Topic: Old Testament Prophesies Fulfilled in NewTestament
CowboyGH's photo
Thu 04/14/11 11:16 AM


lol you're funny Funches. There is absolutely no contradiction there. I'll break it down for you

14:6 states no one comes to the father but by him.


Cowboy ...it wasn't me that wrote the post...but heck I'm up for the challenge...and I bet I can make you contradict that passage


according to what you just posted all babies go to Hell ...


No they do not. They have a straight ticket to heaven. For we are JUDGED. How can it be a righteous judgment to send a baby to the lake of fire if obviously they never had the chance to choose to either worship or not? Wouldn't be, thus all babies that die go straight to heaven for they were innocent. Not receiving the gift of heaven is a punishment for what one had done in their life. A baby never had to chance to either do or not do, so they would not be punished, for they never made that choice.

no photo
Thu 04/14/11 11:56 AM



lol you're funny Funches. There is absolutely no contradiction there. I'll break it down for you

14:6 states no one comes to the father but by him.


Cowboy ...it wasn't me that wrote the post...but heck I'm up for the challenge...and I bet I can make you contradict that passage


according to what you just posted all babies go to Hell ...


No they do not. They have a straight ticket to heaven. For we are JUDGED. How can it be a righteous judgment to send a baby to the lake of fire if obviously they never had the chance to choose to either worship or not? Wouldn't be, thus all babies that die go straight to heaven for they were innocent. Not receiving the gift of heaven is a punishment for what one had done in their life. A baby never had to chance to either do or not do, so they would not be punished, for they never made that choice.


Cowboy, do babies grow up after they get to heaven or do they remain the evil little creatures they were when they died?

If they don't grow up, why would heaven want a bunch of evil babies? And who would have to take care of them? (You did say that babies were evil.)

Do people eat and have sex in heaven? Do they go to the toilet? If so, are there plumbers in heaven who fix toilets when they break or get clogged up?




AdventureBegins's photo
Thu 04/14/11 11:59 AM
"Then why has Jerusalem been the mindset for millinium as a Very Special place?"

It was the place where Cain slew Able.

The first spilling of the blood of an innocent.

The birthplace of the Beast of War.

and the descendants of Adam fight over it still.

CowboyGH's photo
Thu 04/14/11 12:02 PM




lol you're funny Funches. There is absolutely no contradiction there. I'll break it down for you

14:6 states no one comes to the father but by him.


Cowboy ...it wasn't me that wrote the post...but heck I'm up for the challenge...and I bet I can make you contradict that passage


according to what you just posted all babies go to Hell ...


No they do not. They have a straight ticket to heaven. For we are JUDGED. How can it be a righteous judgment to send a baby to the lake of fire if obviously they never had the chance to choose to either worship or not? Wouldn't be, thus all babies that die go straight to heaven for they were innocent. Not receiving the gift of heaven is a punishment for what one had done in their life. A baby never had to chance to either do or not do, so they would not be punished, for they never made that choice.


Cowboy, do babies grow up after they get to heaven or do they remain the evil little creatures they were when they died?

If they don't grow up, why would heaven want a bunch of evil babies? And who would have to take care of them? (You did say that babies were evil.)

Do people eat and have sex in heaven? Do they go to the toilet? If so, are there plumbers in heaven who fix toilets when they break or get clogged up?






Babies aren't "evil". They are completely innocent for they know not of what they are doing. Yes they are "destructive". But again that is cause they know not what they are doing.

There is not "age" in heaven, so no need to "grow up". It is only our mortal bodies that age.

Of course people do not eat, have sex, or use the toilet in heaven. There is no need for that. Again, those are merely functions our MORTAL bodies need to survive. When one is in heaven that person will no longer have this mortal body.

AdventureBegins's photo
Thu 04/14/11 12:08 PM
I was told that when Jesus 'returns' he will take them up with him 'in the flesh' to heaven.

flesh needs to pee or it sickens and dies.

Besides which...

Have you been there that you are such an authority?


CowboyGH's photo
Thu 04/14/11 12:13 PM

I was told that when Jesus 'returns' he will take them up with him 'in the flesh' to heaven.

flesh needs to pee or it sickens and dies.

Besides which...

Have you been there that you are such an authority?



I have no authority. I merely pass on information given to us already. The flesh is made incorruptible. The flesh will be made perfect. Eating, drinking, ect is only important to this corruptible flesh that can die. But when we are raised, we will be raised with incorruptible flesh that can not die.


1 Corinthians 15:52-54

52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

AdventureBegins's photo
Thu 04/14/11 12:26 PM
Well my goodness.

shall we call the farie god mother to wave her wand and wisk us all back home?

Dude...

If it can't be done in this physical universe. (which god created)...

It can't be done.

Even god can not break the laws he 'created' with the universe he gave us.

It would fracture the fabric of time.

Jess642's photo
Thu 04/14/11 01:49 PM
Edited by Jess642 on Thu 04/14/11 01:53 PM

That is a interesting question indeed. Why must the land rest every 7th year? A question I cannot answer yet I am sure there are many who can!

I know the Mayans had a agricultural system to where they had to rest the land every other year to keep the land fertile. I have recently watched it on PBS about how every other year they would grow and not grow as much food to give the land some chance to recuperate. Today farmers in this region continue this tradition as we speak.





Every indigenous culture spelled the land they took from....even before agriculture...

Indigenous Australians, although nomadic....had a fairly 'small' area with which they travelled in...and they maintained it...

They would hunt in only certain seasons, in one area....burn off parts of the plains they foraged from....to invigorate the soils and produce fresh fodder for the kangaroos, wallabies and other marsupials they hunted....and to bring about propogation from the flora around them.....most Australian bushland flowers and throws seeds after fire...and at no other time...and the Indigenous knew this.


Seasons were always observed, spelling of lands were always observed, and with that the country remained sustainable, for them and the animals they co-existed with.

Indigenous Australians are known to have wandered here for over 60 000 years....

'resting' the countryside is not a new (2000) year old...or even old testament invention...


It fascinates me when ancient ways that have existed far beyond written man's history, gets 'claimed' as a new idea, and when told often enough, becomes a precedent...and then eventually an apparent truth.


Today, using the same knowledge even the common backyard farmer knows to leave parts of their gardens fallow...and although we enhance the soils manually in today's world.....

in days where land was available everywhere....the natural order of things would have rejuvenated the soils...animal dung, leaf matter for mulch, earthworms doing their thing, deaths of animals rotting back into the soil..fires adding carbon back into it..

no photo
Thu 04/14/11 04:46 PM



lol you're funny Funches. There is absolutely no contradiction there. I'll break it down for you

14:6 states no one comes to the father but by him.


Cowboy ...it wasn't me that wrote the post...but heck I'm up for the challenge...and I bet I can make you contradict that passage


according to what you just posted all babies go to Hell ...


No they do not. They have a straight ticket to heaven.


see Cowboy...I told you that I can make you contradict what you posted...also babies do not have a straight shot to Heaven...even God said during the great flood that the babies he killed were tainted ...so what he do un-taint them

a soul is a soul... supposedly time is not a factor to God which mean it doesn't matter if the soul is younger than a baby or older than Methuselah




no photo
Thu 04/14/11 04:53 PM

Babies aren't "evil". They are completely innocent for they know not of what they are doing. Yes they are "destructive". But again that is cause they know not what they are doing.


Cowboy....it's nice of you to say that about Baby Antichrist ...

don't you agree that with the right parents Baby Antichrist could grow up to be someone people can look up to ....

no photo
Thu 04/14/11 05:06 PM





lol you're funny Funches. There is absolutely no contradiction there. I'll break it down for you

14:6 states no one comes to the father but by him.


Cowboy ...it wasn't me that wrote the post...but heck I'm up for the challenge...and I bet I can make you contradict that passage


according to what you just posted all babies go to Hell ...


No they do not. They have a straight ticket to heaven. For we are JUDGED. How can it be a righteous judgment to send a baby to the lake of fire if obviously they never had the chance to choose to either worship or not? Wouldn't be, thus all babies that die go straight to heaven for they were innocent. Not receiving the gift of heaven is a punishment for what one had done in their life. A baby never had to chance to either do or not do, so they would not be punished, for they never made that choice.


Cowboy, do babies grow up after they get to heaven or do they remain the evil little creatures they were when they died?

If they don't grow up, why would heaven want a bunch of evil babies? And who would have to take care of them? (You did say that babies were evil.)

Do people eat and have sex in heaven? Do they go to the toilet? If so, are there plumbers in heaven who fix toilets when they break or get clogged up?






Babies aren't "evil". They are completely innocent for they know not of what they are doing. Yes they are "destructive". But again that is cause they know not what they are doing.

There is not "age" in heaven, so no need to "grow up". It is only our mortal bodies that age.

Of course people do not eat, have sex, or use the toilet in heaven. There is no need for that. Again, those are merely functions our MORTAL bodies need to survive. When one is in heaven that person will no longer have this mortal body.


Cowboy we had a very long conversation about babies in another thread you said they were evil.


no photo
Thu 04/14/11 05:22 PM
Of course people do not eat, have sex, or use the toilet in heaven. There is no need for that. Again, those are merely functions our MORTAL bodies need to survive. When one is in heaven that person will no longer have this mortal body.



Okay, so far, Heaven sounds pretty boring.

What do people do then when they get to heaven?

Are there males and females? Or is everyone just uni-sex?

Abracadabra's photo
Thu 04/14/11 05:46 PM






lol you're funny Funches. There is absolutely no contradiction there. I'll break it down for you

14:6 states no one comes to the father but by him.


Cowboy ...it wasn't me that wrote the post...but heck I'm up for the challenge...and I bet I can make you contradict that passage


according to what you just posted all babies go to Hell ...


No they do not. They have a straight ticket to heaven. For we are JUDGED. How can it be a righteous judgment to send a baby to the lake of fire if obviously they never had the chance to choose to either worship or not? Wouldn't be, thus all babies that die go straight to heaven for they were innocent. Not receiving the gift of heaven is a punishment for what one had done in their life. A baby never had to chance to either do or not do, so they would not be punished, for they never made that choice.


Cowboy, do babies grow up after they get to heaven or do they remain the evil little creatures they were when they died?

If they don't grow up, why would heaven want a bunch of evil babies? And who would have to take care of them? (You did say that babies were evil.)

Do people eat and have sex in heaven? Do they go to the toilet? If so, are there plumbers in heaven who fix toilets when they break or get clogged up?






Babies aren't "evil". They are completely innocent for they know not of what they are doing. Yes they are "destructive". But again that is cause they know not what they are doing.

There is not "age" in heaven, so no need to "grow up". It is only our mortal bodies that age.

Of course people do not eat, have sex, or use the toilet in heaven. There is no need for that. Again, those are merely functions our MORTAL bodies need to survive. When one is in heaven that person will no longer have this mortal body.


Cowboy we had a very long conversation about babies in another thread you said they were evil.


I remember that too Jeannie. drinker

~~~~~

Besides if not knowing what they are doing is grounds for "innocence" then all non-believers who ignore the commandments of the bible because they simply don't believe them, are then "innocent".

In fact, the only way a person could be "guilty" of "disobedience" is to first BELIEVE in an authority, and then refuse to obey it.

But non-believers would be as innocent as a new born babe. whoa

Even Jesus told God to forgive the people who nailed him to the pole for "They know not what they do".

Well duh?

~~~~~

Since Jeannie has good reason to believe that the biblical stories are nothing more than fiction then her disbelief in these stories is as innocent as a new born babe.

Since I believe that the Jesus stories were most likely sparked by the actions of a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva who rejected the teachings of the Torah, then my disbelieve in the orthodox Christians view is also as innocence as a new born babe.

So Jeannie and I are guaranteed to be accepted into heaven with the innocence of new born babes.

Look us up when you get there. We'll be on Cloud 9. bigsmile


Abracadabra's photo
Thu 04/14/11 06:16 PM

Of course people do not eat, have sex, or use the toilet in heaven. There is no need for that. Again, those are merely functions our MORTAL bodies need to survive. When one is in heaven that person will no longer have this mortal body.



Okay, so far, Heaven sounds pretty boring.

What do people do then when they get to heaven?

Are there males and females? Or is everyone just uni-sex?


Angels are supposed to be bi-sexual. In other words, no matter what they do sexually they would be participating in homosexuality. laugh

They necessarily need to be sexual creatures because in the Bible the Nephilim are said to be the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men". The "sons of God" would be the bi-sexual angels, or course.

However, in their normal patriarchal mentality, most authors of Christian literature refer to the angels has being masculine.

In fact, when I was building my circle paradigm in Wicca I needed two female Archangels and two male Archangels in order to keep the Yin and Yang in balance. I needed a feminine Archangel for Earth and one for Water. Fortunately I was able to use Ariel and Gabriel.

Now many Christians may claim that these archangels are both "males", but considering that all angles are bi-sexuals anyway it really doesn't matter. But I was able to find feminine portraits and descriptions of both Ariel and Gabriel. So I now personally view those two Archangels as representing Yin. I use Raphael and Michael for the Yang (Air and Fire respectively)

Moreover the concept of "Archangels" is not exclusive to the Biblical stories. Those ideas were actually pagan ideas long before that. So I don't view the "Archangels" in my spiritual paradigm in the same way that the Christians might view them. To me they represent facets of consciousness. It's solely an abstract idea.

I AM Ariel, Raphael, Micheal, and Gabriel. They are all facets of my very own consciousness.

I'm sure you understand this Jeannie. flowerforyou

Kind of like the multiple personality thing that you often refer to. bigsmile

But yes angels are sexual creatures, by unlike humans they are all bi-sexual and therefore necessarily homosexual in any sexual activity they engage in.

Funny how a God who supposedly hates homosexuality in humans would have designed angels that have no choice but to be homosexuals?

But then considering that it's all just a fable made up by men we can't expect it to make a whole lot of sense. :wink:

AdventureBegins's photo
Thu 04/14/11 06:17 PM

Of course people do not eat, have sex, or use the toilet in heaven. There is no need for that. Again, those are merely functions our MORTAL bodies need to survive. When one is in heaven that person will no longer have this mortal body.



Okay, so far, Heaven sounds pretty boring.

What do people do then when they get to heaven?

Are there males and females? Or is everyone just uni-sex?

To listen to some you would think that the only thing you are allowed to do in heaven...

Is BOW, YEILD, and KNEEL.

EWWWWW...

Know one knows... To busy bowing, yeilding and kneeling to even THINK about sex.

Truly...

Since god made us to stand.

Who would want such a heaven?


no photo
Thu 04/14/11 06:59 PM
Edited by greeneyeman on Thu 04/14/11 06:59 PM
.

no photo
Thu 04/14/11 07:02 PM
Edited by greeneyeman on Thu 04/14/11 07:05 PM
To Jess642:)

Very interesting information about Australia! Thank you for sharing this. I hope one day I can actually visit the beautiful continent and enjoy the people, customs, and culture for an entire month.

You are right about the farming techniques of our ancients around the world and I find it interesting and essential that we still have history about it to help us understand today to keep our lands fruitful and fertile. I am sure every religious book as somekind of information about this also that could be researched in many ways and maybe even cross compared to see similiarities.

Milesoftheusa's photo
Thu 04/14/11 10:41 PM


That is a interesting question indeed. Why must the land rest every 7th year? A question I cannot answer yet I am sure there are many who can!

I know the Mayans had a agricultural system to where they had to rest the land every other year to keep the land fertile. I have recently watched it on PBS about how every other year they would grow and not grow as much food to give the land some chance to recuperate. Today farmers in this region continue this tradition as we speak.





Every indigenous culture spelled the land they took from....even before agriculture...

Indigenous Australians, although nomadic....had a fairly 'small' area with which they travelled in...and they maintained it...

They would hunt in only certain seasons, in one area....burn off parts of the plains they foraged from....to invigorate the soils and produce fresh fodder for the kangaroos, wallabies and other marsupials they hunted....and to bring about propogation from the flora around them.....most Australian bushland flowers and throws seeds after fire...and at no other time...and the Indigenous knew this.


Seasons were always observed, spelling of lands were always observed, and with that the country remained sustainable, for them and the animals they co-existed with.

Indigenous Australians are known to have wandered here for over 60 000 years....

'resting' the countryside is not a new (2000) year old...or even old testament invention...


It fascinates me when ancient ways that have existed far beyond written man's history, gets 'claimed' as a new idea, and when told often enough, becomes a precedent...and then eventually an apparent truth.


Today, using the same knowledge even the common backyard farmer knows to leave parts of their gardens fallow...and although we enhance the soils manually in today's world.....

in days where land was available everywhere....the natural order of things would have rejuvenated the soils...animal dung, leaf matter for mulch, earthworms doing their thing, deaths of animals rotting back into the soil..fires adding carbon back into it..


I would be very interested in seeing some antient text that speaks of letting the land rest every 7th year.

it has been studies by universities and they have found that land that is rested every 7th year with crop rotaions do not need the weed control that land does that does not rest.. Blessings...Miles

Jess642's photo
Fri 04/15/11 01:37 AM



I would be very interested in seeing some antient text that speaks of letting the land rest every 7th year.

it has been studies by universities and they have found that land that is rested every 7th year with crop rotaions do not need the weed control that land does that does not rest.. Blessings...Miles



Miles....Indigenous Australians are story tellers...same as many Indigenous cultures...they wrote very little, and used mainly pictograms to communicate to other mobs.


Why would you be hung up on written word?...when these cultures are still here, with us....and can tell us their own history face to face...

I trust the practical experience and the see it with my own eyes kind of wisdom, over dusty mis-interpeted plagarism any day.

CowboyGH's photo
Fri 04/15/11 01:45 AM







lol you're funny Funches. There is absolutely no contradiction there. I'll break it down for you

14:6 states no one comes to the father but by him.


Cowboy ...it wasn't me that wrote the post...but heck I'm up for the challenge...and I bet I can make you contradict that passage


according to what you just posted all babies go to Hell ...


No they do not. They have a straight ticket to heaven. For we are JUDGED. How can it be a righteous judgment to send a baby to the lake of fire if obviously they never had the chance to choose to either worship or not? Wouldn't be, thus all babies that die go straight to heaven for they were innocent. Not receiving the gift of heaven is a punishment for what one had done in their life. A baby never had to chance to either do or not do, so they would not be punished, for they never made that choice.


Cowboy, do babies grow up after they get to heaven or do they remain the evil little creatures they were when they died?

If they don't grow up, why would heaven want a bunch of evil babies? And who would have to take care of them? (You did say that babies were evil.)

Do people eat and have sex in heaven? Do they go to the toilet? If so, are there plumbers in heaven who fix toilets when they break or get clogged up?






Babies aren't "evil". They are completely innocent for they know not of what they are doing. Yes they are "destructive". But again that is cause they know not what they are doing.

There is not "age" in heaven, so no need to "grow up". It is only our mortal bodies that age.

Of course people do not eat, have sex, or use the toilet in heaven. There is no need for that. Again, those are merely functions our MORTAL bodies need to survive. When one is in heaven that person will no longer have this mortal body.


Cowboy we had a very long conversation about babies in another thread you said they were evil.


I remember that too Jeannie. drinker

~~~~~

Besides if not knowing what they are doing is grounds for "innocence" then all non-believers who ignore the commandments of the bible because they simply don't believe them, are then "innocent".

In fact, the only way a person could be "guilty" of "disobedience" is to first BELIEVE in an authority, and then refuse to obey it.

But non-believers would be as innocent as a new born babe. whoa

Even Jesus told God to forgive the people who nailed him to the pole for "They know not what they do".

Well duh?

~~~~~

Since Jeannie has good reason to believe that the biblical stories are nothing more than fiction then her disbelief in these stories is as innocent as a new born babe.

Since I believe that the Jesus stories were most likely sparked by the actions of a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva who rejected the teachings of the Torah, then my disbelieve in the orthodox Christians view is also as innocence as a new born babe.

So Jeannie and I are guaranteed to be accepted into heaven with the innocence of new born babes.

Look us up when you get there. We'll be on Cloud 9. bigsmile





Besides if not knowing what they are doing is grounds for "innocence" then all non-believers who ignore the commandments of the bible because they simply don't believe them, are then "innocent".


No not exactly. Non-believers have had the chance to believe or not. A baby has not. And about the babies being evil, babies aren't necessarily "evil" for they can not be held accountable for the actions they commit. They are innocent.