Sad day for the Fighting Irish, sunk by a weak Navy team yesterday 46-44. Notre Dame's 43-game winning streak against Navy, the longest in NCAA history against one opponent, was gone. Charlie Weiss could use a few execuses, Wapella.com predicts some sort of rehab program for him where he has to leave ND for medical reasons.
The Illini are hard to stop on their march to a bowl game, stomping the Golden Gophers 44-17. May not be a major bowl, but the Illini are back in shape at 7-3 for a game after Christmas.
The word on the streets of Hog City is that at least two Wapella Gentlemen witnessed the Kansas Cats whomp the Cornhuskers 76-39; the most points ever allowed by the Huskers. Was Wapella's own Kansas Cat in attendance? Or only the the adopted Husker Fans from the Farmer City Blacktop via Amtrak?
Photo of Ian Thorpe, the Thorpedo.
12 comments:
Don't believe Mr. Free State made it to the game.
Too busy.
BEP
Kansas Cat had a "When I Think About You I Touch Bill Self" tee-shirt on last time I saw him.
"Rock, chalk Jayhawk; Bill Self ........"
You figure it out.
Tell Dr. Faustus we said hey.
BEP
Notre Dame Football will always be sacred!!!!! Everyone has a bad year every now and then and this is unfortunately ND's worst year yet! Being a die hard ND fan I will not succumb to what is being said as once a Notre Dame fan.....ALWAYS a Notre Dame fan!!!!!Go Irish!
is Hoosier Gato posting under anonymous? He often uses a lot of exclamation marks when discussing ND football so it must be him.
I though perhaps it was one particular female ND fan that I know whose last name rhymes with "Nollet". She would shout that they should be ranked higher even if they were 1-12, and oddly enough it looks like that is where they are headed....
HG is a big fan of fair play and good sportsmanship. Go Irish! Go Navy! Go Illini!
He signs his posts!
HoosierGato
Two things:
1. Can we get a shout out to the original Thorpedo, one Mr. Jered Thorp?
2. ND would be alot easier to stomach if their IL fanbase wasn't so objectionable, and when I say "their IL fanbase" I mean mainly the Chicago fanbase.
***HG is one of the IL exceptions to this rule, along with the Mollet clan, etc.
The Mollet and HG fandom is based on the now-lost idea of the student-athlete.
I concur with EEP's distate for many ND fans; they are as boorish (not Moorish like the fez) as Alabama fans who are, in a word, insufferable.
DA: "Hey, you're from Alabama".
UI GRAD: "You're from Danville"
And finally, Go Sun Devils.
BEP
Wapella has an indirect connection to U of I football. A walk on this year, Drew Harweger, (the no. 22 with the white legs) is our second son. Our first son was born when I was teaching at Wapella Elementary!
That's awesome Mrs. H! You were my favorite teacher, I had you 3 years. Good luck to Drew! And to the Illini! Here's to a good bowl game!!!
to view the virgin' crime photos go to http://virginmar-y.spaces.live.com
The Virgin Mary
Most Christians are worshiping a dead woman, my apology; they are worshiping the statue of a dead woman, calling her the mother of God and the queen of heaven and all those unbelievable baseless satanic names. Of course in order for the Virgin Mary to be the mother of God as they allege, then Jesus would have to be proven to be a God, and only then can the virgin Mary be a Goddess since she would be a mother of God, for if a God or a "Goddess" was to give birth he or she can only Give birth to a God, and vice versa, if a God was to be born, he must be born by another God or a Goddess, exactly as humans gives birth to humans, and a dog gives birth to a dog and a cat gives birth to a cat then a God must give birth to a God, simple truth and logic says that. And not only simple truth and logic says that, but the "supposed to be Holy" Bible says that too, for in John 3:6"that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit", and in John 4:24"God is spirit". It is crystal clear that Jesus was flesh born of Mary's flesh how then can he be God or a God? For by reading carefully John 3:6 it does not leave an area to play around it even by claiming a mix between flesh and spirit since all living creatures are simply just that, a mixture or a combination of flesh and spirit, and at that even the claim that Jesus was different since he had no father to begin with and it was the holy spirit who brought him through Mary does not make a difference, for it was the same with Isaac son of Abraham, Sarah and Abraham were old and Sarah was barren and the holy spirit told them that in a year he will be back and she will be having Isaac, exactly as it happened with Zechariah and his wife and baby John, as with every other living creature. And at that Jesus is disqualified from being a God or a son of a God as they falsely allege. But we will not stop at this as a proof, for proofs are many, and they are all in the "supposed to be Holy" Bible, get the Bible and investigate yourselves the following verses:-
_________________________________
Is Jesus God?
In the book of Numbers 23:19 "… God is not a man, nor a son of man"
And in Hosea 11:9"… I am God, and not man". In both verses God tells us crystal clear that He (God) is neither a man nor a son of man, Jesus in the Bible was named with both, a man and son of man!
Then we read Timothy 2:5"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" this verse is an clear obvious testimony that Jesus is not a God at all, he is just a mediator between God and men.
And in Acts 2:32"…Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through him in your midst". This verse is a clear statement that Jesus is no God, he was just a man whom God used to show people miracles and wonders, Jesus was sent as a messenger to the people, a helpless powerless man, and that is by Jesus' own testimony in John 5:30" I can of my self do nothing ", so how can God be helpless and powerless and can do nothing by himself, do you think that could be God, if so Hell is your eternal home, Jesus is not a God at all.
for how can the man Jesus be God if He (God) already told us in advance that He is not a man? And how can Jesus the son of man be God if God also told us in advance that He (God) is not a son of man?
John 7:16"My doctrine is not mine, but his who sent me".
In John 7:16 Jesus testifies that he is not even the author of his doctrine, not his words not his teachings but it came from The One who sent him, from God, then what does that make Jesus? It makes him a messenger, God' messenger.
John 17:3 "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." Here Jesus is talking to God, declaring Him The only True God, and it is obvious that that only true God is apart (separate) from Jesus and not a part of him, so any other so called god would be a false god even if that other so called god is Jesus, since the God whom Jesus spoke to is the only true God so any other would not be a true God even if it is Jesus, and that is the simple plain truth told by Jesus himself.
Mark 14:35"He went a little farther, and fell on the ground, and prayed that if it were possible, the hour might pass from him."
Mark 14:36"…all things are possible for you. Take this cup away from me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what you will." Both verses testifies to the fact that Jesus is a slave servant of God, since Jesus is praying to God, then Jesus is the needy and God is the Sustainer and Provider who can answer Jesus' prayers.
God does not pray but is prayed to, God does not need help but He gives help, and Jesus here prayed and was obviously in need of help, Jesus can't be God, Jesus is not God. Correct me if I'm wrong.
_________________________________
The son of God thing
We all know the famous verse in John 3:16 "for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son" and in 1John 4:9 "…That God has sent His only begotten son into the world,", and in Colossians 1:15 "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creations", and it is understood that these words are talking about Jesus, I find myself stuck and puzzled with these words " only begotten son" and firstborn when I read Psalms 2:7 "You are my son, today I have begotten you", and Psalms 89:27 "Also I will make him My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth", for in both verses in Psalms God is allegedly speaking to and about David, and God is allegedly declaring David to be His begotten and His firstborn son, for how can Jesus be His only begotten son when David is also His begotten son?
And how can Jesus be his firstborn when David is also His firstborn? But it gets more puzzling and confusing for how can Jesus be His only son when David, Solomon, Israel, Ephraim and Adam are also named as God's sons and Israel and Ephraim are also named as firstborns as we will read in the following verses;
2Samuel 7:14 & 1Chronicles 17:13 "I will be His Father, and he shall be My son" (speaking of Solomon), &1Chronicles 28:6, "…It is your son Solomon who shall build My house and My courts; for I have chosen him to be My son and I will be his Father"
Exodus 4:22 "…Israel is My son, My firstborn"
Jeremiah 31:9 "I am a Father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn"
Luke 3:38 "…the son of Adam, the son of God."
But it gets more puzzling when we read Genesis 6:2 "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men", and in Genesis 6:4 "… when the sons of God came into the daughters of men and they bore them children", who are those alleged to be sons of God who can't be sons of men otherwise it would've been said 'the sons of men' as it was said the daughters of men? Could those alleged to be sons of God be Jinn (devils/creatures created from fire) I would think so, since as the story continues it shows that their doings with humans earned the severe anger of God to the point that He almost killed every living creature on earth. But can they be sons of God? Impossible by logic, impossible by scriptures, they are nothing but rebellious sons of Satan who the scriptures called him an Angel of fire who deceived people in appearance as an Angel of light.
But then we read in Job 1:6 and in Job 2:1 "… there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.", now who are those alleged to be sons of God who stands in His presence along with Satan? Could these alleged to be sons of God be the Angels? Since they are gathered before the Almighty in His presence it would be logic to think so, but are then the Angels sons of God? If we avoid vain and empty philosophy and baseless traditions the answer is no the Angels are creatures and servants of God but never His children.
In the end I find it obvious that the son of God thing is being used a bit too loosely in the Bible.
_________________________________
So it is proven by logic along with facts and evidence from the "supposed to be Holy" Bible that Jesus is neither a God nor a son of God, therefore Jesus' mother the virgin Mary is only a mother of a created human being who was chosen by God to deliver a message to his people, and therefore she (the virgin Mary) is not a mother of God or a god, and therefore she is no Goddess and have no rights what so ever for being worshipped, and those who worship her are committing a great sin against themselves and against the virgin and against her son Jesus, and they are blaspheming God, and that would earn them the wrath of God which is the eternal hell.
_________________________________
The queen of heaven allegations
But let's find out what the Bible says about that queen of heaven stuff:
In the book of Jeremiah 7:16 through 19"Therefore do not pray for this people, nor lift up a cry or prayer for them, nor make intercession to Me; for I will not hear you. Do you not see what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger. Do they provoke Me to anger? Says the LORD. Do they not provoke themselves, to the shame of their own faces?" this is one story then we read:
Jeremiah 44:16 through 44:23"As for the word that you have spoken to us in the name of the Lord, we will not listen to you! But we will certainly do whatever has gone out of our own mouth, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and pour out drink offerings to her, as we have done, we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem, for then we had plenty of food, were well-off and saw no trouble, but since we stopped burning incense to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine, the women also said, and when we burned incense to the queen of heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did we make cakes for her, to worship her, and pour out drink offerings to her without our husbands permission? Then Jeremiah spoke to all the people-the men, the women, and all the people who had given him that answer-saying: the incense that you have burned in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem, you and your fathers, your kings and your princes, and the people of the land, did not the LORD remember them, and did it not come into His mind? So the LORD could no longer bear it, because of the evil of your doings and because of the abominations which you committed. Therefore your land is a desolation, an astonishment, a curse, and without an inhabitant, as it is this day. Because you have burned incense and because you have sinned against the LORD, and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD or walked in His law, in His statutes or in His testimonies, therefore this calamity has happened to you, as at this day."
These two stories speaks loud and clear that, there is no such a thing as a queen of heaven or in heaven, God called that kind of worship evil, and God could not bear such great evil, He called it an abomination, against His law, His statutes and His testimonies, and the punishment for that blasphemy is severe, it's your choice.
And coming to think of the mother of God, of course she would be a goddess, and that's why they are worshipping her, but would not that be unfair to her, that although she is a goddess as alleged yet she is left out of the Christian trinity, the father, the son and the holy spirit, but what about the mother? She doesn't count I guess! The story was tailored only for three and not tailored for four.
And it would be still against the commandment said by Jesus himself in the gospel of Mark 12:29 quoting from Moses in the book of Deuteronomy 6:4"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is One" And it is crystal clear that both Moses and Jesus were speaking of one LORD who is one God, so if we consider the three persons who are equal to one God equation "the alleged trinity", we would find ourselves getting far away from what both Moses and Jesus said, for if there was a trinity, for sure Moses and Jesus would have known about it, and at least one of them would have corrected the verse and added an "S" to the word LORD, so that the three equals one would be acceptable, three LORDS equals a God, but they did not add that "S" simply cause there is no such a thing as a trinity. How then would we add a fourth and make the virgin Mary a goddess? I see where the tailor got stuck.
_________________________________
The unholy trinity
And it would be still against the commandment said by Jesus in Mark 12:29 quoting from Moses Deuteronomy 6:4"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is One" And it is crystal clear that both Moses and Jesus were speaking of one LORD who is one God, so if we consider the three persons who are equal to one God equation, we would find ourselves getting far away from what both Moses and Jesus said, for if there was a trinity, for sure Moses and Jesus would have known about it, and at least one of them would have corrected the verse and added an "S" to the word LORD, so that the three equals one would be acceptable, three LORDS equals a God, but they did not add that "S" simply cause there is no such a thing as a trinity.
So where did the trinity come from? If we look in the ancient history books about the people of Babylon, the ancient Egyptians, the ancient Persians, and even the ancient Chinese, we will find that the trinity was in their pagan religions, and of course it was rooted in the Greeks and Romans' paganism, and once Judaism was fused with paganism and Christianity was invented and created at Antioch things like the trinity were established. Acts 11:26"…And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch" one must note here that the disciples were named Christians for the first time way after Jesus was gone, so Jesus himself had nothing to do with the name "Christians", actually they were named Christians by their enemy who hated the Jews and their Godly religion "Judaism". And we will go further into the subject of the "fusion" as we study together if God wills.
_________________________________
The unholy Christmas
Luke 2:8 through 11"Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. And behold, an angel of the LORD stood before them, and the glory of the LORD shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. Then the angel said to them, do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a savior, who is Christ the lord."
What these verses are telling us is that the day Christ was born can never be in winter since the shepherds were out in the fields watching their flock by night, otherwise those shepherds would have been insane if they had taken their flock out in the fields in winter they and their flock would be enjoying some very unpleasant freezing conditions that would at least kill their flock, and we are sure killing the flock is never the goal of the shepherds, then how can Jesus' day of birth be on December 25th in the winter time where it is usually snowing at that part of earth? And one can't help remembering that part of the Christmas song " let it snow let it snow let it snow" Why then that date? Simply that date was chosen because it's a celebrated birth date of several pagan gods, especially the sun gods, read the history books and find out for yourselves.
And when we observe what actually is being celebrated through out the churches on Christmas, we find that they are celebrating the DEATH of God and not his birth, a memorial to the alleged death of God on a cross. How Satanic.
And what comes with Christmas? The Christmas tree. Next
_________________________________
The unholy Christmas tree
Jeremiah 10:3 through 10:5"fr the customs of the peoples are futile; for one cuts a tree from the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the ax. They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with nails and hammers so that it will not topple. They are upright, like a palm tree, and they cannot speak; they must be carried, because they cannot go by themselves. Do not be afraid of them, for they cannot do evil, nor can they do any good." It is obvious from this verse that God does not like the Christmas tree tradition which to begin with is not a Christian thing but a part of the fusion, another pagan tradition.
_________________________________
The fusion of Judaism and sun worshipping (Paganism)
When it became obvious to the Romans that the Jewish religion will not be conquered by the sword and it became a threat to their religion and their culture, they arranged a big conference with the leaders of the Jews, the conclusion of that meeting was basically a "religious and political union" between both Jewish and Romans leaders, and of course both sides had to compromise in order for them to reach common grounds, the Romans who are in power yet in fear of the growing Jewish religion accepted Judaism only if the Jews accepted a little bit of Greco-Roman mixed with that Judaism, the Jews probably thought it's their chance to preach in peace without the threat of the Romans sword, and on the long run they (the Jews) would win many people to their religion and become powerful themselves, so the Jews accepted, and the deal was done, Judaism was fused with paganism and Christianity was created,
And here are some of the major changes that happened to Judaism after the fusion:
-Judaism became Christianity.
-The religious base of power was taken away from Jerusalem and transferred to the Vatican on Caesar' land.
-The house of God called "The Temple" was exchanged for church.
-The pagan sun worshipping idols were brought into the church and into the religion.
-Bringing the idols in had to manufacture scriptures to do away with the very soul of God's true religion "The Ten Commandments", the 1st commandment says one God while paganism says a fiesta of gods, so the trinity was established and then it snow balled. If we look in the ancient history books about the people of Babylon, the ancient Egyptians, the ancient Persians, and even the ancient Chinese, we will find that the trinity was in their pagan religions, and of course it was rooted in the Greeks and Romans' paganism, and once Judaism was fused with paganism, and Christianity was created at Antioch, things like the trinity were established. Acts 11:26"…And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch", one must note here that the disciples were named Christians for the first time way after Jesus was gone, so Jesus himself who was a Jew had nothing to do with the name "Christians", and actually they were named Christians by their enemy who hated the Jews and their Godly religion "Judaism".
-The 2nd commandment says no statues, no images whatsoever, no making of images and no bowing down to images, and that was a big problem so they had to manufacture scriptures to do away with that commandment!
-The clean and pure way of living taught by God' word and enforced by His law, His statutes and commandments does not work with the pagan sun worshipper' filthy way of life, as for example their sexual impurity, their marriages to their mothers, sisters and fathers or sons wives, their homosexuality, their intoxications, their magic, they had to manufacture an anti-God' law and insert it in God' word, and that's where Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John came in, and letters and gospels in their names substituted God' true words in what's called The New Testament, for there's not even a gospel of Jesus in there! And it's filled with the "we are not under the law" stuff, and the satanic cross turned holy, for the cross in the middle of the circle of the sun is found on the Romans ancient coins way before Jesus.
-The true names of the people in the scriptures were exchanged for pagan names as The virgin Maryam became Mary/Maria, maybe for Ma-Ria a Greek "mother of the gods", does it ring a bell? Isa who some calls Yashoua was exchanged for Jesus (a name born from Zeus) a Greek god, Allah (God' Great Name) was exchanged for "the Lord" another pagan god and so on.
The name Allah (AL-LAH), the "AL" is translated "The" and "LAH" was translated "LORD", when LAH actually is the worshipped one, and names should never be translated when it comes to being placed in authentic documents that would be used to identify a person or a being, for if the name is translated that would be creating a whole new name with different sounds and forms, a whole new identity, and that would be fraud punishable by the law! For example: "Mr. Brown Man" if translated to Arabic it will be "Mr. Ragel Bonie" and if I take the translated name and placed it on Mr. Browns passport I would be committing fraud and deserve the legal punishment for it, in addition, I would be committing great injustice against Mr. Brown Man who will not be able to claim what's his as Mr. brown Man, like an inheritance for example, or a book he wrote! I guess the point is made.
_________________________________
The king Jesus thing;
In the gospel of Matthew 2:2"where is he who has been born king of the Jews?" In here it is speaking clearly of someone who is a king, and the definition of a king as known to all of us is "someone who sits on a throne of a kingdom he would have a crown and he should be ruling" and in this case ruling the Jews just the people of Israel, and that person could not be Jesus who never ruled the Jews or Israel in his life, never sat on the throne of Israel or any other throne and never had a crown except the alleged crown of thorns placed on his head by the mockers as stated in (Matthew 27:29 "when they had twisted a crown of thorns, they put it on his head") and if it is to be said that the ruling and kingdom would be after his alleged return riding the clouds, it still can't be him since his alleged return is to rule the world if not the universe and not just little Israel, and the throne at that point is in the kingdom of God after judgment, but in Christianity Jesus is alleged to be God Himself and at this point we can't by any means claim that the throne of God is the same throne of Israel, the worldly throne which David and Solomon and many other human beings sat on, however Jesus was born and died and never sat on the throne of Israel. So was this a false prophecy? Or was it a falsified scripture? Or was it a true prophecy and a true scripture about some one who is not Jesus but the Bible tailor tailored it and twisted it to make it fit Jesus? We can see however, that he was a very bad tailor cause it doesn't fit!
The gospel of Matthew 2:6"….for out of you shall come a Ruler who will shepherd My people Israel." Again in here it is speaking clearly of someone who will rule just the people of Israel and that person could not be Jesus who never ruled Israel in his life, and if it is to be said that the ruling would be after his alleged return riding the clouds it still can't be him since his alleged return is to rule the world and judge it not just little Israel.
The gospel of Luke 1:32"…. God will give him the throne of his father David." In here it is confirming crystal clear that the throne spoken about is a worldly throne the throne of David not the throne of God, and even that never happened, Jesus never received that promise, so was that also a false revelation given by the Angel Gabriel to Mary? Or was that a prophecy and a promise given to David about a second Christ who is not Jesus, a later days Christ who is in truth a real son of David and not (as was supposed) as in the case of Jesus (see Luke 3:23), basically that is the promise given to David, someone took that promise and tailored it for Jesus, and again he wasn't a good tailor at all.
Acts 2:30"God had sworn with an oath to him (David) that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his (David's) throne." In here the promise is clear that the chosen person, the Christ must be from David' real seed according to natural system of human breeding, and that does not apply to Jesus at all, for according to the flesh Jesus is through Mary only, and Mary is not from the fruit of David's own body and that is clear in the ("as was supposed", in Luke 3:23) and in the conflicting contradictions in the alleged genealogy of Jesus stated in Matthew 1:1 through 1:17 and in Luke 3:23 through 3:38, in addition to the statements by Jesus denying being the son of David.
Luke 3:23"Now Jesus himself began his ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli." This verse is a part of a chain of verses which are stating the alleged genealogy of Jesus in an attempt to link him to David yet it states that he is not really linked to David, it's (as was supposed), but the promise given by God to David is not on an "as was supposed" basis, this clearly disqualifies Jesus.
Matthew 22:45"If David then calls him 'lord', how is he his son?" in here Jesus himself denies being the son of David and of course Jesus knew about that promise given to David, and he knew that denying David as his father disqualifies him from being the later days Christ, so was Jesus actually telling us about the true second Christ and the writers of the book of Matthew changed the words a little bit to suit there desires? Or was it the writers of the Bible who did that? It doesn't really matter, what matter is that it was done, perversion in the "supposed to be Holy" Bible.
Matthew 27:11"Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked him, saying, are you the king of the Jews? Jesus said to him; it is as you say". This verse is fishy for I would not believe that Jesus lied and claimed being something he is not (we already talked about the king thing above), however in other versions of the Bible Jesus allegedly answers: "that's what you say", and that would mean that Jesus himself denied what the Bible verses are saying about him being the king of the Jews!
And that is exactly what the following verse John 18:36 is testifying to;
John 18:36"And Jesus answered 'my kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from here." Here Jesus is denying any worldly kingdom, and the kingdom of the Jews is of this world and the throne of David is of this world as we discussed before, so what's with the (it is as you say) in the previous verse Matthew 27:11 and its other version (that's what you say)?
So it's proven also that Jesus was no king, and again please correct me if I'm wrong.
_________________________________
Genealogy of Jesus
When we read the alleged genealogy of Jesus, we only get more confusions and suspicions, for in Matthew 1:1 through 1:6 we find that Jesus is linked to David through Solomon, but when we compare the genealogy given in Luke 3:23 through 3:31 we find that Jesus is linked to David through Nathan, is it Solomon or Nathan? Doesn't really matter, one of it is a lie or both are lies but both can't be true, in the end it's a lie and it's in the Bible which "was supposed" to be Holy, free from lies.
The problems continue with the genealogy in Matthew 1:17"So all the generations from Abraham to David are 14 generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are 14 generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations." When we add up 14+14+14 = 42 but when we count the names listed in the genealogy it gives a result of 41 with Jesus included. So couldn't they count or what was the problem? Again it doesn't matter, what matter is there is an obvious error in something which was supposed to be Holy, the Bible.
_________________________________
Jesus accursed
Reading the following verses makes my brain spin
In 1 Corinthians 12:3"Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the spirit of God calls Jesus accursed." this as stated in the Holy Bible is Paul writing to the Corinthians telling them that if any one says that Jesus is accursed is simply not a Godly person at all, but watch what is said in Galatians 3:13"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)" this as stated in the Holy Bible is Paul writing to the Galatians telling them that Jesus became accursed, now is this Paul the same Paul who wrote to the Corinthians that if any one says that Jesus is accursed is simply not a Godly person at all, and if so, does that mean that Paul is telling us that he is not a Godly person at all? Or was Paul not able of keeping track of his babblings and stories?
Deuteronomy 21:23"…for he who is hanged is accursed of God" You tell me.
_________________________________
The Cross-Fiction
Matthew 27:42"… Let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him."
Mark 15:32"… descend now from the cross"
Luke 23:26"… and on him they laid the cross that he might bear it after Jesus."
Luke 23:26"… there they crucified him."
John 19:17"And he, bearing his cross,.."
John 19:18"where they crucified him, and two others with him,.."
Galatians 3:13"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)
In 1 Peter 2:24"Who himself bore our sins in his own body on a tree,…"
Acts 5:30"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree."
As it is very clear in the above verses, we have Matthew, Mark, Luke and john telling us that Jesus was crucified on the cross, and we have Paul and Peter telling us that he was hanged on a tree, was it a cross or was it a tree, or none of that? Was he crucified or was he hanged? Cause it's not the same at all, hanged on a tree means with a rope around the neck, while crucified is being tied or nailed to a cross, which one should we believe? Again it does not matter, one might be true and the other false or both might be false. What matter is there is an obvious error in something which was supposed to be Holy, the Bible.
_________________________________
Perverted Scriptures
Jeremiah 8:8"How can you say, we are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood."
Jeremiah 23:36"…for you have perverted the words of the living God…"
In the above two verses Jeremiah is testifying that the scriptures were already perverted, corrupted, at least from the beginning and to his days, and that would be a lot of scriptures if one was to calculate from the beginning of God' first documented scriptures and until Jeremiah' time. And an honored man of God like Jeremiah, his testimony is unquestionable. And it's in the Bible.
In 2 Peter 3:16"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the scriptures."
This is another testimony to the falsifications and corruptions of the scriptures and the letters of Paul, and coming from Peter whom Jesus allegedly called him the rock which Jesus would build his church upon, his testimony counts, especially after all the errors, contradictions, confusions and mistakes we've been through so far, the man isn't lying.
_________________________________
The Holy Spirit
Who really is the holy spirit? Is he God? Is he a part of God? Or is he a creature and a servant of God? Reading the Bible it is obvious that the holy spirit is nothing but a creature and a servant of God, for it is always stated that God keeps sending the holy spirit on different missions, the holy spirit does what God tells him to do, basically the holy spirit runs errands for God, for it doesn't matter how big or how important his job is, in the end he is employed by God who is the Big Boss, for example
George W. Bush is president of the USA, Bush has a vice p. and ministers and commanders who do big jobs for him, that doesn't make any of them his equal, and they can't share his throne by any means while he is on it, they have to remove him first to be able to sit on his throne, and Bush will let no one sit on his throne with him, so why would we think that God would allow any one to share with Him in His Throne? Do we think of Bush as better than God? Or mightier than God? Or would we honor Bush and his little throne more than we honor God and His Throne? Remember that Bush is removable but can God be removed? Bush dies and God is ever living. Back to the Holy Spirit, who is he? Who is that person who God keeps sending on missions? Reading the scriptures the holy spirit can only be one person,
Gabriel, Gabriel is the holy spirit, he is the one that is mentioned in the Bible being sent to Mary to announce baby Jesus' coming, he is the one sent to do the same job with Zechariah, and many other jobs with other of God' chosen people.
And thinking of the words "holy spirit", holy is a word that's used for what is Godly, and a spirit as we know it is of the unseen world, some times we sense it and feel it and some times we see it as it makes itself appear to us in whatever form, and reading the scriptures it was Gabriel who had done just that with Mary and that's why she got scared (don't blame her), he suddenly appeared to her in a form of a man out of no where, as he did with Zechariah and other of God' chosen people, not to forget the alleged story about the holy spirit descending from a window in heaven in a form of a dove on Jesus. Correct me if I'm wrong I'll be grateful.
_________________________________
The New Testament is it God' revelation?
Luke 1:1"In as much as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us,
Luke 1:2"just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us,"
Luke 1:3"It seemed good to me also having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus,"
In the above three verses Luke testifies that he was never there from the beginning to receive from Jesus first hand revelations or be an eyewitness to anything, he is only a story teller who never received neither from God nor from Jesus any revelations, and he actually received from those who are alleged to be eyewitnesses and ministers not messengers or prophets of God, a story teller telling another story teller his side of the story and not God' side of it, not God' word.
And I can't help noticing that "many have taken in hand" to write their side of the story but none of them was told to do so by God or even by Jesus. No wonder.
Matthew 27:8"wherefore that field was called the field of blood, unto this day."
Matthew 28:15"and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day." Both verses clearly show that they were not written during Jesus' life time but long after the occurrence of the events described, having been retained in the memory of the people, and of course they forgot a little here and invented a little there, in the end it's Matthew's words and not God' words.
John 21:24"This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true." I really don't see how do we know his testimony is true? Who is he to begin with? Why is even his name a secret?
John 19:35"And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe." The writer of John is just as Matthew and Luke, he was not an eyewitness himself but received the story from someone (whose name is a secret?) and in the end it's not a revelation from God or even Jesus' words, it's simply john' story which he received as a second or third hand story, but not God' word.
And the rest of The New Testament is just about the same, letters from persons who were not eyewitnesses telling stories filled with some teachings and some traditions along with there personal views of course which are often satanic, except for Peter who was an eyewitness as a student of Jesus and all we have in Peter' name are two small letters which of course were not saved from perversion as well.
_________________________________
Can God be seen?
Exodus 24:10"And they saw the God of Israel. And there was under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone…"
Exodus 24:11"…so they saw God, and they ate and drank." It states here in both verses that God was seen by men, OK, but when we read the following verses here comes the puzzle again,
In 1 Timothy 6:16"Who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amein."
In 1 John 4:12"No one has seen God at any time." So was he seen or not? Pick one, whichever one you pick, still the question remains; is the other one a lie? Doesn't matter, in the end there is a lie and it's in "the supposed to be Holy Bible".
If God can't be seen, how can Jesus be a God? People saw Jesus didn't they?
_________________________________
God or Satan?
In 2 Samuel 24:1"Again the anger of The LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, go, number Israel and Judah"
In 1 Chronicles 21:1"Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel." The previous two verses are telling us the same story except that the writer of 2 Samuel said The LORD, but the writer of 1 Chronicles exchanged The LORD for Satan! And both are in the "very HOLY Bible"
Maybe the writer of the Holy Bible thinks that David was getting his revelations and orders from Satan, or that Satan was the LORD of David, or what?
_________________________________
Are we under God' Law
Matthew 5:17"Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. "
Matthew 5:18"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one title will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."
Matthew 5:19"Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." In the previous three verses Jesus testifies that the law is to remain intact until the end of this life (the end of this world) and he (Jesus) is very clear and specific. Some claim that the fulfillment of the law and the prophets was Jesus' coming and his alleged death on a cross but that is not what those verses are saying, watch the words in verse 18 carefully for they speak saying " till heaven and earth pass away" and that happens only when this world ends. Also verse 19 Jesus is commanding us through his teachings to follow the law and not to break it or teach any one to break it, not even the least of the commandments of the law otherwise we would be the least in the kingdom of God, and what is the least in the kingdom of God? The least are those who are in HELL, for it is the worst place in the kingdom of God don't you think? Jesus even is motivating us in another command that we teach the law not just do it, and this way we will be great in the kingdom of God (Paradise). so follow the law of God if you are truly Jesus' followers, abide at least by "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS" for they are the heart and soul of all three of God' religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And if you want to be sure all you got to do is read all three books, but read with clear heart and eyes and you shall find the truth, don't be prejudice while reading or you will actually prejudice yourself, and investigate what you read, use your brains and your hearts and you will find the obvious truth. And check out the following verse:
In 1 John 5:3"For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome." With a verse like this in the New Testament I don't see how some of those so called priests have the nerve to still stand and teach that the law has been abolished, and all the Paul bla bla bla they are stuck on.
But of course some are confused because of the unintelligible contradictions in the Bible about this specific subject, for example:
Romans 2:13"For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified". Good words that make sense.
But in Galatians 2:16"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus……." Manipulative words that leads to confusion through baseless philosophy, for how can one obey God and fulfill His law abiding by His commandments as Jesus himself instructed in
Matthew 5:17,18 and 19 and not be justified and doesn't get to be great in the kingdom of God? That would be contrary to the teachings of Jesus, can't buy that.
John 7:49"But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed". Simple logical and acceptable words, for if one don't know the law or one is refusing to know the law then one would be refusing God' words and will not be abiding by God' commandments then one will receive the punishments and that is a curse listed in the law and promised by God to the disobedient.
Galatians 5:4"You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by the law; you have fallen from grace." How can I become estranged from Christ if I'm following his teachings and believing them, and how would my obedience to my God and the God of Christ make me estranged from Christ? I see this verse as twisted as it gets.
Galatians 3:13"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us….." Christ was never hanged to begin with, and if he redeemed us as alleged then how is it that we are going to be judged according to our deeds, read the following three verses:
Roman 2:6,7,8"Who will render to each one according to his deeds, eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness-indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil." The truth is we save our selves by our deeds and our obedience to God and His prophets and messengers.
Galatians 5:18"But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law". And which spirit could that be cause it's impossible that the spirit of God would take us from under God' law! Would the spirit of God work contrary to God' orders? Impossible. How then can God' spirit take us from under His Commandments? That would be the spirit of the devil. But to correct this manipulated verse, the verse should say: "But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the punishment of the law". And that would be understood, cause since I'm being led by the spirit of God I will obey His law and commandments so I will get the promised eternal life and will not get the punishment of HELL which is what the disobedient to the law of God will get, eternally.
_________________________________
IS THE BIBLE REALLY HOLY
In 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test all things; hold fast what is good"
In 1 Corinthian 14:33 "God is not the author of confusion"
_________________________________
I find my self reading the Bible wanting to come to the truth about what God is telling us, but then as I read I find myself facing a big problem, too many mistakes too many errors and way too many contradictions and conflicts, and of course with all that, too many questions come to mind, I ask myself:-
-If it is possible for The All-knowing Almighty God to err and make mistakes?
-Would God contradict Himself in his own words?
-Is it possible for God The only One who is perfect to issue conflicting statements and stories?
The Bible says God is perfect, All-knowing, He doesn't err or make mistakes, and does not confuse things, and it's true cause if He errs, make mistakes, contradict Himself and can't keep track of what He says then why is He different from me you or any one else? Why should I believe in such a confused God who obviously would be in need of help, He would be needing someone to correct His errors and mistakes and assist Him in keeping track of His statements and stories, a good secretary from Harvard university maybe would be a good candidate for the job, but then I would be obliged to worship His secretary since she's got better qualities than Him, she'd have something that He lacks! No that would be a very funny God, in a matter of fact He would be very unqualified to be a GOD.
And the Bible states that "God is not the author of confusion" and the Bible also states that "God is the author of the Bible" it's His word, so the Bible should be God's true pure word and that's why it's called "The Holy Bible", Holy cause it's Godly, cause it's pure, truthful and perfect, error free! But is it really pure truthful and perfect and error free? Is it really one hundred percent God's word? Or did someone corrupt the Bible? We already been through some of those errors and they were enough proofs to the UNHOLINESS of the Bible, Please help me find out the truth if you see me in error, help me understand the reason for all these errors and contradictions in the Bible if it's any thing other than Satan's manipulations and falsifications, and these are just some of the errors and contradictions that are troubling the Bible, please explain them to me, if you truly think me wrong.
_________________________________
Proven Facts:-
Is the virgin Mary a goddess? NO
Is the virgin Mary the mother of God? NO
Is there a mother of God? NO
Is the virgin Mary the queen of heaven? NO
Is there a queen of or in heaven? NO
Is Jesus God or a god or the son of God? NO
Does God have a son or any children? NO
Is the Bible Holy? NO NO NO
Is the Bible God' word? Only parts of it are God's words, but a big portion is satan' stuff.
Who is the Virgin Mary? Her real name is Maryam, she is a Jewish saint chosen by ALLAH to give birth to his great prophet and messenger Isa whom they erroneously call Jesus, and her pregnancy and giving of birth while she was a virgin was miracle spoken about by ALLAH in earlier scriptures, and that miraculous birth was a sign by ALLAH for the people of Israel, so they would believe that prophet and messenger' words and follow it, knowing that he's just delivering ALLAH' words to them.
Who is Jesus? He is the great prophet and messenger Isa whom they erroneously call Jesus, born without a father as a miracle and a sign from ALLAH to the people, the earlier scriptures spoke of his coming, and his miraculous birth as the Messiah to the people of Israel, Almighty ALLAH chose him and used him to do miracles through him so that the people of Israel would believe.
Who is ALLAH? ALLAH is the One and only true God, the only Creator of all things, there is no other God except Him, ALLAH. The name ALLAH was translated in the falsified Bible as "The LORD", and that is forgery, fraud, names are not to be translated when it comes down to authentic documents, for that would be fraud, for example: if I translate the name "Emad" to English, the name would be "Pillar", now if some one would tell Emad' son that Mr. Pillar is his father would the son believe him? If I was to put "Pillar" on Emad's passport wouldn't they arrest me? Would Emad be able to claim the inheritance which belongs to Emad? He can't. So the translation of the name ALLAH was one of the biggest frauds ever committed from the beginning. And even many of them so called Muslims (who are not true) water it down and bend the truth saying that ALLAH means God, meaning that ALLAH is the Arabic translation for the word God, but that is not true, for the word God in Arabic means ILAH, pointing to the worshiped One, and combining "AL" (which means in English the word "The") with the word "ILAH" gives us AL-ILAH and that is the truth of where the name ALLAH came from, so even in their falsified translations it should have been "The God" not "The LORD", for the word LORD is used in describing and pointing out humans, like "the LORD of the house", The LORD of the land or lord of the city, and the LORD of the ring, and prince is lord and the king is lord, and the monkey is his uncle, and all that hola bola they invent. But ALLAH is The God.
_________________________________
Post a Comment