Do you have the hope of going to heaven

[JehovahsWitness]

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I do not have a hope of going to heaven (when I speak of "heaven" I mean the spiritual abode/realm where God lives).

- Do you personally entertain the hope of going to heaven to spend eternity with God when you die? (if this question is too personal I respect if you do not want to share this information)

- If so, do you believe such a literal spiritual realm exists?

- Do you believe that Jesus is presently in heaven where God exists?



* My question is for people that do believe that a God exists, since I presume that those that do not believe in God do believe he exists anywhere and therefore there is no "heaven" where God is.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 349 by onewithhim]

We'll consider that all of the things said to Adam by Jehovah in all the years that they were friends, before Eve came into the picture, were trivial, inconsequential.

I'm not saying that. Jehovah may have said things to Adam that were trivial or important.
Just that if you (or anyone else) are going to say "Jehovah told Adam about ____", I want to see text that supports this. Not just you (general you) saying that Jehovah could have told Adam. I could PM you my credit card details. This doesn't mean that I did, or that there's any evidence that I ever did in the past.

Fine. They just talked about how cute the names were that Adam gave to the animals.

Assuming for a moment that the story in Genesis is true (for the sake of argument), what we can say we KNOW what was discussed is the following
1) Adam may eat from any tree he likes, except for one special tree.
2) If Adam eats from the special tree, on that day he will die
3) It is not good for a man to be alone, so God will make a helper for him, to complement him.
4) Jehovah allows Adam to name all the animals
5) Adam says why his mate is called Woman
6) Adam tells Jehovah that Woman gave him the fruit to eat
7) Adam says he was afraid to face Jehovah because he was naked
8) Jehovah then details the punishments that Adam, Eve and the snake receive

Anything else you or anyone else suggest was discussed between Adam and Jehovah is pure supposition. The person you are talking to (me in this instance) is at complete liberty to reject what you suppose through an application of Hitchen's Razor.

Now, does that verse show that Jesus must be ON the earth to rule over it?

Here is what you said earlier
He will never reign ON the earth.
This indicates to me that you think Jesus will not rule on or over the Earth, and yet Zechariah 9:10 indicates otherwise.

Wait a minute. You have completely misrepresented what I was talking about. There is a big difference between being "on" something and "over" something, especially if we are talking about Jesus and from where he is going to rule. You and others say that he will literally come down to the earth and live ON it, with God. I and others say that he will remain in heaven and rule OVER the earth from there. Zech.9:10 indicates that he will rule the earth. It doesn't say he will rule ON it. He can do just fine from heaven where he is now.


To Jesus: "Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us for God with thy blood, out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and hast made them for our God a kingdom and priests, and they shall reign forever OVER the earth." (Apocalypse 5:9,10, Holy Trinity Edition of the Catholic Bible)

"And they came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years." (Apocalypse 20:4)

.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 331 by Claire Evans]

Claire...try to resolve this contradiction.

Paranormal investigators take a scientific approach when investigating.

vs

Dyson has written that "paranormal phenomena are real but lie outside the limits of science." No one has produced empirical proof of psi, he suggested, because it tends to occur under conditions of "strong emotion and stress," which are "inherently incompatible with controlled scientific procedures.

----
As an aside, it makes no difference to mention that Josephson won a Nobel Prize, unless it refers to research on the topic in question. For your information, he won the Prize for the Josephson effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephson_effect
which has nothing to do with the paranormal.
As far as the scientific community is concerned, whatever Josephson researches on the paranormal...is bunk. Not worth the paper its written on.

Obviously scientists are going to dismiss it because it lies outside the realm of what is considered mainstream science. However, that hasn't stopped some scientists from making experiments. Take remote viewing, a paranormal practice, for example.

"4. The Star Gate Project

The Star Gate project was a Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) program that examined parapsychological phenomena for more than twenty years before it was unexpectedly shut down.

One of the most interesting revelations (imo) when it comes to science and the paranormal comes from its remote viewing program.

Remote viewing is the ability of a person to describe a remote geographical location up to several hundred thousand kilometers from their actual physical location. Its not just one person who can do this " many people have been shown to have this ability, and this is a verified fact. The CIA and NSA, in conjunction with Stanford University, were involved in the scientific study of parapsychological phenomena that lasted more than two decades; they delved into remote viewing as part of this project.

In these experiments, multiple individuals were able to describe distinct objects that were located in a separate room and at other remote physical locations.(source)(source)(source)

As reported by a publication in the journal Scientific Exploration, one of the studys participants, Ingo Swann, was able to successfully describe and view a ring around Jupiter that scientists had no idea existed at the time. (source 1)"

http://www.collective-evolution.com/201 ... from-them/

Why is science the answer to everything? Has science proven everything

Science is how Person A shows to Persons B, C and D that what A is saying is true.

It hasn't. Take the string theory for example. Quoting from article:

Is string theory science? Physicists and cosmologists have been debating the question for the past decade. Now the community is looking to philosophy for help.
Earlier this month, some of the feuding physicists met with philosophers of science at an unusual workshop aimed at addressing the accusation that branches of theoretical physics have become detached from the realities of experimental science. At stake is the integrity of the scientific method, as well as the reputation of science among the general public, say the workshops organizers.
Held at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich in Germany on December 7-9, the workshop came about as a result of an article in Nature a year ago, in which cosmologist George Ellis, of the University of Cape Town in South Africa, and astronomer Joseph Silk, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, lamented a worrying turn in theoretical physics (G. Ellis and J. Silk Nature 516, 321"323; 2014).
Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, they wrote, some scientists argue that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally.
Just to argue that [string theory] is not science because its not testable at the moment is absurd, says Gross, who shared a Nobel prize in 2004 for his work on the strong nuclear force, which is well tested in experiments, and has also made important contributions to string theory.

Can this not be applied to the so-called untestable paranormal? Just because we don't understand it now, will it never be understood later?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... y-science/

Prayer is not an occult practice. Definition of occultism:

"Occultism is the study of occult practices, including (but not limited to) magic, alchemy, extra-sensory perception, astrology, spiritualism, religion, and divination"

Did you not read the definition you yourself supplied? Prayer is a practice in certain religions, and guess what the definition says? I underlined key words.

ESP is not related to prayer because all who pray will have it. It's like saying one can be a psychic if one prays. And just because something is a religion, doesn't mean they are lumped into other categories. Buddhists don't pray to God or any other god.

Now I'm not going to go around and demonize people and I certainly would not approve of persecution.

Oh? Then what were those videos you linked to before, of certain people on TV? You accused them of being what was it? Skin changers, reptilians? Basically...from my perspective...you denied their humanity.

That woman is a different league. I can't compare a Wiccan to here. She clearly is something alien in human form.

As I said, I've experienced it myself and that is my evidence.

Apparently, you don't even understand what evidence IS. Evidence is something that you can show to someone else. I experienced trauma in my childhood. That's something that happened to me, that I experienced. Can I SHOW any of it? Nope, and so, I cannot say 'that is my evidence'.

Evidence is something that is proven and it can be proven to an individual even if not to others.

You and I seem to be operating at loggerheads. For you it seems that personal testimony trumps everything else, including scientifically gathered data. Claire says she experienced demons in some fashion? Well, apparently, that trumps the complete absence of demons in scientific research.

You seem to think that scientists are gods and the beacon of truth. They can suffer from confirmation bias.

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/0 ... -part-one/

Just because it is on a TV show, doesn't negate it. Shape shifting is a Shaman practice.

Has it ever been done under controlled circumstances, such that we can rule OUT any possibility of trickery? Has it ever been confirmed by (preferably multiple) neutral minded eyewitnesses (preferably who have not been told beforehand what is being done) that a person has indeed physically transformed into a fox or some other animal?
Nope?

Science worship again.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 352 by Claire Evans]

Okay...you quote my previous comment, where I ask you to resolve a contradiction...and then not do it?

As reported by a publication in the journal Scientific Exploration, one of the studys participants, Ingo Swann, was able to successfully describe and view a ring around Jupiter that scientists had no idea existed at the time. (source 1)"

I can tell that you are unfamiliar with science, specifically the practice of verifying claims made. Guess what I found on Wikipedia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann
According to Swann, his ability to see Jupiter took about three and a half minutes. In the session he made several reports on the physical features of Jupiter, such as its surface " which he said was covered in crystals and studded with huge mountains " atmosphere and weather. Swann claimed to see bands of crystals in the atmosphere, which he likened to the rings of Saturn. The Voyager probe later confirmed the existence of the rings of Jupiter, although these rings are not in the planet's atmosphere.[36] Most claims made by Swann were shown to be untrue - Jupiter has no rocky surface, and could not sustain mountains or crystals.[37]

Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, they wrote, some scientists argue that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally.

Well then, those scientists are trying to pull a fast one. Why should we a grant a theory the status of being 'true' without bothering to test it? I could write out an elegant theory write now if I want to, but that doesn't mean I can say it's true if I haven't done any tests for.

ESP is not related to prayer because all who pray will have it. It's like saying one can be a psychic if one prays. And just because something is a religion, doesn't mean they are lumped into other categories. Buddhists don't pray to God or any other god.

So just like before, you're not going to care that the very things you cite undermine what it is you claim?

That woman is a different league. I can't compare a Wiccan to here. She clearly is something alien in human form.

So denying her humanity then. Why bother saying 'clearly' to me, given that I have frequently disagreed with you on this topic? No, it is NOT clear.

Evidence is something that is proven and it can be proven to an individual even if not to others.

So show me what it is you experienced. How can you do that? How can I show you that I experienced trauma in my childhood?

You seem to think that scientists are gods and the beacon of truth. They can suffer from confirmation bias.

So why, earlier in this very comment, did you cite scientists to support a point you make?

Science worship again.

Nope, more like I-want-to-make-sure-we're-not-making-any-mistakes-worship. You apparently are all to willing to call the woman a shape shifter, just by watching a very poor quality Youtube video.
I'm not willing to go that far with such weak evidence.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 337 by Claire Evans]

So He lied to soothe the disciples but didn't think it would not be soothing to actually find out it was a lie and for them to go to hell? After death, it was unimaginable horror but to come back from that means a victory over evil. Hell means death and Jesus would not have come back to life without conquering it. So the lie would have died with Him.

So motive aside, your hypothesis suggests the resurrection was proven. Or you are suggesting is that Jesus may be a liar.

I am suggesting that someone being a liar is not disproven "simply" because they came back from the dead. I can think up all sorts of scenarios where someone dies, comes back, and lies about the experience (or lack thereof).

That is if you don't accept my premises to be true. Without accepting my premises as true, then one can think up anything. We'd have to consider how Jesus rose from the dead if He rose again as a liar. If God is the author of all that is holy, why raise a liar from the dead?

Metaphoric is very different to literal as you know. It is not cannibalism.

Either way, we still have Mass being conducted, we still have the bread/wafer/whatever being eaten, we're still being told Jeus's supposed words from the last supper, that this is his body, that the wine is his blood.
This is an occult practice, whether one believes it to be the literal body and blood of a god or not.

And you don't believe Jesus was speaking metaphorically, that it represented His sacrifice? Did the disciples drink His blood? Absolutely not. The wine is representative of the blood shed for mankind and the wafer His body that died. The occult practice is actually to drink the blood and eat the body of a victim.

As I said, if Jesus was lying, then there'd be resurrection.

Prove this. Prove it wasn't just a fluke, that resurrections will happen for others.

If one accepts what the scriptures say, Lazarus was an example.

Sin causes death

Again, prove this. I know biologically what causes death, but what is this 'sin' thing you talk of, that is able to cause the complete cessation of biological activity in an organism? Remember, as far as my hypothetical goes, Jesus's resurrection has been proven.
Nothing else is a given, including lines like the above.

Remember we are actually writing in the forum where the Bible is considered the authority. So don't ask me to prove that. According to the Bible, sin is from Satan and death is not what God intended for mankind. By defeating Satan and sin, one can have eternal life. The resurrection is not that of the old body. It's dead and most likely ashes or food for worms.

Why would Jesus need to go through hell just to convince us there is a heaven? Why would He choose to do that? If one loves the world, they do not lie.

Millions of parents the world over who feel intense love for their children lie to them and tell them Santa Claus is real, and that Santa is the one who leaves presents underneath the tree.
Lies can be done by people who love.

This can no way be in the league. I don't think mothers would die for this Santa lie. They eventually tell kids the truth. It's a frivolous fib for tradition's sake. It is certainly not an act of intense love.

Strange that they the Garden of Eden and Tower of Babel story are the only ones to mention God in the plural. Why they didn't change that is anyone's guess. Might have something to do with different writers.

Which is one of the reasons why I don't believe the Bible.

Do the research into the OT and will become clearer.

I mean, for example, it cannot be proven scientifically how Jesus rose from the dead. Just that the case strongly indicates that He did.

Tell me how you can indicate a case (not necessarily the Jesus resurrection) STRONGLY...without using science?

The process of elimination. This is the logic of coming to that conclusion.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles ... 986403.htm

Simon Greenleaf:

http://y-jesus.com/simon-greenleaf-resurrection/

In the time since our last communication, I've looked up what Greenleaf wrote and not to my surprise...despite him being considered a revered legal authority in the US, what he writes about the Bible doesn't pass muster. He allows it to slip through cracks in legal rules that, if he were being honest, he wouldn't allow.

Elaborate please.

Explain further, please?

Lunatic, Liar and Lord (or the 3 L's) are the only three conclusions that Lewis allows when it comes to examining what Jesus supposedly said. However, among atheists, this is a joke, because there is a fourth L that he doesn't even consider.
Legend.

[YOUTUBE] [/YOUTUBE]

Consider the evolution of Batman. Today, it's well understood and believed that Batman does NOT kill people.
However, Batman, when originally written, DID kill people. He DID use guns.

The author of this author has many holes in his argument.

It was claimed in that video that Hercules claimed he would join the father. That is blatantly untrue. The oracle of Delphi who Hercules consulted did not say that either.

http://www.ancient.eu/hercules/

Zeus was not a supernatural god in that he was as spirit. Gods in ancient cultures were names given to extra-terrestrials. Zeus mated with a mortal woman to produce Hercules. This is similar to the Book of Enoch where Noah was conceived as the result of an alien and his mother mating. Consider Genesis 6:1-8

Anyway, Zeus had brothers and sisters. That is not the same with the Father.

If apply Jesus is a legend: legends take a really long time to evolve. Paul was the first to write about the Jesus' resurrection. He converted three years after Jesus preaching the same gospel, not enough time for a legend to form. The gospels existed in oral form before that.

The question was posed: Why did Paul not write about resurrection? It was a known belief already to the churches he wrote to. He was not going to regurgitate what was already known.

Gospel were in the form of oral tradition form the start so it doesn't matter that the gospels were only written down later.

The end of Mark ended abruptly because it was lost. People believe there was an evolution of the gospels not realizing that the each gospel was written for a specific audience.

"To give a more complete picture of Christ. While the entire Bible is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16), He used human authors with different backgrounds and personalities to accomplish His purposes through their writing. Each of the gospel authors had a distinct purpose behind his gospel and in carrying out those purposes, each emphasized different aspects of the person and ministry of Jesus Christ."

Matthew wrote to a Hebrew audience. He was concerned withe genealogy and the fulfillment of prophecies.

Mark wrote to the gentiles. He came to emphasize Jesus as the suffering servant to the gentiles.

Luke, a gentile, was a historian who wrote an orderly account of Jesus' life based on eyewitness reports. He was intending to prove that the faith of Christianity was based on historically reliable and verifiable events.

John goes into the spiritual aspect of Jesus. Here he goes into more of the miracles and writing about the characteristics of the Son of God before He became man (John 1)

" John also emphasizes the fact of Jesus' humanity, desiring to show the error of a religious sect of his day, the Gnostics, who did not believe in Christs humanity. John's gospel spells out his overall purpose for writing: Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (John 20:30-31)."

So just because different authors decided to concentrate on different aspects of the gospels does not mean there is an evolution of the gospels.

https://www.gotquestions.org/four-Gospels.html

Can you give a yes or no answer, please?

That is my answer. Take it as a yes. Non-believers of Story X can and have come to believe Story X. Whether or not they do so for good reasons, is a different matter.

I apologize if my explaining myself is somehow detrimental to the conversation.

So you believe Santa and Jesus are in the same league? That's incredible.

I'd get in a paranormal investigator to see who most likely is being truthful. To me a claim from one person isn't convincing.

But claims from many people, absent any supporting evidence (in other words, the Bible) is?

To non believers there may be no evidence, but evidence of God is not from the Bible but through a relationship with God.

However, if there were 2 or more witnesses, then there may be merit.

Two or three people walk out of the woods after a night spent there. They say they saw a fire breathing dragon.
What is your response?

I'd like to go back to the woods to try and see if I can see it myself. I do believe claims like Big Foot may have some merit. I wouldn't assume they were lying or high.

But to someone who has never experienced the paranormal, it just wouldn't be convincing anyway.

Correct, and if you are able to understand this, why isn't Jehovah or YHWH, or whatever it is you call him? Why are there calls in the New Testament for people like me to believe whatever the NT authors say, when I have NEVER experienced what they talk about? Why does a bad thing (whatever form it takes) happen to unbelievers like myself after we die?

It depends on what one wants to experience. The experience of the Holy Spirit doesn't come in the form of miracles. Today it is not needed like it was back then. Today, it comes from recognizing how God has worked in the lives of those who ask for His guidance. It's incredible to look back in retrospect. More proof is receiving peace that the world can't give. Also seeing how powerful God is against the forces of evil. That is what really helped me in my faith. Truly knowing God requires hitting rock bottom. When one realizes that they have come to the end of their own resources and coming to the realization that they need God. Bad things happen to the evil and unrepentant in death. It does not mean those who are atheists get cast into hell. Why would God so easily cast people into hell when He died for us all? Wouldn't He give everyone all the chances in the world? So I do not worry about your soul. I do believe you will repent of things that you may not be aware of.

They'd brush it off as people making up the same story to get attention.

Because this sort of thing happens quite frequently throughout history. People can and have made up stories for all sorts of reasons.
If I talk to a Mormon, they tell me Joseph Smith didn't make up his visits from angels. Am I supposed to then just nod my head and believe Smith really did talk to real angels?

Not automatically but I do believe Joseph Smith came into contact with extraterrestrials, not angels.

If one of the witnesses was a complete stranger, then that would be worth giving consideration to.

Who is a stranger to who? I can probably guess where you're going with this but I'm asking anyway.

Someone you have never met before who will relate the same story.

Yes, prayer can be considered meditation according to the definition but prayer is not an occult practice.

So you agree with me that it meets the definition, but then just reject that it's an occult practice because...?

Prayer doesn't have anything to do with opening up the third eye, for example. I should make myself clearer. The meditation I'm referring to is not the yoga type or the occult method. Here is what can be considered meditation in prayer:


The forms of Christian contemplative practice explored in this post are:

contemplative prayer " which usually involves the silent repetition of sacred words or sentences, with focus and devotion
contemplative reading " or simply contemplation, which involves thinking deeply about the teachings and events in the Bible.
sitting with God " a silent meditation, usually preceded by contemplation or reading, in which we focus all our mind, heart and soul on the presence of God

But that is where the similarity of meditation and prayer end. Prayer is not merely contemplating but a form of communication with God where there is a two way relationship.

How do you know my claims of the Holy Spirit is the truth? That is verified by having a relationship with God. Without that, it cannot be verified.

Someone whom YOU claim is speaking with a demon could say the exact same thing about themselves. They could say they're speaking to God and that God verifies their claims.

Should they believe it is God when they know demons lie? That is why I'd assume it is a lie.

And I'm here asking "If claims of relationships with divine beings can ONLY be verified by others if they ALSO have that relationship...then why doesn't EVERYONE have that relationship?"

Do they truly want that relationship? Many people can claim to have one but really do not. Prideful people cannot have a relationship with God. Also, each Christian has a different path and have different stages of understanding God. You can't expect someone in Grade 5 to understanding the maths for a Grade 12. Despite the fact they are both studying maths, they are at different levels of understanding.

Could people believe I'm actually speaking to an evil demon? Not likely because there can be grave consequences for contacting demons.

Again, this requires that people presuppose that what you are saying is true, which they have no reason to, given that these people believe you speak to evil demons.

If they can see I do not suffer from demonic possession or oppression, then they can safely assume I'm not speaking to demons.

Here are the symptoms of demonic possession:

I have no reason to think that any of that list is true. I mean...did you even read it yourself? It lists off feeling tired as a sign of a 'spiritual attachment'!
Besides, the link doesn't say what you say it does. You say 'here are the symptoms of demonic possession but the site says

Attachment Spirits, Spirit Attachments, and Possessions are all flavors of the same thing. These non-crossed over Spirits, human or not, who have attached to your energy field for the purposes of using your energy and/or manipulating your behavior to serve themselves.

Feeling tired by itself if no way indicative of demonic possession, obviously! It has to correspond with many others. Human spirits need the energy of a human being to have power. It's the same with demons but they human spirits aren't demons. Attachment is not possession.

There are many different types of Spirits, just as there are many different types of individuals, human and not, who roam this Earth.

Some Spirit Attachments are actually friendly, lost individuals who have inadvertently attached as a means to get energy, not realizing it was harmful. Others can be malicious and intentionally harmful. While still others can be souls who were troubled while alive, such as those with alcohol and drug use issues, who then attached to a living human in death to continue that behavior.

The site says that there are many different types of spirits, some malicious, some not (it doesn't even mention the word 'demon'), whereas YOU lumped them all together as being 'demons' when you gave me the link.

I mentioned possession, not attachment so you are lumping those two together.

If one has peace, then it definitely is not demonic.

So this is something we humans just CANNOT feel on our own? We humans, with brains, minds, emotions of our own, just CANNOT feel peace naturally?

I didn't say that. What I am saying is that anyone possessed by demons will never feel peace. How can anyone assume that all non believers are possessed and can't feel peace?

Those occult practices I mentioned are evil.

I have no reason to believe this. Given that you quite clearly DO NOT read the things you cite in support of your own claims, why should I believe this line?

Then don't.

There are studies into anti-gravity technology.

And so far, nothing to show for it. Is this article supposed to convince me that levitation is possible? That it can be done. I read the article. It talks about the implications of it, the attitudes of the people at NASA...but NOWHERE does it show that levitation can and has actually been done.
It just says Person So and So was seen a very long time ago and this is reported by a bunch of people.
That's it.

http://wakingscience.com/2016/08/teslas ... -projects/

What would be the purpose? To show off power and to cause fear if it is evil. I don't see any forces of good using levitation now.

As expected, you don't consider the full implications of what it is you write.
Jesus would have been someone who levitated. He supposedly walked on top of water. He supposedly flew off into the sky at some point after his resurrection. According to what you just said...he couldn't have been a force of good. If he did, it was to cause fear, and causing fear is evil.

I said if the entity is evil. I said I don't see any forces of using levitation now. Jesus doesn't live here now.

So tell me how it works. How does a low res picture cause one to have perfect teeth and then pointy, sharp ones? How often do you see this when watching low res TV?

How do you know the woman has perfect teeth, then pointy ones? What I'm saying is that you infer things about a person from an extremely low quality video.
The lower the resolution of the video, the less information there is to show on the screen, the less detail. This problem is compounded if one does as as your link shows, and point a camera at the TV screen (instead of capturing the footage) and zoom in.

You clearly either have NO understanding about how video works, or you ignore whatever understanding you might happen to have in favour of promoting this theory of reptilians working on news programs.
A physical examination of a body would go a lot further than pointing a camera at a TV.

The gaps between the point teeth show more detail than perfect teeth that are blurred together to cover the gaps. Would not the low quality disguise the different shapes of the teeth? Have you ever seen another example of this? You make out the quality is atrocious. Just because it is not HD, does not mean you cannot see the difference between the shape of teeth.

Here is another favourite of mind of George Bush Snr:



Look at 1:18m. At the 1:20 mark, you will see each of Bush's eyes move in different directions which lizards do. Now if you can explain how that happens in a person, I'd like to know.

Even Princess Diana called the royal family lizards.

[Zzyzx]

.

Look at 1:18m. At the 1:20 mark, you will see each of Bush's eyes move in different directions which lizards do. Now if you can explain how that happens in a person, I'd like to know.

Even Princess Diana called the royal family lizards.

Moderator Comment

Even if this is offered as a joke rather than sincere debate, it is still unacceptable to refer to people as lizards in these debates. A princess may get away with it elsewhere. There are no princesses here and no lizards.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 354 by Claire Evans]

Goody, a long reply to sink my teeth into. Let's get started shall we?

That is if you don't accept my premises to be true. Without accepting my premises as true, then one can think up anything. We'd have to consider how Jesus rose from the dead if He rose again as a liar. If God is the author of all that is holy, why raise a liar from the dead?

Why not? God from the Old Testament forgave David for his lying shenanigans regarding Bathsheba and her husband (oh yeah...you don't think that that was God...)

And you don't believe Jesus was speaking metaphorically, that it represented His sacrifice?

It could be that, me assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus does have magic powers, that the initial Last Supper had him speaking of the bread and wine in a metaphorical sense, and then, as per Catholic beliefs, the bread and wine really do transform in the Masses that happen every week.
Basically, if both of us accept that Jesus and/or God have magic powers, what is the logical argument against what is used in the weekly mass being the flesh and blood of Christ?
I can't see one there.

Did the disciples drink His blood? Absolutely not.

How do you know that? (Jebus...I sound like Sye Ten Bruggencate...) Is it impossible for Jesus, prior to the supper, to have opened a vein and drained some of his blood, or to have conjured some of it up?

The wine is representative of the blood shed for mankind and the wafer His body that died.

What's to stop it from being literal too?

The occult practice is actually to drink the blood and eat the body of a victim.

So it's not occult as long as we say this is the metaphorical blood and flesh of someone?

If one accepts what the scriptures say, Lazarus was an example.

In my hypothetical, I accepted ONLY that Jesus rose from the dead, and NOT because it's in the scriptures.

Remember we are actually writing in the forum where the Bible is considered the authority.

Then please, cite lines from the Bible that say that sin is what causes death, i.e. the complete cessation of activity in a living organism, the beginning of the process of decay.

According to the Bible, sin is from Satan

Citation needed.

and death is not what God intended for mankind.

Citation needed.

This can no way be in the league. I don't think mothers would die for this Santa lie. They eventually tell kids the truth. It's a frivolous fib for tradition's sake. It is certainly not an act of intense love.

As stated before, one can still feel love and still lie. There is no contradiction between the two. One of my favourite stories is about a man who conquers the world, reigns as a despot for a time and arranges his own death, having led the world to believe he is driven by nothing more than a lust for power. He arranges it such that the people of the world unite against him, so as to prevent another despot like him from ever rising to power again.

Do the research into the OT and will become clearer.

This sounds like you think I have NOT researched the OT. I have. Maybe not to as great an extant as some people would like, but I consider myself to be somewhat knowledgeable on the subject.

The process of elimination. This is the logic of coming to that conclusion.

Where in logic does it allow one to consider something as plausible when there is literally no other example of it verified throughout history?
I wouldn't consider it logical to have aliens who can phase through walls as a possibility for who or what caused the mess in my house, until I have some evidence that aliens exist, and that phasing through walls can indeed occur.

Elaborate please.

I'll get back to you later on this one, I want to finish responding to this comment soon, but by tomorrow at the latest, I'll have something for you.

It was claimed in that video that Hercules claimed he would join the father. That is blatantly untrue. The oracle of Delphi who Hercules consulted did not say that either.

So your point of contention is that Hercules himself didn't say he would go to join his father, Zeus? I must ask, what is the point of this? The link you give says "Athena descended in her chariot and took Hercules from the flames to Mount Olympus where he married the goddess Hebe, was given the gift of eternal youth, and permitted to reside with the gods for all time."
Anyway, we have the stories of Heracles and Jesus, and both stories say that their respective protagonists joined their divine fathers upon death.

Zeus was not a supernatural god in that he was as spirit.

In Greek mythology/religion, he was.

Gods in ancient cultures were names given to extra-terrestrials.

For this point of discussion, I literally do not care to argue what you think they actually were. Whether or not Zeus was an alien is beside the point - the point is, that in both the Heracles and Jesus stories, we have a divine father god, who causes a mortal woman to become pregnant with a son who goes on to perform wondrous acts, and then, upon his death, joins his father in his godly abode.

Anyway, Zeus had brothers and sisters. That is not the same with the Father.

So? What does that have to do with a divine father god, who fathers a son who does wondrous acts, and joins him upon death?

If apply Jesus is a legend: legends take a really long time to evolve.

Did you watch the whole video? What of the modern example of Schneerson? He died in 1994, and he has adherents who constructed a legend that he exists in the empty chair seen in the video. What of Scientology? What of Mormonism?
Legends are able to come about quite quickly. There is no rule that it takes decades or centuries.

Paul was the first to write about the Jesus' resurrection. He converted three years after Jesus preaching the same gospel, not enough time for a legend to form.

Can you show me that it is impossible for legends to form before three years?

The gospels existed in oral form before that.

The gospels? As in, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
Pull the other one!

Why did Paul not write about resurrection? It was a known belief already to the churches he wrote to. He was not going to regurgitate what was already known.

Okay. So Paul doesn't think it necessary in his letters to remind the churches of what they already know. So...why does he write the following?
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God" 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5 Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his names sake. 6 And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.
Surely Paul didn't need to regurgitate that they were the Gentiles called to belong to Jesus Christ! That Jesus was appointed the Son of God by resurrection from the dead.

Imagine if you got a memo from your boss saying "Hello, Claire. You're the {position held} in {Department} of this {Company}"

Gospel were in the form of oral tradition form the start so it doesn't matter that the gospels were only written down later.

Even if I were to accept this, how then can you exclude the legend effect? Are you saying that Gospel Mark was transmitted perfectly, with no additions made to it? Gospel Matthew?

The end of Mark ended abruptly because it was lost. People believe there was an evolution of the gospels not realizing that the each gospel was written for a specific audience.

Be that is it may, our earliest copies of Mark quite simply do not have a resurrection. It is pure supposition to say that Mark did end with a resurrection.

"To give a more complete picture of Christ. While the entire Bible is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16), He used human authors with different backgrounds and personalities to accomplish His purposes through their writing. Each of the gospel authors had a distinct purpose behind his gospel and in carrying out those purposes, each emphasized different aspects of the person and ministry of Jesus Christ."

I thought the God of the Old Testament is not well, the actual God in your eyes? This little blurb says "the entire Bible is inspired by God".

Matthew wrote to a Hebrew audience. He was concerned withe genealogy and the fulfillment of prophecies.

Mark wrote to the gentiles. He came to emphasize Jesus as the suffering servant to the gentiles.

Luke, a gentile, was a historian who wrote an orderly account of Jesus' life based on eyewitness reports. He was intending to prove that the faith of Christianity was based on historically reliable and verifiable events.

John goes into the spiritual aspect of Jesus. Here he goes into more of the miracles and writing about the characteristics of the Son of God before He became man (John 1)

This somehow prevents the legend effect from happening?

He [Luke] was intending to prove that the faith of Christianity was based on historically reliable and verifiable events.

How can one verify that Mary was indeed a virgin? That Zechariah was indeed visited by an angel?

So you believe Santa and Jesus are in the same league? That's incredible.

In some respects, yes. Both are figures of renown, supposedly able to do wondrous acts through supernatural means, based upon more or less historical personages.

To non believers there may be no evidence, but evidence of God is not from the Bible but through a relationship with God.

Which I have to remind you is useless to the non-believers. Someone can say to me they have a relationship with the risen Elvis Presley, and that this is evidence Presley lived on beyond his reported death in the 1970s...but of course I won't accept that.

Evidence needs to be examinable.

I'd like to go back to the woods to try and see if I can see it myself.

Good answer. Can we do the same with respect to Jesus? Nope, says a certain user on this forum quite frequently: he conveniently flew off up into the sky to join his father, and this was seen only by his followers.

I do believe claims like Big Foot may have some merit. I wouldn't assume they were lying or high.

Big Foot was first reported in 1967. That was 50 years ago (longer if we consider the Sasquatch legends of indigenous peoples). Despite the efforts of hundreds or thousands of people...he has never been caught.
Perhaps Big Foot is magical too in some way, able to evade the best efforts of trained hunters.

Truly knowing God requires hitting rock bottom. When one realizes that they have come to the end of their own resources

Been there. No God.

coming to the realization that they need God.

Actually never thought this in my life, as far as I can remember. Maybe back in my youth when I believed, but not even when I hit rock bottom did I think it.

So I do not worry about your soul. I do believe you will repent of things that you may not be aware of.

coughs From Revelations
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.
Whether one takes this metaphorically or not, at the very least, something bad is going to happen to me apparently.

Not automatically but I do believe Joseph Smith came into contact with extraterrestrials, not angels.

Is most, if not all, stories of visitations with angels, demons, spirits, what-have-you, in your eyes a true story, only the entities in question are E.T.s?
You do understand I hope that the Hebrew civilisation Smith talked about has never been found?

Someone you have never met before who will relate the same story.

So you weren't going where I thought you were (and right now, I honestly can't remember )

Prayer is not merely contemplating but a form of communication with God where there is a two way relationship.

So even as a child, when I was a believer, and sat down and prayed, it wasn't what you would classify as 'prayer' since there was no return communication. What was being done was one way, i.e. from me. I never once heard or felt anything I might possibly have labelled divine.

Should they believe it is God when they know demons lie? That is why I'd assume it is a lie.

Don't you understand the circular logic both you and this hypothetical person are in? BOTH of you say you have a relationship with some sort of supernatural entity, and when it comes to ME watching the two of YOU talk about each other, both you and that other person (we'll call him Alan) say that THEIR voice is God.
Claire says her voice is God. Alan says his voice is God.
Clare says Alan's voice is a demon. Alan says Claire's voice is a demon.

What am I, the third person, to make of this? Also, how do you know demons lie? Have you considered the possibility that maybe, sometimes, they tell the truth? If they lie, wouldn't a demon who's fooling you into believing he's God want you to distrust other voices, by saying that other voices are demons?

Do they truly want that relationship?

When I was a child, yes. I prayed, often to the point of tears, to hear something. Nothing at all.

Many people can claim to have one but really do not.

And this line doesn't describe a one Claire Evans at all, riiiiiight?

Prideful people cannot have a relationship with God.

Wouldn't it take pride for one to say they have a relationship with the creator of the universe, and to (more or less) understand him?

You can't expect someone in Grade 5 to understanding the maths for a Grade 12.

This is a terrible analogy. Grade 12 maths doesn't stop working, or not work at all, while the person is in Grade 5. It's just slightly beyond their understanding, at that time.
Teenagers are expected to understand and solve algebraic equations, and those formulas work, even while younger siblings are still learning long division.

If they can see I do not suffer from demonic possession or oppression, then they can safely assume I'm not speaking to demons.

What are those? Wouldn't a clever demon not leave any outward 'obvious' signs (like we see in movies), in order to best promote a falsehood of that person being in communion with God?
If I were a secret Nazi, and wanted to convince the world I'm not a Nazi, I don't dress up like a stereotypical Nazi and goose step everywhere.
It seems to me that when it comes to the art of deception, you are out of your depth. I am a master of the art, if I may so myself.

Feeling tired by itself if no way indicative of demonic possession, obviously!

So why cite someone who says it is indicative of 'spirit attachment' (and does not talk about demons)?

It's the same with demons but they human spirits aren't demons. Attachment is not possession.

Again...you are NOT reading your own citations.
Attachment Spirits, Spirit Attachments, and Possessions are all flavors of the same thing.
Am I meant to think of them as how chocolate, vanilla and strawberry are different flavours of the same thing (ice-cream)?

I mentioned possession, not attachment so you are lumping those two together.

Run this by me one more time? YOU are the one who says demonic possessions are real, along with attachments. You cite a website that talks about attachment and possession as being flavours of the same thing...and somehow, I am the one lumping the two of them together?

I didn't say that. What I am saying is that anyone possessed by demons will never feel peace. How can anyone assume that all non believers are possessed and can't feel peace?

How can anyone assume that feeling tired is one symptom (among many) of spirit attachment (and then have it described by a third party to a fourth that it is demonic)?

Then don't.

Fine. I will.

You

There are studies into anti-gravity technology.

Me

And so far, nothing to show for it. Is this article supposed to convince me that levitation is possible? That it can be done. I read the article. It talks about the implications of it, the attitudes of the people at NASA...but NOWHERE does it show that levitation can and has actually been done.
It just says Person So and So was seen a very long time ago and this is reported by a bunch of people.
That's it.

You then respond with a new link. Showing me a new link does NOT negate what you did with the earlier one. It does NOT remove from history the fact that you showed me an article, claiming that anti-grav technology can exist, and yet the article did not give us an actual example of anti grav technology.

I said if the entity is evil. I said I don't see any forces of using levitation now. Jesus doesn't live here now.

So what changes between then and now, such that levitation done 'then' is good, while if it is done 'now' it is evil?
If I lived two thousand years ago and stabbed someone with a knife, versus stabbing someone today, do the moral implications of the act change?

Also...weren't you trying to convince me of anti-grav technology?

The gaps between the point teeth show more detail than perfect teeth that are blurred together to cover the gaps.

No, they don't.

You make out the quality is atrocious. Just because it is not HD, does not mean you cannot see the difference between the shape of teeth.

It's not just because the original video was not in HD. It's also the fact that what you and I see on Youtube is a video that someone else shot with their camera pointed at the TV screen. There is a compound effect there when it comes to losing information.

Look at 1:18m. At the 1:20 mark, you will see each of Bush's eyes move in different directions which lizards do. Now if you can explain how that happens in a person, I'd like to know.

As you'll probably expect...how do you know these videos haven't been doctored?
I learned the other of a new piece of software that is able to mimic people's voices to a scarily high degree of accuracy.

Even Princess Diana called the royal family lizards.

Wow, I guess that MUST prove it! Not a single shred of physical proof, just someone saying that this family are lizards (dunno about the context, you don't give me anything).

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 339 by Claire Evans]

It is a fact that people witnessed Jesus doing supernatural act. This is from Celsus a pagan philosopher, from the 2nd century AD

You do realise that the link you give me contradicts the New Testament? It says Mary the Mother of Jesus was driven out by her husband, when the NT gives us every indication the two had a long and successful marriage? That the link says Jesus's powers were from the Egyptians and NOT from God, that he returned 'full of conceit'?
Again, it seems you don't bother reading what it is you cite.
Besides, I have to ask...why is your burden of proof so low? Someone two centuries after Jesus writes that people saw Jesus do magical things...and for you, this is enough.

Of course it contradicts the NT. The point I'm trying to make is that Celsus is trying to explain how miracles were possible so he made up that Jesus used magic. He did not deny Jesus performed miracles. In fact, the Christians had to defend Jesus against many accusations from different sources:

Allegations of Jesus magical activities owe their survival in part to early Christian apologists who provide reference to the Jewish accusations that Jesus was a magician and thereby demonstrate that these charges were a common polemical tool in the ancient world. Tertullian and Justin Martyr are particularly vocal when discussing the charge in the second century; Tertullian explains that the Jews called Jesus a magus [4] and Justin Martyr writes in his Dialogue with Trypho (c. 160 CE) that the Jewish witnesses to Jesus miracles considered him to be a sorcerer:

For they dared to call Him a magician () and a deceiver
() of the people.[5]

http://wasjesusamagician.blogspot.co.za ... magic.html

Even today, Jews don't deny Jesus practiced miracles. Except in their belief, it was due to sorcery.

In fact, in the secret teachings of the rabbinical teachings of the Talmud, Jesus is said to be a sorcerer. They acknowledge the immaculate conception but said it was due to a devil.

http://www.talmudunmasked.com/chapter5.htm

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 357 by Claire Evans]

Of course it contradicts the NT.

So why are you trying to use it in support of a claim from the NT?

The point I'm trying to make is that Celsus is trying to explain how miracles were possible so he made up that Jesus used magic. He did not deny Jesus performed miracles. In fact, the Christians had to defend Jesus against many accusations from different sources:

As I pointed out, Celsus is a 2nd century person. Any account he would have given for Jesus and his supposed miracles would have long been contaminated by the 'legend' effect.

Allegations of Jesus magical activities owe their survival in part to early Christian apologists who provide reference to the Jewish accusations that Jesus was a magician and thereby demonstrate that these charges were a common polemical tool in the ancient world.

Doesn't demonstrate that Jesus actually DID have magic powers. Only that people thought he did, and other people tried to rebut it by saying these were not in fact from God.

Tertullian explains that the Jews called Jesus a magus [4] and Justin Martyr writes in his Dialogue with Trypho (c. 160 CE) that the Jewish witnesses to Jesus miracles considered him to be a sorcerer:

So why should I believe that Jesus
a) did do magical/supernatural deeds
b) that these were in fact from God?
For all you know, the Jewish witnesses were correct!

Even today, Jews don't deny Jesus practiced miracles.

First I've heard of this.

In fact, in the secret teachings of the rabbinical teachings of the Talmud, Jesus is said to be a sorcerer. They acknowledge the immaculate conception but said it was due to a devil.

This doesn't prove Jesus was in fact immaculately conceived. (For your information, the Immaculate Conception does NOT refer to Jesus's conception, but rather, his mother's. It's a Roman Catholic dogma that states that Jesus could not have been born in original sin, so Mary is considered to have been conceived without sin herself).
All it shows to me is that there are two stories floating around about Jesus's conception and birth. The one, the far more popular one, found in Christianity, says that Jesus was conceived by God. This other story, that you have just showed to me, says that Jesus was conceived by a demon.
At no point is there evidence to show which story is true (if either of them are).

[Claire Evans]

As reported by a publication in the journal Scientific Exploration, one of the studys participants, Ingo Swann, was able to successfully describe and view a ring around Jupiter that scientists had no idea existed at the time. (source 1)"

I can tell that you are unfamiliar with science, specifically the practice of verifying claims made. Guess what I found on Wikipedia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann
According to Swann, his ability to see Jupiter took about three and a half minutes. In the session he made several reports on the physical features of Jupiter, such as its surface " which he said was covered in crystals and studded with huge mountains " atmosphere and weather. Swann claimed to see bands of crystals in the atmosphere, which he likened to the rings of Saturn. The Voyager probe later confirmed the existence of the rings of Jupiter, although these rings are not in the planet's atmosphere.[36] Most claims made by Swann were shown to be untrue - Jupiter has no rocky surface, and could not sustain mountains or crystals.[37]

Did Swann guess about the rings? I do not expect remote viewing to be dead on accurate but it doesn't mean it can't be done. It's often inaccurate. I think Swann was seeing one of Jupiter's moons, Io, which has volcanoes and rocky mountains. The presence of the rings was significant to scientists proving not all dismiss things like the paranormal. He also foresaw the dark side of the moon. The CIA doesn't dismiss remote viewing:

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom ... 0001-2.pdf

Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, they wrote, some scientists argue that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally.

Well then, those scientists are trying to pull a fast one. Why should we a grant a theory the status of being 'true' without bothering to test it? I could write out an elegant theory write now if I want to, but that doesn't mean I can say it's true if I haven't done any tests for.

So they must stop teaching things unproven as if it is a scientific fact. I'm trying to say to you that science is not the beacon of all truth. Scientists can be corrupt. Have we witnesses macro evolution or replicated the primordial soup? No, yet it is taught in schools as if it is a fact.

ESP is not related to prayer because all who pray will have it. It's like saying one can be a psychic if one prays. And just because something is a religion, doesn't mean they are lumped into other categories. Buddhists don't pray to God or any other god.

So just like before, you're not going to care that the very things you cite undermine what it is you claim?

I don't think it does.

Evidence is something that is proven and it can be proven to an individual even if not to others.

So show me what it is you experienced. How can you do that? How can I show you that I experienced trauma in my childhood?

In a nutshell, I've seen things disappear and appear out of thin air with other witnesses. Yet I can't prove this happened to you but this doesn't mean it didn't happen. How do you prove your childhood trauma? You can't unless you have things like psychiatrist reports or something.

You seem to think that scientists are gods and the beacon of truth. They can suffer from confirmation bias.

So why, earlier in this very comment, did you cite scientists to support a point you make?

You make an appeal to authority. What these scientists say about remote viewing is not gospel but it considered thus shouldn't be dismissed outright. In the case of remote viewing, they don't have confirmation bias. A lot of scientists don't want to go into this lest it mars there credibility.

Science worship again.

Nope, more like I-want-to-make-sure-we're-not-making-any-mistakes-worship. You apparently are all to willing to call the woman a shape shifter, just by watching a very poor quality Youtube video.
I'm not willing to go that far with such weak evidence.

If you say this is due to bad quality, shouldn't the appearance of shape shifting teeth that are blatant happen in all videos featuring people? What makes this video so special?


Let's look at another low resolution video:



See perfect teeth look pointy at times?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 354 by Claire Evans]

Goody, a long reply to sink my teeth into. Let's get started shall we?

That is if you don't accept my premises to be true. Without accepting my premises as true, then one can think up anything. We'd have to consider how Jesus rose from the dead if He rose again as a liar. If God is the author of all that is holy, why raise a liar from the dead?

Why not? God from the Old Testament forgave David for his lying shenanigans regarding Bathsheba and her husband (oh yeah...you don't think that that was God...)

You are right, the Father and the OT are not congruent.

And you don't believe Jesus was speaking metaphorically, that it represented His sacrifice?

It could be that, me assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus does have magic powers, that the initial Last Supper had him speaking of the bread and wine in a metaphorical sense, and then, as per Catholic beliefs, the bread and wine really do transform in the Masses that happen every week.
Basically, if both of us accept that Jesus and/or God have magic powers, what is the logical argument against what is used in the weekly mass being the flesh and blood of Christ?
I can't see one there.

The question is, why? Why would it literally be eating Jesus' flesh and blood when eating flesh and blood was a pagan practice and a Satanic one today?

Did the disciples drink His blood? Absolutely not.

How do you know that? (Jebus...I sound like Sye Ten Bruggencate...) Is it impossible for Jesus, prior to the supper, to have opened a vein and drained some of his blood, or to have conjured some of it up?

No, I don't think it is possible because it is not congruent to who Jesus was. Was Jesus Satanic? Where the disciples Satanic? Then you must include that Jesus cut out His flesh for the disciples to eat. There is absolutely no basis for that. Paul never mentioned transubstantiation. That is a Catholic invention.

The occult practice is actually to drink the blood and eat the body of a victim.

So it's not occult as long as we say this is the metaphorical blood and flesh of someone?

You don't appear to know the context. The blood and body represent the sacrifice Jesus made. His body was crucified and He shed blood. There is no metaphorical eating and drinking. It is what the wine and wafer represent.

If one accepts what the scriptures say, Lazarus was an example.

In my hypothetical, I accepted ONLY that Jesus rose from the dead, and NOT because it's in the scriptures.

Then you can't ask me if anyone else rose from the dead because you wouldn't accept it.

Remember we are actually writing in the forum where the Bible is considered the authority.

Then please, cite lines from the Bible that say that sin is what causes death, i.e. the complete cessation of activity in a living organism, the beginning of the process of decay.

That is not what the Bible is saying. Sin causes an unrepentant sinner to not rise from the dead. They remain dead in their sin. Not everybody has a physical body that could resurrect therefore it is the resurrection of the spiritual body.

1 Corinthians 15:54-57New International Version (NIV)

54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: Death has been swallowed up in victory.[a]

55 Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?
56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

According to the Bible, sin is from Satan

Citation needed.

John 8:44

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

and death is not what God intended for mankind.

Citation needed.

What? Does it need a citation? Why would Jesus resurrect from the dead if God wanted us to be dead? Jesus wouldn't have resurrected Lazarus from the dead then.

This can no way be in the league. I don't think mothers would die for this Santa lie. They eventually tell kids the truth. It's a frivolous fib for tradition's sake.

It is certainly not an act of intense love.

As stated before, one can still feel love and still lie. There is no contradiction between the two. One of my favourite stories is about a man who conquers the world, reigns as a despot for a time and arranges his own death, having led the world to believe he is driven by nothing more than a lust for power. He arranges it such that the people of the world unite against him, so as to prevent another despot like him from ever rising to power again.

You know your example does not fit Jesus. How does you example of a despot showing an act of love? Love and lies are incompatible.

1 Peter 4:8

Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.

Do the research into the OT and will become clearer.

This sounds like you think I have NOT researched the OT. I have. Maybe not to as great an extant as some people would like, but I consider myself to be somewhat knowledgeable on the subject.

Then you know that Yahweh is just one of many gods who walked and talked with the Israelites and that he was an extraterrestrial? Do you know the literal translation of the OT?

The process of elimination. This is the logic of coming to that conclusion.

Where in logic does it allow one to consider something as plausible when there is literally no other example of it verified throughout history?
I wouldn't consider it logical to have aliens who can phase through walls as a possibility for who or what caused the mess in my house, until I have some evidence that aliens exist, and that phasing through walls can indeed occur.

But why must it be verified by other cases? Just because something is very unique and has never happened before doesn't mean it is negated.

It was claimed in that video that Hercules claimed he would join the father. That is blatantly untrue. The oracle of Delphi who Hercules consulted did not say that either.

So your point of contention is that Hercules himself didn't say he would go to join his father, Zeus? I must ask, what is the point of this? The link you give says "Athena descended in her chariot and took Hercules from the flames to Mount Olympus where he married the goddess Hebe, was given the gift of eternal youth, and permitted to reside with the gods for all time."
Anyway, we have the stories of Heracles and Jesus, and both stories say that their respective protagonists joined their divine fathers upon death.

The video you referred me said that Hercules said he'd join Zeus. I am refuting the author of the video.

Zeus was not a supernatural god in that he was as spirit.

In Greek mythology/religion, he was.

No, he wasn't.

ZEUS was the King of the Gods and the god of the sky, weather, law and order, destiny and fate, and kingship. He was depicted as a regal, mature man with a sturdy figure and dark beard. His usual attributes were a lightning bolt, a royal sceptre and an eagle.

http://www.theoi.com/Olympios/Zeus.html

Gods in ancient cultures were names given to extra-terrestrials.

For this point of discussion, I literally do not care to argue what you think they actually were. Whether or not Zeus was an alien is beside the point - the point is, that in both the Heracles and Jesus stories, we have a divine father god, who causes a mortal woman to become pregnant with a son who goes on to perform wondrous acts, and then, upon his death, joins his father in his godly abode.

Zeus actually had sex with a mortal woman. That is not the case with the Father. The Father is not a man. Jesus was conceived through a virgin birth. And, yes, these "gods" could perform wondrous acts. Why not? When Hercules died, he did not go to a heavenly abode but to Mount Olympus.

In Greek mythology, Mount Olympus was the dwelling of the Olympian Gods and it was created after the Titanomachy, the battle during which the Olympians defeated their predecessors, the Titans. The peak Mytikas was then called Pantheon and was the venue where all the fiery discussions among the deities took place. There was also a place where the Throne of Zeus was located. The twelve Olympians that resided at Mount Olympus were Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Hestia, Demeter, Hermes, Aphrodite, Ares and Hephaestus. Apart from the gods, the foot of the mountain was also the place where the nine Muses lived.

https://www.greekmythology.com/Myths/Pl ... ympus.html

If apply Jesus is a legend: legends take a really long time to evolve.

Did you watch the whole video? What of the modern example of Schneerson? He died in 1994, and he has adherents who constructed a legend that he exists in the empty chair seen in the video. What of Scientology? What of Mormonism?
Legends are able to come about quite quickly. There is no rule that it takes decades or centuries.

I did watch the whole video. As it says, Schneerson was thought of as the messiah but when he died, they had to make up something to justify why he did not come back. There are critical differences between this rebbe and Jesus. People witnessed the risen Jesus. There were no protests about it. Jesus died a public death, which is verified, yet a bogus resurrection couldn't be debunked? This rebbe didn't die a public death. If the followers of this rebbe claimed he came again and it wasn't so, it would be refuted as there was a dead body so they dare not make that claim. It appeared as if the rebbe had brainwashed cult followers who did not have any doubts that rebbe was a mortal man.
I will revise my take on a legend. A legend does not have so much to do with how much time has passed but rather how long facts can exist beside the legend. Unlike many legendary figures, miracles were attributed to Jesus from the start. There was no gradual evolution of His life that started off with him as ordinary and then the story evolving to make him have supernatural powers.

The example of a legend is that Paul was crucified upside down. There is no such evidence that it happened as it was not even the early church's belief.

Why did Paul not write about resurrection? It was a known belief already to the churches he wrote to. He was not going to regurgitate what was already known.

Okay. So Paul doesn't think it necessary in his letters to remind the churches of what they already know. So...why does he write the following?
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God" 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5 Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his names sake. 6 And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.
Surely Paul didn't need to regurgitate that they were the Gentiles called to belong to Jesus Christ! That Jesus was appointed the Son of God by resurrection from the dead.

Imagine if you got a memo from your boss saying "Hello, Claire. You're the {position held} in {Department} of this {Company}"

Okay, you are right and the author of the video and me are wrong.

Gospel were in the form of oral tradition form the start so it doesn't matter that the gospels were only written down later.

Even if I were to accept this, how then can you exclude the legend effect? Are you saying that Gospel Mark was transmitted perfectly, with no additions made to it? Gospel Matthew?

What you may construe as additions is actually the Gospel of Matthew feeling the need to include some things which Mark did not feel the need to because of the different audiences.

The end of Mark ended abruptly because it was lost. People believe there was an evolution of the gospels not realizing that the each gospel was written for a specific audience.

Be that is it may, our earliest copies of Mark quite simply do not have a resurrection. It is pure supposition to say that Mark did end with a resurrection.

However, there appears to be merit in that Mark wrote it. The Codex Vaticanus, one of the oldest extant versions of the gospel. does include verse 9-20 but only in a blank column

"Vaticanus, actually contains an entire blank column after v. 8 which is close to the right size to fit vv. 9-20, suggesting that the scribe who copied this manuscript was aware of the existence of this ending, and was unsure whether to omit the passage, so leaving a space should it need to be filled in later. It should also be noted that the four uncial manuscripts given above as containing the shorter, alternative ending after v. 20 each also refer to the longer ending by itself as an alternate reading, indicating some uncertainty on the part of their scribes."

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversi ... l#notes-20

http://www.curtisvillechristianchurch.org/AuthSuppl.htm

"Around 165 AD, we find Justin Martyr making a probable allusion to Mark 16:20.17 In a passage where Justin is explaining the Christian doctrine of Christ's ascension and present reign in heaven on the right hand of the Father, uses the phrases tou logou (of the word) and exelqonteV pantacou ekhruxan (went forth and preached) together in a description of the activities of His Apostles after Christ's ascension. The juxtaposition of these terms, and the fact that they appear (but for the switching of the order of two words) exactly as the same phrases in Mark 16:20, and the context of Justin's statement in his passage, would suggest that this patristic was familiar with the passage in the longer ending of Mark, and was alluding to it here."


At roughly the same time, Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:19 outright18 (~177 AD), and Tatian the Assyrian included the ending in his Diatessaron,19 a document attempting the harmonization of the four Gospel narratives (~175 AD). Tertullian refers to Mark 16:19 around 215 AD,20 and Tregelles reports21 that Hippolytus (~235 AD) quotes Mark 16:18-19 at least twice. In Cyprian's account of the 7th Council of Carthage (256 AD), he records a strong allusion made by Vincentus of Thibarus to Mark 16:17-18.22 The Apostolic Constitutions (3rd-4th c. AD) quote Mark 16:16,23 as well as alluding to Mark 16:15 twice elsewhere. Macarius Magnes (~390 AD) reports that Mark 16:18 was an object of attack by the Neoplatonist Porphyry or his student Hierocles (whose works are generally dated about a century earlier), discussing both their objections to the message of the verse (but not its authenticity) and Macarius' own defense of the same.24 The Syrian patristic Aphraates (~345 AD) cites the ending as well,25 showing that it was accepted within Syriac Christianity."

We can see that there wasn't serious doubt about the authenticity of Mark 16 verse 9 onwards.


We could argue that there was a deletion in Mark rather than an addition.

I've been contradicting myself but I have been forced to more research. Just because there is a break in continuity does not mean verses 9-20 is an addition. It has happened before:

Concerning Metzger's other arguments against the long ending's authenticity, they are quite minor and easily dispensed with. He argues that the disjuncture between verses 8 and 9 point to a later addition tacked onto an abrupt (or lost) ending at v. 8. Yet, there are several examples of similar disjunctions throughout the Gospel accounts, in which the subject, location, etc. change drastically within the narratives. In the narratives of Matthew and Mark, we see that Peter is shown to be following the group that had arrested Jesus (Matthew 26:58, Mark 14:54), after which unrelated material is presented, and then the narratives return to Peter's denial of Christ (Matthew 26:60-75, Mark 14:66-72). This is a break in the flow of the story concerning Peter, in which his narrative account is interrupted by non-related material. Another example would be found in Mark 5:22-43, where we find the healing of the woman with the issue of blood contained within the narrative of Christ's raising of Jairus' daughter from the dead. There is a strong break in the flow of the story at this point, with not even an attempt to integrate the nested story into the greater point of the resurrection of the girl. Both of these represent disjunctures as "egregious" as that which occurs between Mark 16:8 and 9, yet neither are used to question the authenticity of these other passages."

So I don't believe now it was lost and that the longer version is from Mark.

"To give a more complete picture of Christ. While the entire Bible is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16), He used human authors with different backgrounds and personalities to accomplish His purposes through their writing. Each of the gospel authors had a distinct purpose behind his gospel and in carrying out those purposes, each emphasized different aspects of the person and ministry of Jesus Christ."

I thought the God of the Old Testament is not well, the actual God in your eyes? This little blurb says "the entire Bible is inspired by God".

So? I'm quoting their belief. It has nothing to do with mine.

Matthew wrote to a Hebrew audience. He was concerned withe genealogy and the fulfillment of prophecies.

Mark wrote to the gentiles. He came to emphasize Jesus as the suffering servant to the gentiles.

Luke, a gentile, was a historian who wrote an orderly account of Jesus' life based on eyewitness reports. He was intending to prove that the faith of Christianity was based on historically reliable and verifiable events.

John goes into the spiritual aspect of Jesus. Here he goes into more of the miracles and writing about the characteristics of the Son of God before He became man (John 1)

This somehow prevents the legend effect from happening?

It disproves the claim that the gospels evolved.

He [Luke] was intending to prove that the faith of Christianity was based on historically reliable and verifiable events.

How can one verify that Mary was indeed a virgin? That Zechariah was indeed visited by an angel?

Luke was an historian and when he wrote about the virgin birth it was reporting Christian claims. He did not intend to say the virgin birth was a fact since it could not be verified yet things like geographical location, references to dates and archaeology could be:

"At first he sought only to verify one particular fact, and it checked out. Logically, that opened the door for more fact-checking. As Ramsay dug into the Luke-Acts narratives his approach was strictly rational and critical, not faith-based. He correctly assumed that documents such as these were subject to the same methods of historical analysis as are all historical documents that are not mere legend or myth, and could be either verified or falsified. His methods were simple and straightforward: to painstakingly comb through the Lucan narratives to identify all details with historical value for verification. That is, any statement of fact with reference to date, geography, politics, and archaeology could be scrutinized, i.e. tested for historical accuracy by historical cross-referencing. That is what Ramsay did because that is what good historians do. There was nothing novel about his approach or methods, except that he applied them to the Lucan accounts in the Bible. Any historian could have done what Ramsay did, but he was the first to do it to Acts, or at least the most systematic. His findings astonished him! He found no historical inaccuracies, or errors, and a great many verified facts. Indeed, in the book of Acts alone he identified 95 geographical details* which proved to be accurate, and still more in other categories. He also found many in Luke. (Later he analyzed the other three gospels using the same methods to corroborate Luke's facts with theirs; and still later, Paul's letters.) They always passed the test. "

http://www.advanceministries.net/Events ... aight.aspx

So you believe Santa and Jesus are in the same league? That's incredible.

In some respects, yes. Both are figures of renown, supposedly able to do wondrous acts through supernatural means, based upon more or less historical personages.

Unlike Jesus, Santa is loosely based on someone who existed. No adult is going to give any weight to the Santa story. Not remotely in the same league.

To non believers there may be no evidence, but evidence of God is not from the Bible but through a relationship with God.

Which I have to remind you is useless to the non-believers. Someone can say to me they have a relationship with the risen Elvis Presley, and that this is evidence Presley lived on beyond his reported death in the 1970s...but of course I won't accept that.

Evidence needs to be examinable.

Evidence needs to be examined in order to deem it a fact. Fact and truth aren't quite the same.

I'd like to go back to the woods to try and see if I can see it myself.

Good answer. Can we do the same with respect to Jesus? Nope, says a certain user on this forum quite frequently: he conveniently flew off up into the sky to join his father, and this was seen only by his followers.

But there was no claim that the dragon ascended into the skies. So we can possibly see for ourselves if their claim is true. And who says the Ascension was only witnessed by Jesus' followers?

I do believe claims like Big Foot may have some merit. I wouldn't assume they were lying or high.

Big Foot was first reported in 1967. That was 50 years ago (longer if we consider the Sasquatch legends of indigenous peoples). Despite the efforts of hundreds or thousands of people...he has never been caught.
Perhaps Big Foot is magical too in some way, able to evade the best efforts of trained hunters.

Just google bigfoot being caught.

So I do not worry about your soul. I do believe you will repent of things that you may not be aware of.

coughs From Revelations
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.
Whether one takes this metaphorically or not, at the very least, something bad is going to happen to me apparently.

I would assume the faithless are those who know Jesus Christ and reject Him. Something bad is going to happen to anyone who does not repent.

Not automatically but I do believe Joseph Smith came into contact with extraterrestrials, not angels.

Is most, if not all, stories of visitations with angels, demons, spirits, what-have-you, in your eyes a true story, only the entities in question are E.T.s?
You do understand I hope that the Hebrew civilisation Smith talked about has never been found?

Angels are creation of God, ETs, I believe, are not. Why I say that is because they are reported to only do evil things.

I do not know the story of Smith's claim on the Hebrew civilization.

Should they believe it is God when they know demons lie? That is why I'd assume it is a lie.

Don't you understand the circular logic both you and this hypothetical person are in? BOTH of you say you have a relationship with some sort of supernatural entity, and when it comes to ME watching the two of YOU talk about each other, both you and that other person (we'll call him Alan) say that THEIR voice is God.
Claire says her voice is God. Alan says his voice is God.
Clare says Alan's voice is a demon. Alan says Claire's voice is a demon.


What am I, the third person, to make of this? Also, how do you know demons lie? Have you considered the possibility that maybe, sometimes, they tell the truth? If they lie, wouldn't a demon who's fooling you into believing he's God want you to distrust other voices, by saying that other voices are demons?

Oh, yes, demons do tell the truth and half truths when it suits them. They will only say the truth when it will lead to destruction.

Prideful people cannot have a relationship with God.

Wouldn't it take pride for one to say they have a relationship with the creator of the universe, and to (more or less) understand him?

No, was Jesus prideful to claim He was the Son of God? If it is the truth, it's the truth. No one is special to have a relationship with God. It is not only available to elite people but everyone. It's not anyone's achievement.

You can't expect someone in Grade 5 to understanding the maths for a Grade 12.

This is a terrible analogy. Grade 12 maths doesn't stop working, or not work at all, while the person is in Grade 5. It's just slightly beyond their understanding, at that time.
Teenagers are expected to understand and solve algebraic equations, and those formulas work, even while younger siblings are still learning long division.

The point is, people of different ages are at different levels of understanding. Different people at different stages in their lives will have a different understanding of God. Those earlier in their faith will say, "I don't know why God does this". A person who has progressed in their faith will say looking in retrospect, "Now I know why God did this".

If they can see I do not suffer from demonic possession or oppression, then they can safely assume I'm not speaking to demons.

What are those? Wouldn't a clever demon not leave any outward 'obvious' signs (like we see in movies), in order to best promote a falsehood of that person being in communion with God?

If I were a secret Nazi, and wanted to convince the world I'm not a Nazi, I don't dress up like a stereotypical Nazi and goose step everywhere.
It seems to me that when it comes to the art of deception, you are out of your depth. I am a master of the art, if I may so myself.

Their mask eventually falls off but it cloaking is done when a non believer in Christ is demonically possessed. Demonic possession cannot happen to a a Christ-committed person. They cannot dwell where the Holy Spirit dwells.

It's the same with demons but they human spirits aren't demons. Attachment is not possession.

Again...you are NOT reading your own citations.
Attachment Spirits, Spirit Attachments, and Possessions are all flavors of the same thing.
Am I meant to think of them as how chocolate, vanilla and strawberry are different flavours of the same thing (ice-cream)?

I was not using the spiritual attachment view in that article to support what I said about demonic possession. I didn't refer you to that. If I refer you to a page, ought I agree with everyone in it or can I just cite a section?

You

There are studies into anti-gravity technology.

Me

And so far, nothing to show for it. Is this article supposed to convince me that levitation is possible? That it can be done. I read the article. It talks about the implications of it, the attitudes of the people at NASA...but NOWHERE does it show that levitation can and has actually been done.
It just says Person So and So was seen a very long time ago and this is reported by a bunch of people.
That's it.

You then respond with a new link. Showing me a new link does NOT negate what you did with the earlier one. It does NOT remove from history the fact that you showed me an article, claiming that anti-grav technology can exist, and yet the article did not give us an actual example of anti grav technology.

I posted a new link because you weren't convinced of the former and still aren't, I see. I give you examples:

http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-gravity_technology

I said if the entity is evil. I said I don't see any forces of using levitation now. Jesus doesn't live here now.

So what changes between then and now, such that levitation done 'then' is good, while if it is done 'now' it is evil?
If I lived two thousand years ago and stabbed someone with a knife, versus stabbing someone today, do the moral implications of the act change?

It depends on the motive. There was a purpose back then for Jesus to levitate if one believes in the Ascension and it wasn't an evil person. He was teaching faith to the disciples when He walked on water. Why would acts like walking on water be necessary today? However, levitation can be a display of demonic possession to cause fear and to deceive.

Also...weren't you trying to convince me of anti-grav technology?

Yes, but you were asking about levitation of people but scientifically it can also be achieved but just not levitation of people.

Look at 1:18m. At the 1:20 mark, you will see each of Bush's eyes move in different directions which lizards do. Now if you can explain how that happens in a person, I'd like to know.

As you'll probably expect...how do you know these videos haven't been doctored?
I learned the other of a new piece of software that is able to mimic people's voices to a scarily high degree of accuracy.

You would be right if it was HD. I have come across a lot of videos where apparent shape- shifting turned out to be manipulation. I don't think that's possible whereby it's not of good quality. A manipulator would have to doctor it to look like lower quality. I don't know of software that can do that.

Anyway, it's up to you to think about it. I can't convince you.