The Bible is a Deck of Cards

by IslandWoman 34 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Larsguy

  Hi AChristian,
  The more and more you post the more and more I realize you don't know much...

  Simply because the writers of the New Testament did not quote from some of the Old Testament's books does not prove they are not inspired and do not belong in the Bible cannon. Do you know of any New Testament writer who quoted from Revelation? Of course not. Does that prove it does not belong in the Bible cannon?[/Q]

  Hello? Revelation is in the NT not the OT in case you didn't notice. The reference was for NT Bible writers quoting from books in the Old Testament and leaving three books out that are in the common current cannon, Esther, Ecclesiastes and SOS. That's ALL I said. The cross-quoting thus implies it's only cannon if you presume this was intention to include books they wanted in the canon and to exclude books they didn't want in the canon, even if there was otherwise nothing wrong with them, historically correct or otherwise.

  Your statement that "Esther is in historical conflict with EZRA/NEHEMIAH" is only your own nutty opinion. You say this because to believe otherwise would invalidate your wacky understandings of Bible chronology which you say prove that you became Jesus Christ in 1992. You try to invalidate the chronological information contained in Esther which conflicts with your nutty interpretations of Bible history by pointing out that Esther is not quoted in the New Testament. Of course this means you must also throw out Ecclesiastes and The Song of Solomon,which you then do.

  You obviously don't know what your talking about. The fact is, besides confirming that Artaxerxes I and Xerxes were the same king, that the ORIGINAL version of Esther which is found in the Septuagint has her married to "Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes". This is something you can't get out of but might want to look up in Josephus so you can claim he doesn't know what he's talking about either. But it doesn't matter, the conflict is there. The other Bible books do not mention Queen Esther and Nehemiah was the "prime minister" and chief cupbearer during the reing of Artaxerxes. The current version of Esther in most Bible's change the king Esther was married to to "Ahasuerus" who they variously decide is either "Xerxes" or some other king (the WTS say Xerxes). But that's just the revised version. The original version showed her married to Artaxerxes which does conflict with Ezra and Nehemiah.

  So no matter what, if the revisions during the Seleucid Period which added 82 years of fake history to the Persian Period is considered confirmed, then the rule of Xerxes and Artaxerxes become combined and that leaves no place for the book of Esther historically per the Bible.

  Now since you're so critical, AChristian, funny to me I already pointed out to you that Ezra 6:14,15 limits the rule of Darius I to 6 years and shows Artaxerxes coming to the throne as the "4th king" after Cyrus which means Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king according to the Bible (Cyrus, Ahasuerus/Kambyses, Artaxerxes/Bardiya, Darius I, Xerxes/Artaxerxes). Instead, it was you who claimed that this simple reference as to which Persian king last completed the temple was some reference to some later work some 57 years later on the temple instead of just accepting that the chronology of the Bible and that of the revising pagans does not match. Plus, I've already shown where you can match up the battle of Marathon to the 6th year of Darius I by Greek history.

  Anyway, you're the one on a fantasy trip and needs to see a doctor, not me. You are welcome to believe whatever you wish, but the fact that Esther is not historically correct is an easy one.

  If you're even curious as to confirming this, which I think you don't want to since you like living in a fantasy world, is simply CHECK JOSEPHUS. He revises his history per the original version of Esther which shows her married to Artaxerxes, but he blatantly dates the story of Ezra and Nehmiah BEFORE that of Esther during the reign of XERXES!!! You can see an electronic version of Josephus on the web at various places. This is more proof that Josephus clearl knew that Esther was a loose reference to Nehemiah (whose Babylonian name was Mordecai) and that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king.

  So, really AChristian, unless you're criticall and academically prepared to dismiss on a secular basis this history, I wouldn't bother trying to refute what I say. I have ACADEMIC proof of the conspiracy and the original dating. So you're just MISINFORMED and deceived. But then again, since the Bible so clearly states that Darius only ruled for 6 years, which is confirmed by the reliefs of Persepolis which shows he couldn't even finish that city after just 2 years, meaning he died suddenly, then you'll never have the truth.

  Anyway, just read the original SEPTUAGINT (since you're so into 70) version of Esther and you'll see that that version contradicts Ezra/Nehemiah since it says she is married to ARTAXERXES not "Ahasuerus/Xerxes"--it was later revised. There's nothing you can do about it but go into denial or take a few Prozac.

  Sorry.

  L.G.

  And by the way, I don't know why you're so hung up on an anti-1992 dating for the Second Coming. The Jews returned to Palestine in 1947 and that forces 1992 to 45 years later per the 1335 days prophecy. So I don't need Esther or any ancient historical revisionist rhetoric to date the second coming to 1992. Furthermore, as I also told you, the 70th consecutive week from 36CE dates mid-week Passover to 1993 which is another implied dating for the second coming. So I don't even have to deal with the "7 times" prophecy or all the confusion from the ancient history to date the second coming in 1992; I can use either 36CE or 1947 A.D. All my research proves is that the original chronology dated the fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE which simply COORDINATES the 1992-1993 dating already established.

  [QUOTE]You are not Jesus Christ. You are mentally ill. See a Doctor.

  I am Jesus Christ (I can't lie about it, I have to admit it when confronted). I may very well be mentally ill. And the doctors gave up on me long time ago. Haa haa! But you're in DENIAL and you need to see a doctor or at least schedule an appointment for when you are finally forced to accept REALITY.
• 

  Larsguy

  Pretending for one moment that your god exists, unless he uses his superpowers to physically subdue me, I would never bow to him. I would rather spend every day of my eternity in hell cursing his existence. But that's just because I have principles.

  You know, FD, people like you are the very ones that are ripe to be converted. They say there are no atheists in the fox holes, and the same loosely applies here. That's because if God sent an angel to you in person you'd suddenly become a believer. That's what happened to Paul. So if God thinks you have any other redeeming qualities and thinks your worth it and wants to put you to work on his side, especially since you seem to be so HONEST, then he just might perform a little miracle for you to see how fast you'll convert!!!!

  I hope he does!!!

  In the meantime, since the second coming occurred in 1992 for the JIOR Group, we see some miracles of holy spirit so our confirmation of a God does go into the extra-Biblical area and I must say, it DOES make a difference. Living on FAITH 100% vs having seen a more direct manifestation of God and his works.

  But this falls under the category of "those who have a lot, more will be given, those who have nothing even what they have will be taken from them." So the ones with the most faith, who believed in scripture and accepted it, are the ones that get the extra-supernatural manifestations of God now. Those who only have half faith or are doubting are stumbled by many things that takes even their weak faith away.

  So, some of us are actually seeing miracles now as prophesied, just for the record and it DOES make a difference to have your faith in God confirmed. It's not so easy for us now post 1992 to deny God having seen some of his works firsthand.

  Take care! I hope an angel visits you soon!!! -- (with good news, though, not bad. An angel will definitely be coming to visit the world but it will be bad news, of course, sort of like the Flood?)

  See ya!

  L.G.
• 

  aChristian

  LG,

  I hope you didn't write all that for me. I hardly read any of it. I doubt anyone else did either, at least not anyone who knows you are totally insane. See a Doctor.
• 

  willy_think

  LG,

  So, 3 books don't belong in the bible because they are not quoted in the NT?

  If the church was wrong in those 3 books of the bible in the OT, how can you say they were right about the NT cannon? certainly the gospel of Tom quotes the OT but is not included in the NT.

  You seem to be backing your belief on a false understanding. the NT writers didn't pick a cannon. They had no way to know there works would be brought together and declared inspired by the church.

  The NT cannon and the OT cannon is called "inspired" by the Church's authority alone, the end, there is no more, fin.

  If you accept the Church's authority fine, if you don't that's fine too, but don't talk out of your ass, about making up your own cannon based on OT quotes.

  LG you do need help and I truly hope you get it.
• 

  Larsguy

  Hi Willy-Think:

  I totally agree with you that it seems only the Church's authority determines the NT. It's debatable about how much purposeful internal canon efforts were made with the NT writings, however, because the apostles were in control of which letters were being sent to the congregations, etc. and at some point I do believe the Christian overseers established a body of letters they considered as the NT and then that became what our NT is.

  However, really, the ONLY, ONLY, ONLY point I was making, since all of this is rather indefensible is just noting a TECHNICAL issue I noted when researching the canon and that is simply that per the current NT books they all quote from the OT books except for 3. That's all I'm saying.

  Some peole make a big deal out of it and consider this as the NT writers way of excluding any other works as being inspired and others (like yourself) consider it a coincidence. That's fine. I was just noting that three books were excluded AND, incidentally, at least two of them, Esther and SOS can be aggressively challenged as being "inspired" on various bases which adds credance to dismissing them or not including them.

  In other words, it would have been embarassing to find out that Esther and SOS were uninspired if the NT writers quoted from them and I'd be explaining it was just a loose reference and not meant to consider them as inspired or something. But SOS and Esther are definitely flawed and I would have dismissed them as inspired as other canon scholars have anyway. Both were very late additions to the canon, as I noted, and were not even in the canon when Josephus completed his work. Esther didn't get into the canon until the 3rd century and the "Feast of Esther" was always considered a pagan holiday during Jesus' day. So there's a little history going there.

  Everything I decide upon is not designed just to twist things into my beliefs. Some of this stuff is quite fundamental and you can go research it yourself.

  As far as me always being "sick" and needing a doctor, that's just a cop-out for not having a better explanation to refute my opinions. I stand by my opinions, insane or otherwise.

  Thanks for your comment.

  Cheerio,
  L.G.
• 

  Larsguy

  You know, AChristian, you're going to have problems with this anti-Messiah thing you've got going.

  LG, I hope you didn't write all that for me. I hardly read any of it. I doubt anyone else did either, at least not anyone who knows you are totally insane. See a Doctor.

  For instance, I thought I was just an anointed prophet when I jumped into the dumpsters which was a means of camaflauging some escape I was led to believe was necessary. I let myself be dumped into that dump truck thinking there was a secret trap door I was going to slip into and be taken to a secret place. I didn't know what was going on. And furthermore, I actually saw an apparation of Jesus Christ earlier so had no idea what was happening until it actually did. BUT...only AFTER that happened, that I became combined with the spirit of Jesus Christ, did I then go BACK to the scriptures to find out all this stuff, including the 1992 dating! None of that happened before.

  Only AFTER I became the Messiah did I realize the parable of the prodigal son was about ME because that was my story.

  Only AFTER I became the Messiah did I realize that the Rich Man and Lazarus parable reflected on the fact that the second coming Messiah would be homosexual and a J.W.

  Only AFTER this happened did the second wave offering WITH LEAVEN make sense since the Messiah was now in the imperfect flesh. Who would have thought even if Jesus was to come back in the flesh that he'd come back in someone else's body, an impefect body? But the wave offerings show that perfectly!

  And obviously the Messiah is by CHOICE shown at Zechariah 3 where you see the chosen Messiah standing there with befouled garments representing his past sins! This is the SAME person, the same prodigal son, the same former practicing homosexual who becomes the Messiah which the Bible shows he does.

  Plus it is clear the Messiah comes out of the Bride Class first as a child and taken up to heaven to become combined with Jesus Christ.

  So I was amazed as anybody to realize the Bible was actually teaching what happened and that the chronology was specific to WHEN it happened. I had no clue before. Which is more power to my course because while some might say I am not the promised Messiah, nobody can turn the scriptures around at this point and claim the Bible doesn't teach that Jesus would come back by taking up the body of the prodigal son/Lazarus. It's right there in scripture. It's not a hard doctrine to follow.

  So bottom line is, someone else might end up being the Messiah besides me, but he still must be a black, ex-homosexual JW who gets anointed in 1992 to fulfill the Bible's prophecies and there is nothing you can do about that but be BIBLICALLY INCORRECT per that belief.

  So if I need to see a doctor, so do you, since you're in Biblical denial.

  You can be shocked, AChristian, all you want, but you can't change what the BIBLE says.

  THE SECOND WAVE OFFERING IS WITH LEAVEN!!!!

  Get it?

  DUHHHHHHHHHHHHH?

  Wake up!

  Cheerio,
  L.G., the happy Messiah
• 

  aChristian

  : THE SECOND WAVE OFFERING IS WITH LEAVEN!!!! Get it?

  You must be not just mentally ill but also mentally retarded. Because I have explained to you several times what the second wave offering being with leaven was meant to picture. I have also explaind to you how you misinterpret all the other passages of scripture which you repeatedly quote to me. But you keep repeating your same twisted interpretations of them as if you have never told me them before.

  All of your interpretations of scripture which you have concocted to convince yourself that you are Jesus Christ are absolute rubbish. You are not Jesus Christ. You are a very sick man. See a Doctor. But in any case, please never respond to one of my posts again. I'm tired of reading your same old garbage.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Mike

  What is proof something did not occure? This is not logic or scientific.If I tell you Zeus told me last night that I was his chosen one, can you prove it did not happen?The burden of proof always rests upon the positive assertion it did happen.
  Yet it is interesting that the miracle of walking on water,the floating axe head,calming a storm, were popular tales attributed to greek gods centuries before Christ.While not absolute proof it did not happen with Jesus also it does suggest a Greek influence.Knowing how religions form and evolve, reasonable people would suspect early christian writers utilized literary license to promote their savior figure.As I've said in other threads the coincidences are numerous and specific.This evidence requires honest consideration.The proof you would have to have that these events occurred in the life of Jesus would have be very weighty.More than the need to believe.
• 

  aChristian

  Pete,

  You asked: What is proof something did not occure? This is not logic or scientific.

  I am well aware of that fact. I was responding to a somewhat surprising statement made to the contrary by FD. He wrote, "If an unbeliever proves definitively that something you believe cannot possibly be true ..." I was the one who pointed out to him, as you have to me, that what he suggested is not possible.

  You wrote: The proof you would have to have that these events occurred in the life of Jesus would have be very weighty. More than the need to believe.

  You seem to be assuming that I have not based my beliefs on strong evidence, that I have based them on only a "need to believe." You are mistaken.
• 

  Larsguy

  To those other than AChristian re second wave offering with leaven.

  AChristian claims not to answer my posts but only to post rebuttal for the sake of others, so I will do the same thing.

  AChristian claims he explained why the second wave offering with leaven does not apply to Jesus' second coming in the imperfect flesh. However, there IS NO EXPLANATION other than the obvious.

  Jesus must fulfill the "firstfruits". The firstfruits are two, the firstfruits of barley during passover week and the firstfruits at Pentecost. AChristian would have us ignore that Jesus does not fulfill the firstfruits at Pentecost which is WITH LEAVEN, in stark contrast to the first wave offering of firstfruits which is WITHOUT LEAVEN. Furthermore, we have the entire Passover week emphasizing Christ's physical body by the UNLEAVENED BREAD. This shows the bread is sinless.

  Therefore, when you have a second, specific, firstfruits wave offering specifically of LOAVES WITH LEAVEN, something should click. You should understand the Bible is trying to tell us that the second coming body of Christ would be in the imperfect flesh as an ordinary man. The ONLY way for that to happen is if Jesus adopts the body of somone else, plain and simple.

  Now that's the PREMISE. We now have to examine scriptures from this point to see if this premise is correct. But there is nothing anyone can do about it. If the first wave offering firstfruits represents Jesus' imperfect body then the second must represent him also and that means he must appear as an imperfect man at the second coming.

  But what happens when we examine other scriptures? WE GET A CONFIRMATION!

  1. Note that Jesus is in heven just kicking Satan out of heaven in the vision of Revelation when a woman, representing the earthly anointed bride class gives birth to a new Messiah who is caught up to heaven to God. What does this mean? What CAN it mean? Well note there are TWO MESSIAHS all of a sudden, one great angelic Messiah in heaven and a newly born one coming out of the woman. If the woman represents the Bride Class then this simply represents one of her "seed" or one of her members coming forth to be caught up to heaven. But for what? To BECOME THE MESSIAH! Thus the two Messiahs now become ONE. And that's how Jesus ends up in an imperfect body at the second coming. And that's WHY the second wave offering of firstfruits is shown, appropriately so, WITH LEAVEN. It's not that complex.

  Anyway, the combination of showing that the second-coming Messiah at the time Satan is kicked out of heaven comes from an earthly source along with the second wave offering showing the nature of the Body of Christ being WITH LEAVEN, proves he appears in the imperfect flesh at the second coming and he does that by ADOPTION of the body of one of his followers coming out of the Bride Class.

  That is what the BIBLE teaches. If you want to follow AChristian, who seems more and more of an idiot the more he posts, that's fine. It's about WHAT YOU decide what the Bible says based upon the cooresponding scriptures. These scriptures prove Jesus is in the imperfect flesh at the second coming, and that's the end of it.

  Be right, or be WRONG, it's as simple as that.

  L.G.