Article - Laura Knight-Jadczyk
|
|
Article - Laura Knight-Jadczyk
|
|
Cassiopaea relies completely on individual reader contributions. This allows us to keep our independence. Contributing
Editors Articles Something Wicked This Way Comes
|
The
Identity of the Attackers? Page 4
======== Subject: Re: Is anything sinful? Not to you according to Paul... From: "Xinoehpoel" <tesnal@psl.moc> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:14:22 -0700 --------
Daniel Wilson <firepower_50ae@yahoo.com> wrote in message > Colin, your web site is thought-provoking. I agree that *part* of the > reason that God condemns certain things as sin is that they are > harmful to us. But whatever His reason(s), He is, as you put it, the > Master. He has the right to tell us what is sinful. > > You say, though, that he will not punish sin. That is against what > the Bible says. It says very clearly that he *will* punish sin -- > that nothing sinful will enter into heaven -- that the servants of sin > will be punished forever in a fiery hell. Would a fair God do this? Please. > > It also says that Jesus came to save us from our sin. What a joke. Please explain how this is possible? Would a fair God lay someone's sins on someone else, an innocent man? Do you really think Jesus' crucifixion was as big a deal as Christianity makes it out to be? How could such a small event pay for the sins of the whole world? Many others were crucified besides Jesus. Can't their crucifixions at least be payment for their own sins? Why do they, being crucified themselves, need Jesus for any reason? Answer me that. ........... I don't know > your spiritual state, but if you are in sin today, Colin, Jesus Christ > can set you free.
Well, this is true only if you mean by following his example of obeying the Law of Moses you are free from sin. ..........He died on the cross to save you and me from our > sin -- not just to save us from hell, but to make us different > creatures. Whatever. .............. You have a link about homosexual guilt -- I didn't read > that page, but the pardon and cleansing that Christ offers is the > solution to that guilt and every other guilt we may have. You're sure right about that, but there is a trap. Guilt is not an enemy, but a friend, and a gift. God gave us guilt to tell us when we are sinning, that we might respond to the guilt and stopping sinning, even make up for the sin we have done in the past by doing good works. > Any of you who read this, if you are not free from sin today, confess > it to God! Confession of sin doesn't take away sin. It is only useful if it can cause one to stop sinning. ................. Believe in Jesus Christ as your only way of salvation! Why? If you're gonna buy into that bunk, why not believe in Mithas as your only way of salvation?
<snip xtian bunk> > > http://www.geocities.com/firepower_50ae/theology/
======== Subject: Re: Matthews Wisemen From: "Xinoehpoel" <tesnal@psl.moc> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:30:24 -0700 --------
Uniacke <UniackeJR@rebelspiders.com> wrote in message > My dear Xinophoeel, > It is written: > Matthew 2:2 > "Where is he who is born King of the Yehudim? For we saw his star in the > east, and have come to worship him." As I explained, Uniacke, men are not to worship men. This is forbidden in the second commandment of Yahweh. Clearly a redactor of Matthew's gospel was responsible for the "worship" part that was NOT originally written in Matthew's gospel. > > > > This is a second redactor's hand at demonizing the Jews. > > > No need for having demonized them suckers, they "all Jerusalem" were a bunch > of crooks at the time. Whatever. Talk about categorizing. > > ............ > What did you expect that the Bible is a history book? DUH! It was until they added the NT. I don't care if you don't believe the bible is a historical book. That is your problem. > > Again you haven't got a clue what Scripture is all about. No, YOU don't have a clue. I have been trying to tell you, but you insist on believing your own BIAS speculation without any evidence WHATSOEVER to back it up. If you're not going to debunk it point by point, get the HELL out of this thread!
> > As I said, if Jesus ever did flee, it was after he was born and because of > > the miracles he was performing, when he was about 12. > > Wrong, He never went to Egypt during His life on earth. Use your brain, > interpret the biblical texts. I have no problem with the narrative of the > Wisemen, why do you make so big a fuss of it? Who the hell do you think you are? You "have no problem with it" and yet you believe it "not a historical book". What you have told me is the same as saying: "I have no problem with lies that claim to be truth." GET LOST LOSER! > > Actually this is not a prophecy of Jesus, and one of the many cases in > > Matthew where he credits Jesus with the fulfillment of some obscure or > > completely unrelated text in the Hebrew scriptures, some of which we do > not > > even know where they came from, or they were made-up out of thin air. > > Not so. What makes you think there are prophecies in the OT then if you > think that way about what Matthew wrote? Holy %*(%&* your ignorance is showing. Read real prophecies like 2Sam 7 or some other direct promise to David by Yahweh. Don't you tell me any stupid thing said in the OT can be turned into a "prophecy" like Matthew does. I agree some things can be, like messianic passages of psalms, or obscure references that have either double fulfullment or have never been fulfilled before, but Matthew just drops the bomb if you know what I mean. ...........<snip bunk> > > Notice no footnote for this prophecy. As I said before. > > > Did you verify Matthew's source? As I said before, there is no source.
======== Subject: Re: Matthews Wisemen From: "Xinoehpoel" <tesnal@psl.moc> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:36:14 -0700 --------
Uniacke <UniackeJR@rebelspiders.com> wrote in message news:rObl7.126$%G5.104544@news20.bellglobal.com... > > "Xinoehpoel" <tesnal@psl.moc> wrote in message > news:3b951e27@monitor.lanset.com... > > You make yourself a fool Uniacke. Why don't you tell us what is meant by > > those verses? Are you scared? > > Scared of what? It goes like this. Judaism was born in Babylon, during the > Babylonian captivity. > Exodus is theological, paraphrased history, the Babylonian Exile is > historical. YOU WISH LOSER! PROVE IT. > Numbers: > "The Judahites by clans were: through Shelah the clan of the Shelahites, > through Perez the clan of the Perezites, through Zerah the clan of the > Zerahites. > The Perezites were: through Hezron the clan of the Hezronites, through Hamul > the clan of the Hamulites." > > Were the Shelemites, Perezites, Zerahites, Hezronites and Hamulites Jews or > Canaanites? They were Canaanites and they spoke the Phoenician language, we > call Hebrew. > > The verses mean that what was important was not Exodus but the Babylonian > Exile. Exodus is a projection in the past, the Exile was a reality. What are you implying, the Exodus was made up because of Exile? What a bunch of lies! You are completely discounting all evidence to the CONTRARY. <snip atheist BUNK> ======== Subject: Re: Matthews Wisemen From: "Xinoehpoel" <tesnal@psl.moc> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:48:32 -0700 -------- Stop leaving your BUNK in this thread Uniacke. The worldwide flood is archaeologically proven to be histroical fact. You will DIE if you are anything like the MORONS who did not believe the flood was coming when NOAH told them even as I am telling you now. X
======== Subject: Re: Matthews Wisemen From: "Xinoehpoel" <tesnal@psl.moc> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:53:00 -0700 --------
Gary Somai <Somai@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:6lnbptgoca27k2bp5906ki131b6bl97c8l@4ax.com... > The whole purpose of the Gospel Story was *not* to portray literal > events, ........... WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TRYING TO KID!
> ..............These three kings followed a star, and it is pointed > out that the star is in the east, yet also the three kings came from > the east. This contradiction like many others found in the bible, when > it is read literally, openly suggests that the literal way is not > going to serve you very well.
AS IF this contradiction was anything but a misunderstanding of the passage! > .......
Is this a webpage pasted into a thread? Forget it.
<SNIP> X
======== Subject: Re: Matthews Wisemen From: "Xinoehpoel" <tesnal@psl.moc> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 02:03:05 -0700 -------- Stupid, ignorant, non-english speaking original language LOSER. Get the hell out of this thread. This is for believers who want to discuss the corruption in the bible that THEY BELIEVE is historical truth, not those who just want to say it is all a bunch of lies, such as yourself. Your "evidence" is pathetic, which I think anyone can see, and I do not think I need to reply to you again. Please get out of this thread, or at least post some REAL evidence. That I could respect, even coming from you. X Uniacke <UniackeJR@rebelspiders.com> wrote in message news:f2bl7.85$%G5.86261@news20.bellglobal.com... ======== Subject: Re: Matthews Wisemen From: "Xinoehpoel" <tesnal@psl.moc> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 02:07:23 -0700 --------
Dee <.@coeeaoeeaeeco> wrote in message > >> Inspired stories need not be historical. > > > >You complete DIP. They are not inspired to begin with, no not because men > >were inspired by any spirit, but only if they recorded history acturately > or > >not, which much of the Hebrew Scriptures do, and the stuff from the > Creation > >till the Exodus was given by those who were there to record it. > > By whom. Who witnessed the rib taken from Adam? GOD! > > Whose word should we take that the sun stopped for Joshua, How about Joshua's or anyone who was there to see it. .................the tower of > Babel was when people spoke in different tongues for the first time which > contradicts previous passages about the descendants of Noah speaking > different languages. Bull. Just because it says they were divided according to their tongues? Well, figure it out. That happened at Babel. > > You're a Tanakh thumper. Ok. > > So it is all > >about history, and you are completely distorting every true principal of > >logic by saying "inspired stories need not be historical," therefore, what > >need have I to speak to you? > > Need not be science neither. The passages about astronomy and the ends of > the earth are ridiculous. You say so.
======== Subject: Re: Matthews Wisemen From: "Xinoehpoel" <tesnal@psl.moc> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 03:09:55 -0700 --------
Dee <.@coeeaoeeaeeco> wrote in message > Show your proof that there was a census in Palestine in 7 BC. If you have > documented proof without twisting historical facts, I believe you could > become rich from that alone. > What is so special about 7 BC? Actually, I made a mistake, but still most secular sources date the cenus in 8 BC anyway, only one year off from 7 BC. Here is one such example, which dates the census in 6 AD: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html But what I meant to say is that some websites that say THERE ARE EGYPTIAN RECORDS of a census that was taken NOT in 20 AD, 6 AD, and 8 BC, but "shortly after 20 BC", which is to say 19 BC. Now this census was supposed to be every 14 years, (not 12 which I said according to my bad memory) so the other census years were supposed to be 5 BC and 9 AD. This doesn't change anything, because the above point I made is still valid, that the Christians have all kinds of conflicting traditions about the years Jesus lived. One website says: "The census could have taken place in the autumn of 5 BC" (Sir W. M. Ramsay's book, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? esp. ch. XI) That would seem to support the 19 BC, 5 BC, 9 AD, 23 AD rather than the 22 BC, 8 BC, 6 AD, 20 AD dates. Notice however no evidence for 2 BC being a year of the census.
======== Subject: Re: Challenge accepted! X 72 and X 74 now REVEALED to the masses!!! From: "Xinoehpoel" <tesnal@psl.moc> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 21:21:20 -0700 -------- Sir, GET THE HELL OUT OF THIS THREAD! I made this thread. You have said nothing to debunk my WORD FOR WORD translations, so you are not helping to do anything but brainwash innocent (?) hearts with your BIAS conclusions, which God willing (?) is not helping anyone. X
Gary Somai <Somai@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:v5hhptgivkn0ssgi4bsmi31f5a7hlqdlbl@4ax.com... > There is no point in anyone else debunking it. Anyone who isn't blind > can see that you're doing a good job of that, all by yourself. > > I do hope you eventually find a cure... but until then i'm afraid the > Beast must be kept quarantined. > > *plonk* > > Gary S > >
======== Subject: Re: Challenge accepted! X 72 and X 74 now REVEALED to the masses!!! From: "Xinoehpoel" <tesnal@psl.moc> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 21:53:37 -0700 -------- Peter Lemesurier <lemesur@bengal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:lathpt46nej8rmnodedb2ld7foga9bdnit@4ax.com... > On Fri, 07 Sep 2001 14:10:04 +0100, Gary Somai <Somai@btinternet.com> > wrote: > <snip> > >>Century X-72: > >> > >>L'an mil neuf cens nonante neuf sept mois, > >>Du ciel viendra vn grand Roy d'effrayeur: > >>Resusciter le grand Roy d'Angolmois, > >>Auant apres Mars regner par bon-heur. > > Now, if you care to go to Mario's site at > > http://run.to/nostradamus > > you will see that this isn't what the original edition actually says > -- so it's not likely that your interpretation will be correct, is it? > It is close enough. The meaning has not changed. I don't care if an I has became a Y. Big deal.
> >>The year 1999 seven month, > >>From the sky will come a great King of terror: > > When you have looked at the facsimile of the original, kindly tell us > which of the four original words "un grand Roy deffraieur" means > 'terror'. deffraieur. <snip> > >>Interpretation of Leo Pheonix: > >> > >>After 1999 years and seven more, (typo: mais) > > How can it be, when it has to rhyme with 'Angolmois' in line 3 (or > perhaps you hadn't noticed it was in French verse?!)? Sorry, Angolmois is a typo also of Angolmais, if I didn't make that clear by translating it MANY. > >>The Great and Terrible God Mars will first be seen coming from the sky, > > Kindly tell us which French words say 'first' and 'be seen' -- let > alone 'Mars'. 'first' is an english addition for ease of reading, becaise it says 'at this time' it can be implied that it was not before any time recently. Do I really have to explain this to you, or am I right that you have given no thought at all to my translation? Mars here is indicated by 'terrible god' = Mars. These are one and the same. It ties back into the other quatrains. Sometimes when you are RHYMING, you have to use other words for the same thing to make it sound right. > >>Coming in order to 'raise from the dead' the Great God of the many white > >>ghouls. > > Perhaps you'd better try telling the inhabitants of Angoumois in > France that they're 'white ghouls', then. Where would you prefer to be > hospitalised, BTW? I am wasting my time. Perhaps you did not consider where the town Angoumois got its name from? Maybe they were visited by a little you know what. > > >>Before and after Mars arrives, the God Satan is ruler over the earth. > > So, when Nostradamus actually does say 'Mars', suddenly he becomes > 'Satan'? Gee! ;) You don't understand the meaning behind it. > >>Century X-74: > >> > >> > >>Au revolu du grand nombre septiesme, > >>Apparoistra au temps ieux d' Hecatombe, > >>Non esloigne du grand aage milliesme, > >>Que les entrez sortiront de leur tombe. > >> > >>At the revolution of the great seventh number, > >>Will appear at the time (of) Games of Hecatombe, > >>Not very long ago from the great age of millenium, > >>That the enterers (letters) will exit from their grave. > > 'Enterers', eh? I didn't translate that. That was someone else's translation I stole. Besides, I only claimed to translate the last part, which I translated that word 'ETs'. > >>Interpretation of Leo Pheonix: > >> > >>After the completion of seven years from the commencement, > >>Mars will arrive at the time of the Games of Olympics, > >>Which is not long after the commencement of the Millennium. > >>This is when the extraterrestrials will exit out of Hell. > > Of course. Except that 'entres' (a misprint, on metrical grounds, for > 'entrés') is evidently a shortening of 'enterrés', meaning 'buried > ones'. Who else, after all, would you expect to come out of their > tombs? This is where I laugh at you, because you are forced to change the text to make it was what you want it to say. But I think it means "Enterers", those who enter from hell. True, the word has its roots in the french for "buried ones" and even letters is suggestive of white and many.
> >>*** Note: 'Extraterrestrials' here is does not signify a belief that such > >>beings originate from outer space, but quite to the contrary, that they > >>originate from 'hell'. 'Hell' here does not signify a belief that such a > >>place is a prison to damned souls, but closer to the Jewish belief of > >>'Hades' or 'Sheol' that it is a literal world ruled by a God. There is also > >>a parallel reference in the Book of Revelation to a certain ruler named > >>'Death' exiting out of a 'Bottomless Pit'. (see Rev 9:11) Nostradamus may > >>have been mimicking Revelation in order to clearify its meaning. Also, there > >>seem to be several links back to X 72, where Nostradamus mentions Mars > >>coming in order to 'raise from the dead' the 'God of many white ghouls'. > > No he doesn't. Oh? Wont you look like a fool in the year 2008. X ======== Subject: Re: Challenge accepted! X 72 and X 74 now REVEALED to the masses!!! From: "Xinoehpoel" <tesnal@psl.moc> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 22:09:58 -0700 --------
Dee <.@coeeaoeeaeeco> wrote in message > Peter has torn your interpretations to bits. My thanks go out to him. > ha, I commented on his post, and I didn't even get offended it was that pathetic. Please REPEAT any argument of his you think is worthy of consideration, for I have answered them all.
<snip> > ...some things will happen in 2006, but that is not indicated by X.72 or > X.74 directly, as you try to show. Yea right. 1999+7 = 2006
> > > >After 1999 years and seven more, (typo: mais) > > Says LP. No important Nosty interpreter says so. I receieve not honor from men. > >The Great and Terrible God Mars will first be seen coming from the sky, > >Coming in order to 'raise from the dead' the Great God of the many white > >ghouls. > >Before and after Mars arrives, the God Satan is ruler over the earth. > > .... There is no mention of Satan, 'white' ghouls, > and the god Mars coming from the sky. ha, I just showed you that there where WORD for WORD translation. > > > > >After the completion of seven years from the commencement, > > Wha? How do you (or Leo) get 'seven years after the commencement'. > You're sickening me. Revolution of seven? From what? It explains that in the third line of the same quatrain!!! You seem to be forgetting that this is prophecy done in poetry, and it cannot be but that you add certain words when translated to english. It says"completion of seven years". But from what? So I add "from the commencement," and you jump down my throat??? What the hell? When you compare it to line 3, you can see that is the correct interpretation. > >Mars will arrive at the time of the Games of Olympics, > > Mars again?! Where in this quatrain is he mentioned. It is implied again by the slaughter mentioned in line 2. It all ties back to X-72 again. ....Mars already arrived in > the seventh month of 1999 according to the above interpretation. You fail to understand the meanings, but I need not explain seeing as how you clearly do not even so much as study my interpretations close enough let alone my other writings. ........So he keeps > arriving every year, according to Nostradamus? Like I said. > > >Which is not long after the commencement of the Millennium. > >This is when the extraterrestrials will exit out of Hell. > > Where does it state anything about ET's? The experts don't mention any. I receieve not honor from men. <snip> > Specify the source for *white* ghouls. oh you are lame. You don't even understand the reason for white? Lame. > >Since 'raise from the dead' could be a way of saying 'release from the pit > >of hell' or 'exit out of Hell' and X 74 times the arrival of Mars with the > >appearance of extraterrestrials, it could be logically inferred that the > >extraterrestrials are what Revelation calls 'the armies of Death' or 'the > >ones who come with the God Death from hell'. > > Maybe there is a Revelation reference, but the rest of your (or Leo's) > interpretations are too strange and childish to even bother with. Would you > like to try again? Your interpretation doesn't deserve a > counterinterpretation from me. > I am content. Like I said, I could care less right now. I have done what I did for you, but you learnt not from me that you might not be saved by your actions. > You would have gotten a counterinterpretation if you mentioned kings, the > possibility of deffraieur as written, the possibility that Mars reigning > could mean wars before and after the seventh month of 1999, the Olympics in > X.74, etc. ???? You really are decreasing in knowledge. All that is BULLCRAP interpretations of MEN. <snip> X
======== Subject: Re: Matthews Wisemen From: "Xinoehpoel" <tesnal@psl.moc> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 22:30:50 -0700 -------- Uniacke <UniackeJR@rebelspiders.com> wrote in message > > You talk like a Judaizer. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God. > If you don't, it is because you are more of a Jew than a Christian. The > Church wrote Matthew as well as the other Gospels. Follow the teachings of > the Church and then you can call yourself a Christian. I am not a Christian, and obviously neither are you. I would care about what you have to say, but I have already heard what you have to say, and well, it is false. What else is there to say? You just like to talk, and talk, but you have nothing to back up what you say. At least when I debunk Christianity, I only debunk the parts I can disprove, and to show my non-bias, I believe the rest, which is why I believe Jesus rose from the dead. But you on the other hand, have to standard for which you believe, "choosing" rather to believe what ever you want to believe. My unbiased beliefs only prove that I am more right, but of course people like you think it's all foolishness, all lies. You don't realize you have crossed over the line, went the way of the Christians, IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. That isn't the point. It is only to purge the evil and the lies, not everything, as you have done with everything before and after 600 BC. <snip> > There are no lies in Scripture. The Bible is a theological document, not a > history book. You poor non-english speaking person you. You fail to understand the usage of the word LIE as being applied here means NON-TRUTH. No one says "there are no lies in scripture" and also "every single word isn't literally true", but you have went so far as to say it is all myth. If they do say that, they are WRONG, and these people, even as yourself, tend to go ignored for being so TWO-FACED and contradicting themselves. If you want to get some attention for your beliefs, say rather "THERE ARE LIES IN SCRIPTURE" and "THE GOSPEL OF JESUS ARE HISTORICALLY FALSE." ........... You can disagree with Christian theology, that is your > previlege, but you cannot call a lie what is theology. WRONG AGAIN. Learn english. False theology is called and can be called A LIE. ...............You cannot prove > theology. Yes you can. ..............You can't prove that the OT narratives describe historical events. Yes you can. > What evidence do you have? I would not reveal this to one such as yourself. If you believed, yea, but you would be a waste of time. Don't throw perals to swine. You know I probably wont reply to you anymore. I have done all I can to help you. <snip>
======== Subject: Re: Matthews Wisemen From: "Xinoehpoel" <tesnal@psl.moc> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 22:33:58 -0700 -------- LIAR! You speak from your ignorance, knowing now the history and origin of Moses' writings. X
======== Subject: Re: Matthews Wisemen From: "Xinoehpoel" <tesnal@psl.moc> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 22:36:13 -0700 -------- GOD IS GOING TO DESTROY THIS WORLD. YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME NOW, BUT UNLESS YOU SOMEONE ARE ABLE TO LIVE THROUGH THE DESTRUCTION, YOU PROBABLY WONT BELIEVE AFTERWARDS EITHER. X
======== Subject: Re: Matthews Wisemen From: "Xinoehpoel" <tesnal@psl.moc> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 22:39:09 -0700 -------- Yes Gary, she does have some perconceived beliefs, that much is obvious, but so do you as well, which you are able to detect. You too need to repent and consider for one moment that you could be wrong, and I could be right.
"You only see, what you want to see.... la la la . I'm broken when your heart's not open." - a song X
Gary Somai <Somai@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:2ndhptk7fl1ap10me0227e4f1poq5gflm4@4ax.com... > On Fri, 07 Sep 2001 07:39:04 GMT, yardholler@home.com wrote: > > >Misty wrote: > > > >I do not want to argue, my friend, I want to have a discussion. > > > >I am not totally convince of some of the things that are going on today that some > >say is biblical, and it seems to look like it could be biblical, but when the truth > >be known, it is some one other then our Lord of Creation that is trying to make us > >stumble over those thing that have been perverted. > > Perhaps you need to contemplate on the following verse: > > Mark 10:15 > Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God > as a little child, he shall not enter therein. > > In other words, the subconscious mind must be purified of all the > preconceptions and baggage that it carries, (just like a newly born). > Especially the baggage that the ego carries in the name of (....insert > belief system here...). > > See my posts headed "Genesis and the Gospels through the looking > glass" and "The Treasure is buried in the place of the Skull, > (Golgotha)" for more of this INsight. > > Gary S > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Learn about the True method of Nostradamus > And other Prophets > Visit Golgotha, the Place of the Skull! > X marks the spot > http://www.u-net.com/~eyedeal > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
======== Subject: Re: Matthews Wisemen From: "Xinoehpoel" <tesnal@psl.moc> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 22:47:08 -0700 -------- All I was saying is that the gospels were never intended to have contradictions. When it says they say they came from the east it means just that, they came from the east. When it says they saw the star in the east it means just that, they say the star in the place where they came from, the east, and they followed it there. The star it seems to be describing seems to be a UFO. They wanted the readers to believe a UFO led the wise men to Jesus. You are going overboard by suggesting the writers did not mean the gospels to be a historical account. X
Gary Somai <Somai@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:8eghptkts0863hq4age9i00i4krqsnrng7@4ax.com... > On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:53:00 -0700, "Xinoehpoel" <tesnal@psl.moc> > wrote: > > > > > > >Gary Somai <Somai@btinternet.com> wrote in message > >news:6lnbptgoca27k2bp5906ki131b6bl97c8l@4ax.com... > >> The whole purpose of the Gospel Story was *not* to portray literal > >> events, ........... > > > >WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TRYING TO KID! > > > > > >> ..............These three kings followed a star, and it is pointed > >> out that the star is in the east, yet also the three kings came from > >> the east. This contradiction like many others found in the bible, when > >> it is read literally, openly suggests that the literal way is not > >> going to serve you very well. > > > > > >AS IF this contradiction was anything but a misunderstanding of the passage! > > > >> ....... > > When it suits you i suppose! > > I however see a different purpose.. > > Gary S > > > _______The Tree of Knowledge_______ > The source of Satan's greatest deception > Are the 5 biological sensory organs > For when used as the tools of observation > They simply reflect the illusion that is man's > http://www.u-net.com/~eyedeal
======== Subject: Re: Matthews Wisemen From: "Xinoehpoel" <tesnal@psl.moc> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 22:52:56 -0700 --------
Dee <.@coeeaoeeaeeco> wrote in message >......Who witnessed the rib taken from Adam? > > > >GOD! > > Did God write the OT or did humans. Sheesh. Do you know anything about the history of the Torah? > >> Whose word should we take that the sun stopped for Joshua, > > > >How about Joshua's or anyone who was there to see it. > > No scholar has claimed that Joshua wrote a book of the Bible. Don't need a scholar for that one. It says so in the book with his name. > How about we take the words of Homer, that Odysseus blinded the Cyclops, who > was the son of Neptune. How about we take the Orphic legends of the demigod > Dionysus literally. Some people do, and there are good reasons for doing so. ..........Why should anyone respect the OT more than the Greek > myths, when there is so much absurdity and primitive thibking in the OT or > Tanakh?
> >.................the tower of > >> Babel was when people spoke in different tongues for the first time which > >> contradicts previous passages about the descendants of Noah speaking > >> different languages. > > > >Bull. Just because it says they were divided according to their tongues? > >Well, figure it out. That happened at Babel. > > Quote the passages chapter and verse, and I'll show you the contradiction. Although I believe the OT and NT both have contradictions and absurdities, there is no contradiction here. If you could point one out, you would have done so. Make me look real bad. But you know there is not one in this particular case.
======== Subject: Re: Matthews Wisemen (every 14 year census) From: "Xinoehpoel" <tesnal@psl.moc> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 23:00:37 -0700 --------
Dee <.@coeeaoeeaeeco> wrote in message > NAME a historical writer FROM THAT TIME who wrote of a census in Palestine > equivalent to the census mentioned by Josephus (who wrote of a census which > occurred under Quinirius AFTER the son of Herod the Great was deposed), but > occurred in some time period between 20 BC and 1 AD. >
For your sake, as I have said, there are supposedly Egyptian records from that time (?) that claim 20/19 BC as a census year, with 14 year separations, and even the secular sources say the same thing about 6 AD, so I don't exactly know what you are getting at. Are you suggesting there was not so much as one cenus in between the years 19 BC and 6 AD? If so, I got to hand it to you, there doesn't seem to be any historical record, besides some supposed 14 year gap. If you know any secular argument against traditional dating for any census in the 15 BC - 5 AD timeframe, I am completely open to hear it. X
======== Subject: Re: Challenge accepted! X 72 and X 74 now REVEALED to the masses!!! From: "Xinoehpoel" <tesnal@psl.moc> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 02:24:31 -0700 --------
Peter Lemesurier <lemesur@bengal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:e5gmptcgsd5c8f962o69udafosqi0v8j1k@4ax.com... > On Sun, 09 Sep 2001 09:05:56 GMT, "Dee" <.@coeeaoeeaeeco> wrote: > > >Hmmm. I guess you refuted Peter. I wonder what he thinks. > > So the expression means 'a great King Terror'? Which word means 'of', > then? You don't need an of. Great Terrible God . No of. > > Meanwhile let's look at some contemporary dictionaries, shall we, to > find out what it *really* means?... > > "Parochus...Vng deffraieur, qui nous fournist > de tout ce qu'il nous fault par les chemins." (Estienne, > Dictionarium Latinogallicum, 1st edition,1538) > > [Or in English: 'Parochus (purveyor)... A provider/host who furnishes > us with everything that we need for the road'. Note the spelling > 'deffraieur' - exactly the same as in the original version of verse > X.72 of only 30 years later] > > "Parochus...Un deffrayeur, qui nous fournist de tout ce qu'il nous > fault par les chemins." (Estienne, Dictionarium Latinogallicum, 3rd > edition, 1552) > > "Defrayeur: m. A Cater, or Steward; one that in a > iourney furnishes, and defrayes the prouision, and expence of the > whole companie." (Cotgrave, 1611) > > This could almost suggest the meaning 'host'... > > "de.fray vt [MF deffrayer, fr. des- de- + frayer to expend, fr. OF, > fr. (assumed) OF frai expenditure, lit., damage by breaking, fr. L > fractum, neut. of fractus, pp. of frangere to break--more at break] > (1536) 1: to provide for the payment of: pay 2 archaic: to bear the > expenses of -- de.fray.able adj -- de.fray.al n" > > [Copyright (c) 1994 Merriam-Webster, Inc. All Rights Reserved] > > Still mean 'terror' does it? ;) > What shall I say? Deffraieur is a corruption of d'effrayeur. See how the usage goes along with d'Angolmois? The apostraphe is used the exact same way! Nostradamus uses it this way a lot in his prophecies. > >>Sorry, Angolmois is a typo also of Angolmais, if I didn't make that clear > >by > >>translating it MANY. > > Ah -- TWO typos, eh? ;) > > And what would 'Angolmais' mean when it's about? I already translated that. You can see what it means. > > >>'first' is an english addition for ease of reading, becaise it says 'at > >this > >>time' it can be implied that it was not before any time recently. Do I > >>really have to explain this to you, or am I right that you have given no > >>thought at all to my translation? > > Where does it say 'at this time'? Ah -- you mean 'because it specifies > the date'? OK... > > >> > >>Mars here is indicated by 'terrible god' = Mars. These are one and the > >same. > >>It ties back into the other quatrains. > > Which other quatrains? The other two places where it is refered to in my translations. > > > Sometimes when you are RHYMING, you > >>have to use other words for the same thing to make it sound right. > > You do indeed. But you then use expressions that are known to be > synonyms of it -- 'God of War', 'Ares', 'Red Planet' or whatever... > You can't just assert that any old word is a synonym for what you want > it to be! > Terrible God, when used in the same quatrain, especially in light of the reality of the matter, can only mean Mars. > >>I am wasting my time. Perhaps you did not consider where the town Angoumois > >>got its name from? Maybe they were visited by a little you know what. > > OK, tell us where the town Angoumois got its name from. I said, it was probably named after the sightings of aliens there. > > Especially given that there is no such town. Oh great. > > (Oh, and you might do the same for 'Angoulême', given that that was in > fact its origin) You mean ghoul sightings? See, I knew it had its origins in many white ghouls. <snip> > > >>> Of course. Except that 'entres' (a misprint, on metrical grounds, for > >>> 'entrs') is evidently a shortening of 'enterr s', meaning 'buried > >>> ones'. Who else, after all, would you expect to come out of their > >>> tombs? > >> > >>This is where I laugh at you, because you are forced to change the text to > >>make it was what you want it to say. > > Ah! So you'll be laughing at yourself twice over, then, for changing > 'mois' into 'mais' and 'Angoumois' into 'Angoumais'? Hmm -- hilarious! > ;) Na, not in 2008. If it meant 1999 and 7 months, it failed. But obviously Nostradamus was trying to get it to rhyme with angolmais, so he made it so say 1999 and 7 more. It is called poetry. > > But I think it means "Enterers", those > >>who enter from hell. > > That would be 'entrants'. We can't have you making up French words to > fit your own thesis, can we?! Entrez = Entrer Look it up in the dictionary, or on babylon.com It means the "the ones who enter" Or what about étranger, ALIENS. All part of the same family. They are called aliens for a reason you know. They are not openly present on this earth, so when they COME/ENTER they make CONTACT, they are not considered aliens for ever, only at first, after they enter. You are bias against my interpretation. You don't like me or my translations, because you have to take credit for everything yourself. You only respect your own translations. That is where you err. > > > True, the word has its roots in the french for "buried > >>ones" and even letters is suggestive of white and many. > > Well, let's assume the other possible explanation, shall we? For > metrical reasons, as I said, the original word has to have been > 'entrés' (otherwise the verse doesn't work). Now my suggestion is that > Nostradamus arrived at this via 'enterrés' (buried ones), which at > least has the merit (unlike your proposed version) of making sense in > context, since it is the buried who, if anybody, are the ones who are > going to have to come out of the tombs as prophesied. You don't understand, and at this rate you never will. How much more clearly do I have to spell it out for you. In X-74, line 4, Nostradamus prophesied alien contact in the year 2008. (line 1) > > However, 'enterrés' has one syllable too many (perhaps you didn't > realise that such things counted?), since a caesura, or hiatus, always > comes in the verse after the fourth syllable -- and so the question > arose of how to shorten it to fit. At which point the word 'entrés' > (entered ones) suggested itself -- since the line would now mean 'That > those who have gone into their tombs will come out of them.' Which at > least was logical, and offered a nice contrast between 'entrés' (gone > in) and 'sortiront' (will come out). Poor soul. You are missing the prophetic significance in favor of metrical and other mumbo jumbo. I am not trying to diss your hard work at arriving at the proper reading, but you are missing the big picture, which is the most important aspect. > > Clever stuff! And those who knew what he was about could still detect > the word 'enterrés' underneath it all! > > If they cared to, that is. > Look, if you are right, Nostradamus' prophecies are just not interesting. But if there is something there to be treasured, it lies in my interpretation. >
|