:

Billy Graham has an answer. Because we are married to God.

You may be married to some god who gave birth through an ever virgin, to a daughter, who you believe is the promised Messiah to the Jews. But I am a son of God, and brother to Jesus, who our heavenly Father has chosen to be my lord King and High Priest.

Quote:

One famous Christian scholar, C. S. Lewis, has suggested that gender is far deeper than our human distinctions reveal. He suggests that God is so masculine that we all are feminine in relation to Him. If this is true, it might explain why the church is referred to as the bride of Christ, though it is composed of both men and women

.

‘IF’ and 'MIGHT' being the operative words.

Quote:

Even if you are male, you are the Bride of Christ.

I am a male and brother to my King and high priest, ‘Jesus’.

Quote:

Even if Jesus was female,

Which ‘HE’ is not.

Quote:

And in fact, Jesus frequently uses female metaphors. Talking about hens, for instance.

And 'HE' speaks of serpents and demons also, of which he is neither.

Quote:

So, back to Mary's line. You seem to have a habit of hastily reading, half-understanding, and calling other people idiots for disagreeing. So let's address this.

Mary was the grand-daughter of Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was the high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC and is believed to have been murdered at the orders of Herod the Great. The sonless Yehoshua, had three daughters, Joanna, Elizabeth and Anna/Hanna, whose mother was 'Phanuel' from the tribe of Asher.

Knowing that his Zadokian lineage would become extinct unless his daughters were placed with future husbands according to the Torah, he married them off to chosen husbands.

Joanna, was betrothed to Joachim from the non-royal genetic lineage of David. The second daughter of Yehoshua III, was Elizabeth. This was the Elizabeth, who, at a very advanced age was to become the mother of John the Baptist in 7 BC, a year before the birth of Jesus and some 16 years after the death of her father ‘Yehoshua/Jesus III,’ in 23 BC, and she was betrothed to a Levite priest by the name Zacharias of the priestly course of Abijah.

The young Davidian prince Heli, [Alexander Helios III] the son, or adopted son of Mattathias ben Levi, was chosen by Yehoshua/Jesus III the high priest in Jerusalem, as the candidate to marry his daughter Hanna/Anna the mother of Mary.

How’s that for starters?

3 Replies

@The Anointed,

Continued from my previous post.

Quote:

Yes, as was supposed.

Correct! ‘The As Was Supposed’ to be the son of Heli, was a later interpolation, by those who would deceive the gullible into believing that Jesus was not born of the flesh to human parents.

Quote:

‘HE’ was the (adopted) son of Joseph, because as Matthew puts it, Joseph was going to divorce her quietly but was told in a dream that this is God's Son.

‘HE,’ the Male child Jesus, was indeed the adopted son of Joseph the son of Jacob, a descendant of Solomon, but ‘HE’ was the biological son of Joseph the son of Heli, a descendant of Nathan the son of King David and half-brother to Solomon.

And Joseph ben Jacob was ‘NOT’ told in a dream that this is God's Son, but that the child would be the salvation of many and he would be called ‘Immanuel’ which means ‘God is with us’, and the Lord God our saviour, who filled the man Jesus with his spirit was definitely with us.

Quote:

You don't seem to understand the chain of logic here.

There is little or no logic in anything you have to say sunshine.

Quote:

The brackets literally mean nothing to me.

The WORD of God, means nothing to you, fancy trying to deceive others into believing that Jesus was a female.

Quote:

Even if they omitted this part, he is son of Joseph only by marriage. Matthew is supposed to be compared with Luke.

Joseph ben Jacob, a descendant of Solomon as recorded in Matthew, and who was the foster father of Jesus, cannot be compared to Joseph ben Heli. A descendant of Nathan the son of David and half-brother to Solomon, who was the biological father to Jesus.

Quote:

But nowhere in this text does it tell you to treat Heli as anyone but Mary's father. Incest is a sin. Adultery is a sin (they were pledged in marriage, Joseph and Mary).

But you are to treat Heli as the father of Jesus, and a descendant of Nathan the son of David. And the union between Mary and Joseph ben Jacob was not consummated until Mary had given birth to Jesus, the biological son of her half brother Joseph the son of Heli.

Quote:

Deceit is a sin. And if she was raped, rape is kinda bad too. That would make 3 sins against Mary, and one against her father.

Do you want to make up some more of your yarns that cannot be supported by scripture?

Quote:

The message of Jesus is that the accused is innocent.

Until proven guilty.

Quote:

But here you hold Mary as guilty of two stoning offenses.

There are five righteous women recorded in the genealogy in Matthew, whose actions were committed in the shadow beneath the wings of the Lord of Spirits. There was Tamah, who played the prostitute and had sex with Judah her father-in-law, and bore to him the twin brothers, Perez and Zerah. Judah wanted her to be burned to death.

Genesis 38: 24-26; About three months later someone said to Judah, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar has been acting like a whore, and now she is pregnant.”

Judah ordered, “Take her out and burn her to death.” As she was being taken out, she sent word to her father-in-law: “I am pregnant by the man who owns these things. Look at them and see whose they are — this seal with its cord and this stick.”

Judah recognized them and said, “She is in the right. I have failed in my obligation to her — I should have given her to my son Shelah in marriage.” And Judah never had intercourse with her again.

Then there is Rahab the madam of a whore house in Jericho, who saved the Israelite spies and who later married Salmon, and bore his son ‘Boaz.’

The third is Ruth, who with sexual cunning deceived Boaz into marrying her, to whom she bore ‘Obed.’

The fourth is Bathsheba, who committed adultery with King David, who had her husband ‘Uriah’ killed, and she was the mother of Solomon, of whom the Lord said; “He shall be my son and I shall be his Father and it is he who shall build my temple for me.” [See 2nd Samuel 7: 14. and 1st Chronicles 17: 13.] Solomon was then blessed with the rulership of the most glorious period of Israel’s history.

And last of all is Mary who united with her half-brother Joseph ben Alexander Helios, to conceive and bear Jesus, the promised Messiah.

Quote:

Again, it doesn't matter what the text supposedly said before. This day you are my son, or before. Because Jesus in the temple refers to God as his father.

(You are my son, 'THIS DAY' I have begotten thee.) Did not Jesus teach you to pray with these words; “OUR FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN, etc’. All Jews are the sons of God; Psalms 82: 5-7; “How ignorant you are! How stupid! You are completely corrupt, and justice has disappeared from the world. ‘You are gods,’ I said; ‘all of you are children of the Most-High.’ But you will die like mortals; your life will end like that of any prince.”

Quote:

If Heli was his father, wouldn't he have wandered into his grandpa's house instead? But no, the text says he went to the temple. I don't care what the Romans changed it to. Again, if all my life I had displeased my father, and one day I did something to make him very happy, "This day you are my son." But Jesus knew who his Father was. It wasn't some old pervert.

Are you now accusing the biological father of Jesus as being ‘Some old Pervert’.

Quote:

49 “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?”50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

OUR FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN etc, as taught by Jesus, ‘A’ son of God, see Hebrews 5: 8; “Even though HE was ‘A’ son of God, which is supported by Strong’s Concordance.

Quote:

No, you'll deal with my rubbish now.

Glad to see that you admit that what you post in this forum is ‘RUBBISH’.

Quote:

Because whether of not you agree that Jesus was female (this is not a Christian majority opinion, and I know it),

And I hope that you also know that your belief that Jesus was a female, is total rubbish, which is not and cannot be supported by scripture.

Quote:

you've blasphemed against Jesus and the Holy Spirit which made Jesus pregnant.

No I haven’t, both Isaac and Jesus, were made pregnant by the sexual union of their parents who lived in a brother sister relationship.

It was by the power or workings of the Holy spirit that both, Isaac the son of Abraham and his half-sister Sarah, and Jesus, the son of Joseph and his half-sister Mary, who were both born in accordance to God’s promise and the workings of the Holy Spirit.

Galatians 4: 29; “Yet at that time, the child born according to the flesh (Ishmael) despised and persecuted Him, (Isaac) who was born according to the promise and the workings/power of the Holy Spirit.”

Quote:

The term blasphemy may be generally defined as “defiant irreverence.” The term can be applied to such sins as cursing God or willfully degrading things relating to God. Blasphemy is also attributing some evil to God or denying Him some good that we should attribute to Him. This particular case of blasphemy, however, is called “the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” in Matthew 12:31. The Pharisees, having witnessed irrefutable proof that Jesus was working miracles in the power of the Holy Spirit, claimed instead that the Lord was possessed by a demon (Matthew 12:24). Notice in Mark 3:30 Jesus is very specific about what the Pharisees did to commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: “He said this because they were saying, ‘He has an impure spirit.’”

Rave on this crazy feeling, cos I know you got me reeling, I’m so glad that you’re revealing your love for me, so Rave on.

Quote:

You have called God's Son instead the son of an incest and a harlot. You degrade God's Son as a child born into sin. And you say that the Holy Spirit cannot make a pregnancy so the only thing it can be is another man. The last one is worst of all! In this last one you condemn the Holy Spirit itself. This is something Jesus says that God should not forgive. You will need to repent of this nonsense. All of it. It's unbiblical (even more so than my pet theory) and frankly very offensive.

So then, you are now saying that Isaac, who was born in accordance to God’s promise to Abraham, was born of incest, to Sarah who you condemn as a ‘Harlot’, And that Mary the mother of her half-brother’s son, was also a Harlot to the man that you condemn as an old pervert.

I pray that God will forgive you for condemning those, who HE has declared to have acted in righteousness.

0 Replies

@The Anointed,

You can say this all you want about Roman church teaching, but it is Biblical teaching. I'm Protestant.

I don't attend Mass, I confess sins to anyone but Jesus, I don't care what the political hack known as the Pope says. I don't believe that wafers and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ. I despise Catholicism in all of its forms, from its fawning over Mary to its outright corrupt hierarchy to its banning of church wine in many churches (which is unbiblical). But I also have no use for some Christian heresy that holds that Jesus was born of two humans and baprptism somehow made him God's Son. No, no, and no.
I'm Episcopal, so we have slightly more high church stuff than other Protestants, but the Bible that was translated from Latin into German, eventually into English wad the result of the hard work of one man. Episcopal church is kinda centered, not really Catholic not really Protestant. We don't hold with nonsense though. So about that Bible.

Perhaps you've heard of the guy who translated it. Martin Luther? Ring any bells? The guy who was so disgusted with Catholicism that he set out to expunge any false teachings (95 of them!) and bring the church back to normal? Do you really think he would leave anything patently unbiblical in his translation of the Bible?

Well you probably would. But he didn't. The Nicene Creed is accepted by most Episcopalians. The Apostle's Creed is a more mainstream Protestant version. Episcopal church uses both. Both of the creeds admit to Mary being a virgin. Unlike the nonsense about Mary being a perpetual virgin though, the Gospels back this one up. The virginity of Mary is a literary device meant to explain several different issues:
1. How Jesus can bs King of the Jews when Joseph's line is cursed.
2. How Jesus can be BORN as God's child.
3. A metaphor of an accused woman who is innocent of crimes of adultery, that plays out again with an accused man (?) when Jesus becomes accused of being a false Messiah and or trying to cause a revolt or take power as king.
4. The overwhelming sense that Jesus has been promised by God.

None of this works with your Heli incest heresy, it's a tawdry one-night stand with poor religious framework. This isn't a Roman thing. This is a Christian thing. You're not a Christian. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna block you.

2 Replies

@The Anointed,

The Anointed wrote:

The only way that you can now remove the title of “LIER” (sic)

How’s that for starters?

It takes a special kind of genius to bold a word like LIER!

A special kind.

That was great "for starters."

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

That’s the sort of behaviour we have expect from Dunny Boy.

0 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

Quote:

None of this works with your Heli incest heresy,

And I suppose you believe that the Abraham and his half sister Sarah the mother of Isaac, who was the son that God's messenger promised Sarah that she would bear to her half brother Abraham, was incest heresy also.

Galatians 4: 29; Yet, as at that time the child (Ishmael), who was born according to the flesh, despised and persecuted him (Isaac) who was born according to God's promise and the power/workings of the Holy Spirit.

And seeing that you are going to block me, let me here say, Bye, bye sunshine.

0 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

I sometime go to an Episcopal church. I am amazed at how deep their love is. However, they don't believe that the Bible is both inerrant and infallible. Are there any Episcopal churches that believe in both?

2 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

NealNealNeal wrote:

I sometime go to an Episcopal church. I am amazed at how deep their love is. However, they don't believe that the Bible is both inerrant and infallible. Are there any Episcopal churches that believe in both?

The phrase "believe in" is so trite, it should be used when talking about Pablum and only when talking about Pablum.

There are some people who blindly guess that the "universe" was "created" by a god...and some other people who blindly guess that there are no gods.

Some of those who blindly guess that the "universe" was "created" by a god suppose that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of that god. Others do not.

Why use "believe in" when the correct construct should be "blindly guess?" Or even a construct like, "Some people SUPPOSE that the Bible is inerrant and infallible" if "blindly guess" is too truthful and threatening.

0 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

My gauge of the Episcopal church is as follows.

When you go to a Methodist church, you more or less expect a sort of divide between the black Methodist church and the white. This is not to say they are racist so much as they designed their churches segregated. You also expect them to generally be part of the teatotaller movement, as they don't handle wine in alot of their churches. Methodist churches often have this sort of wide triangular front, not really ornate like Catholic, but more so than Baptist.

When you go to a Catholic church, you expect over-the-top cathedrals, deeply centralized church based around the papal hierarchy, stuff like that. They love their spires and their incense, and over-the-top stuff. That are casual Catholic churches, but that's kinda not their goal.

https://ukrainetrek.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/roman-catholic-church-fastiv-ukraine-view-2.jpg

When you go to a Baptist church, you expect to see alot of very earthy religion. Not quite snake-handlers but close. Very simple church style, often a single room building almost. Very hardcore Protestant, often fairly fundamentalist.

http://www.sherwoodhillsbaptistchurch.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/DSCN0898.jpg

As you can see, architecture tells you a great deal about a church. So what does it tell you about Episcopal?

https://d38trduahtodj3.cloudfront.net/images.ashx?t=ig&rid=VisitNatchez&i=trinity_episcopal_church(1).jpg

As you can see, absolutely nothing. Episcopal churches are a dizzying variety of materials and styles (wood, brick, stone; simple, ornate, mistaken for Catholic; Greek, German, Roman styles). Likewise, Episcopal priests and even Episcopal members range from being nearly as liberal as Unitarians to nearly as conservative as Baptists. To being very works-based to very into grace theology. To being rigidly fundamentalists to having alot of beliefs from other religions. What Episcopal church values, it seems, is personal choices. Individualism. And yes, I've found everything from people out in the woods with borderline paganism, to very centered and conservative types.

So, really the only thing that Episcopalians agree on is the Creed (which creed, though?) so even if you have alot of strange idea, as long as it doesn't directly conflict with the Creed, they don't tend to get upset. This is why it matters so much that something isn't according to creed. I'm willing to accept Buddhism and Hinduism as part of a sort of Christian syncretism (in fact, I myself have many ideas from Taoism and Shintoism) far sooner than I would accept someone saying something undoctrinal about Jesus. If you're talking bad about Jesus, you're doing something wrong. That's kinda the difference between Unitarian and Episcopal, Episcopalians still very much see themselves as Christian though they run the gamut because of strong individuality. Unitarians are about tolerance and open-minded at all costs (they've basically let liberalism hijack their faith, and don't even talk about Jesus anymore).

So no, you're confusing "being loving" for "being a pushover." If a Jew or Buddhist came into the church, the Episcopal church would welcome them to worship. On the other hand, if they tried to tell us that we need to be more in line with their beliefs, the Episcopal church says "get lost! You can't tell me how to worship!"

2 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

Was it from the Episcopal church that you received the false teaching that Jesus was a woman?

1 Reply

@The Anointed,

The Anointed wrote:

Was it from the Episcopal church that you received the false teaching that Jesus was a woman?

Literalists cannot get away from that fact.

Especially the far right.

I have a link if you really need help with recognizing the concept of an androgynous Yahweh.

Regards
DL

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

Thank you for the insight.

0 Replies

@Greatest I am,

I'm not sure if you're calling me or The Annointed that.

The answer to the question in quotes, this is not an Episcopalian teaching. But about 30% of the Episcopalians would by like "sure whatever, just as long as Jesus died on the cross and was born from Mary."

The source? We one of them was some weird website that I went to which basically pitched this idea. You also find this occasionally at biology theory websites that pitch this idea based on what we have described about the virgin birth.

http://jdstone.org/cr/files/genetics-proves-that-jesus-was-a-woman.html
https://quadriv.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/jesus-aphids-and-parthenogenesis/

The funny thing is they think that this genetics stuff somehow discredits the Bible. But aside from theuse of the word "He" this is not a big thing.

Generally, when I look at an idea, I do one of three things:
(1) Decide to reject it (Islam, Twelve Tribes, Catholicism, that Heli crap) because it doesn't fit with my woldview or offends me somehow. The more a person tries to coerce me, themore I distrust their words.
(2) Adapt it (Hinduism, no caste system; Shintoism and Buddhism, monotheism but some ideas from these religions like reincarnation or kami spirits)
(3) Blend it (what happened for the most part with Taoism, and with flat Earth/hidden history stuff, along with this)

You'll notice there no fourth option, convert to that religion. If someone tries to hard sell me on their beliefs, I typically shove it into #1. Especially if they call me stupid or have an attitude that only their bwliefs are right. My beliefs are right to me, and this is all that matters.

Basically, if something (1) doesn't undermine what I already believe, (2) is cool, and (3) doesn't get disproven by life, then I typically am fine blending it in. Usually this takes a decision on my part. People trying to trick, coerce, brainwash, or otherwise forcibly change my mind and I tell them get lost.

2 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

Then you just keep right on believe that your female Jesus grew a foreskin on her enlarged clitoris that had to be circumcised. Ha haa haaa.

1 Reply

Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know