Ugh...Avatar not ugly mask, nice neanderthal like picture, nice picture -- not ugly creature, nice person. Nice. Koko loves lips. Koko think neanderthal pretty. Smart look in avatar, neanderthal think big, Koko think small. Koko want drink. Apple drink.
Leolaia
JoinedPosts by Leolaia
-
60
Why did you choose your avatar?
by FMZ ini have seen many threads about avatars, here is another one:.
i have had this avatar for some time on another board.
i was going to put a picture of myself in there, but decided against it, as i realized this picture has some symbolism to me.
-
-
-
60
Why did you choose your avatar?
by FMZ ini have seen many threads about avatars, here is another one:.
i have had this avatar for some time on another board.
i was going to put a picture of myself in there, but decided against it, as i realized this picture has some symbolism to me.
-
-
Leolaia
Homey, the guy from Columbo looks just like Roddy McDowell.
A ha! I was right....see I do have a good memory.
From the "Columbo Episode Guide":
- Short Fuse (1/19/72)
- Young inventor (Roddy McDowall) about to be forced out of the family chemical business uses exploding cigar box to kill his uncle and his detective/chauffer. Columbo claims the cigar box never exploded, and produces it while in a tram with the murderer, who panics.
Yup....dat's da one! :)
-
60
Why did you choose your avatar?
by FMZ ini have seen many threads about avatars, here is another one:.
i have had this avatar for some time on another board.
i was going to put a picture of myself in there, but decided against it, as i realized this picture has some symbolism to me.
-
-
Leolaia
TonyT: Your avatar is Grrrrrr-reat!
-
287
All About The Trinity
by UnDisfellowshipped inwhen jesus was about to die, he showed who his superior was by praying: "father, if you wish, remove this cup from me.
the one god is eternal (has always existed and always will), immortal (his divine nature cannot die), omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (he is everywhere at the same time), god is the only one who can read human hearts and minds, god cannot sin and cannot lie, god does not change his morals or his nature.
the trinity is not one person revealed three different ways (this is what "oneness pentecostals" believe).
-
-
Leolaia
elderwho.....Man, that's full-blown 21st-century Sabellianism and Patripassionism...very interesting!
I should also say, knowing a bit about Canaanite and Akkadian (i.e. Babylonian mythology), the so-called Babylonian trinity of Nimrod-Tammuz-Semiramis is utterly nonexistent (being an erroneous, made-up concept invented by a certain 19th-century anti-Catholic writer), and the "Backsliden Israel" trinity and the other "Babylonian" trinity are simply lumpings together of deities worshipped in Israel and Babylon -- in no sense do these represent at all a three-in-one trinity concept, nor do these form triads of a male deity, his consort, and son; in Israel Tammuz was an Akkadian import parallel partly with Dagan and partly with Baal himself, and Asherah (Ashoreth?) was the mother of Baal -- not his consort. Neither was she analogous to Babylonian Ishtar; Athtart/Astarte was. And Ishtar was the consort of Tammuz -- not his mother (Sirdu, also spelled Sidur or Durdur, was Dumuzi's mother).
In short, it's BS.
-
60
Why did you choose your avatar?
by FMZ ini have seen many threads about avatars, here is another one:.
i have had this avatar for some time on another board.
i was going to put a picture of myself in there, but decided against it, as i realized this picture has some symbolism to me.
-
-
Leolaia
frankie....I appreciate your comment very much, thank you. I guess you get both sides of me in the two avatars. The old avatar was more rugged but also sweet, and I really liked how it humanized the unfamiliar. The new avatar is elegant and expresses my love for things from the belle epoch. The only thing tho is that I don't like how the face is in shadow....so I might find a substitute pic sometime....
Here is the full picture:
-
60
Why did you choose your avatar?
by FMZ ini have seen many threads about avatars, here is another one:.
i have had this avatar for some time on another board.
i was going to put a picture of myself in there, but decided against it, as i realized this picture has some symbolism to me.
-
-
Leolaia
gotmyfortyhomey.....I think I recall that guy...I'm a Colombo fan so I've seen most of them. Was that the guy who killed with a bomb in a cigar and he totally freaked when Colombo nabbed him in the ski lift? He had some funny accent, I think??
-
10
YOOOOOUUUU WHHHOOOOO SHOTGUN!!
by Sassy inshotgun posted today that he ran out of posts..
damn.....my topic posting limit is up..should have left the brass monkey"s balls alone today!
sooooo.. now is a good time to gossup about shotgun.... we know he can take it!!!
-
-
Leolaia
Yikes!!! We gotta rescue Rabbit!! How dare Shotgun take that out on a fellow JWDer.....
-
60
Why did you choose your avatar?
by FMZ ini have seen many threads about avatars, here is another one:.
i have had this avatar for some time on another board.
i was going to put a picture of myself in there, but decided against it, as i realized this picture has some symbolism to me.
-
-
Leolaia
So many ppl complained about how oogly my old one was....so I changed it.
-
8
Trial Scene Reconstruction
by peacefulpete insince we ave discussed the trial of jesus scenes and reconstructions of urmark etc.
i thought i'd just post this comment made on another forum.
the author is john abrowus who is working on a reconstruction of urmark.
-
-
Leolaia
Welcome John!!
I certainly agree that Paul alludes only to the heavenly archons and not earthly rulers (also along the lines of Wells, Doherty, et al.), but what I was skeptical of was whether Mark as it was first composed (i.e. Ur-Mark) related the trial, judgment, and resurrection in specifically Pauline terms, or whether the narrative endeavor from the start was designed to historicize the archons as human rulers, or even whether the composer drew more directly from the "Suffering Servant" of Deutero-Isaiah which referred to human kings, princes, despots, and crowds (Isaiah 49:7; 52:14-15). Regarding the spoiling of the Sovereignties and Powers in Colossians 2:15, it is clearly stated as a consequence of Jesus "nailing the Law to the cross" in the previous verse (v. 14), and this view depends on Paul's notion that "the Law was promulgated by angels" (Galatians 3:19; compare Hebrews 2:2) and that the "death of Christ" freed man from the Law (2:15-21), which had previously enslaved them "to the Stoichea of the world" through sin (4:3, 9; compare Colossians 2:20). Since Christ was "subject to" this same Law and was "cursed" by this same Law (3:13; 4:4), Christ's judgment would have been under the domain of the Law, whether as it is practiced on earth or in heaven. And since the Law places humanity under the tyrrany of the angels and unseen powers (Galatians 3:19; 4:3; Colossians 2:14-15), the Pauline allusions to these powers would not by themselves require a non-earthly interpretation, or would they? Then there is the very old ANE belief that what happens on earth between kings and governments are reflections of conflicts between the gods in heaven, and we see a late reflex of this in Daniel which designates angelic "princes" as the unseen leaders of the warring kingdoms of Persia, Greece, and Judea (cf. Daniel 10:13, 20-21; 12:1), the belief in rabbinical literature (cf. Targum Ps.-Jonathan) that angels maintain the borders between the nations, and the frequent notion in Qumran texts that the armies and leaders of the world are led by "Belial and all the angels of his dominion" (1QM, 11Q13; 4Q177). The same notion appears in Revelation 13:2 which has Satan the Devil (the Dragon) "handing his power and throne and worldwide authority" to the Roman empire (the Beast), and Luke 4:5-6 similarly has the Devil declaring that "the kingdoms of the world ... have been committed to me and I give them to anyone I chose". Thus, unseen spiritual forces may have been thought to lie behind both the Jewish Law and earthly rulers (but then compare Romans 13:1), and if Paul held such a view, his focus on what happened at the heavenly, spiritual level could simply be due to his redemptive theology which viewed all the very important things as happening at the mystical level between Christ and the unseen Archons, and not at the human level between Christ and earthly rulers. Of course, as you noted, there is indeed no reference to earthly rulers (tho "crucifixion" still sounds too specific imho, unless we are thinking in terms of Prometheus) and rather meager evidence in Paul of an earthly existence of Jesus, so I am not necessarily vouching for this point of view, I'm just wondering how it could be excluded?
I was also wondering if you can comment on these posts of mine:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/66120/1030844/post.ashx#1030844
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/66538/1032453/post.ashx#1032453
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/66538/1033115/post.ashx#1033115Back to Mark, I thought that the presence of both the secular leaders and religious leaders in the trial owed somewhat to Deuteronomy 21:1-9 which named both the "elders/judges of the city" and "the priests, sons of Levi" as the two parties involved in the ceremony. And very interesting what you related re Deuteronomy 27:12 on "Judah Issachar", especially in connection with v. 25: "A curse on him who accepts a bribe to take an innocent life". Great find! Do you think there might also be a connection with Sychar, the Samaritan town that played a significant role in John?
-
21
When did early church "fathers" first unequivocally write of Trinity?
by True North inanyone know when the early church "fathers" first unequivocally wrote of the trinity?
how about when they first unequivocally wrote of the unitarian/arian viewpoint?
and when did one view versus the other first become an issue?
-
-
Leolaia
Do you feel that it developed from an original "primitive" Unitarian view that was held by Christians as a whole? Or do you think that their conception(s) of the nature of the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was varied and/or confused from the start?
Gospel of Thomas 13:1-4, Mark 8:27-30, Luke 9:18-22, and Matthew 16:13-20 suggest that very early on there were competing christologies about who Jesus was: whether he was a returned prophet like Elijah, whether he was John the Baptist resurrected from the dead, whether he was a wise philosopher (perhaps even heavenly Wisdom incarnate), a righteous angel, the Son of God, and so forth. The humanity of Jesus was not universally shared (e.g. the early popularity of docetism), and neither was his deity. The NT writers did not possess a worked-out, rationally coherent christology of Jesus. They could praise Jesus Christ as God and apply OT scriptures referring to Yahweh to him, yet have no doctrine resolving the tension between Jesus' Godship and the Father's Godship. This is even more apparent in the epistles of Ignatius, who freely and almost excessively confessed Jesus to be God, even in ways that would be considered heretical in the later Church (e.g. in blurring the distinction between the Father and the Son). Hermas of Rome also appeared to have a somewhat confused christology. I think the two early components that pushed orthodox theology in the direction towards the Trinity is the Johannine confession of Jesus as God and the tripartite baptismal formula (echoes of which in triadic formulae are found throughout the NT and in the early Fathers). Arianism, or Unitarianism, is a specific theology that developed at a specific time -- just like the Trinity it contains elements that are far older (e.g. its angel christology, interpreting monogenes "only-begotten" as referring to unique creation, interpreting the distinction between the Son and Father as a matter of nature and not role, etc.) which arose in different places at different times -- but like the Trinity it is a specific formulation dating to the fourth century. Similarly, the WT christology of Jesus is quite possibly unique in its specific formulation and thus dates only to the 19th century. My 5 cents....