cold:

Of course Jesus failed because the entire Jesus story was a fraud.
The Romans simply stole the story of Horus and inserted Jesus where Horus hitherto was.
If Jesus did exist he was nothing more than an ordinary Jew raised far above his station by some garrulous Roman & Jewish story tellers. Again,the story of Jesus is a fraud of gargantuan proportions

@cold

There is enough evidence in the Bible that Jesus birth was not in December
so it's beggars belief, with your misleading fancy graphics, how you managed December 25th

Alfa Seltzer:

Jesus’ mission on earth was to modify Judaism for the Jews, as their Messiah. In Matthew 15, Jesus said: “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And, in Matthew 10, Jesus told his disciples: “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Now, given that very few Jews converted to Christianity, so few that Paul later put the focus almost entirely on Gentiles (non-Jews), it becomes apparent that Jesus failed in his primary mission. But, not only did he fail to convert many Jews, he also failed to foresee that failure. Remember that in Christian dogma, Jesus is a god and can foresee the future: “Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he (John 13:19).”

Now, recall that the Jews were fully primed to expect a Messiah; they were told in the Old Testament that the Messiah would be one of them, a Jew, and would lead them to renewed greatness in the world. They should have been eager to accept a reasonably convincing candidate.

Further, Jesus was born into, and spent virtually his entire ministry in Jewish lands. He also took special care to act in ways which would fulfill Old Testament prophesies concerning the Messiah. In entering Jerusalem, for example, to accord with scripture: “And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written (John 12:14).”

Interestingly, the Gospels disagree on just what Jesus rode, but all were trying to make the passage fit what they thought the Old Testament called for. John says Jesus rode on an ass, Mark and Luke say he rode on a colt, while Matthew says he rode on both an ass and a colt . . . somehow.

The Gospels also claim that Jesus was regularly followed by great crowds of mostly Jews. For example, Luke 12 reads: “In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all . . . “

Tens of thousands of Jews must have been eyewitnesses to his sermons and miracles. Yet, they were largely unconvinced. Many would have seen him turn water into wine, heal the sick, cast out demons, and resurrect the dead. Why didn’t the word travel like wildfire throughout the Jewish world of this miracle worker, a hero of their own, given all those eye witnesses?

According to Judaism, Jesus was seen as a false Messiah by the Jews in part because he was not an ordinary human being, as was prophesied, but claimed to be a “son of god.” Perhaps those early stories about Jesus and his miracles “oversold” him?

Whatever the reasons, so few Jews bought into the Jesus-as-Messiah story that Paul decided to concentrate on spreading the “Good News” to the Gentiles instead. Of course, the Jews’ rejection of Jesus doesn’t prove he wasn’t the son of god, but it should raise a very large red flag. Something very strange is going on here. Think about it: The son of god was sent to god’s chosen people and they largely rejected him, so god didn’t get what he wanted? How can such a story make sense to anyone?

According to the words of the Bible, it seems pretty clear that Jesus not only failed to convert the Jews, largely, but he also failed to foresee that he would fail.

Does this sound like the work of a god to you?

Great_omotoy:

THE ANSWER TO UR POST IS
"He came unto his own, and his own received him not." (John 1:11). He didnt failed

It was a game plan Caiaphas and the Jews were not privvy to

Jesus needed to die to make reality God's redemptive plan for the whole earth but starting from the Jews

The problem was He couldn't die, as He was sinless

The only way He could die legally (i.e. the death be within the law and not be a curse)
would be if He was sentenced to death on trumped-up charges

They all, the parties involved without knowledge or intention played into God's hands
and God took advantage of it, gladly

He yielded to become Caiaphas's dead man walking

⁴⁹ Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up,
“You know nothing at all!
⁵⁰ You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”
⁵¹ He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, <<<< Note here
⁵² and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.
⁵³ So from that day on they plotted to take his life
<sup>^^John 11:49-53 NIV

65</sup> Then the high priest tore his clothes and said,
“He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.
⁶⁶ What do you think?”
“He is worthy of death,” they answered.
^{^^Matthew 26:65-66 NIV}

obadiah777:

lets hope before the nukes fry em they make a youtube video of their facial expression and quickly post it before the extermination, for the amusement of those of us watching.

i can see FOLYKAZE and ALFA SELTZER's reaction now when they see the nukes coming for em >>> yeeeepariipaaaaaaa oooooo egbami oooooooooooooo motiku ooooooooo

MostHigh:



Dem mans are in for a surprise.

@^^^



Dem be like . . .

Ah, ah. Chai. Na like dis, hin go be?

And dem tell me before ooo,

Dem talk am so but na me, no gree ooo

"Won de so fun mi, e mi ni, mi ogba ooo"

Dis one? nahin be say, story don get K-leg?

Ye! Shekpete!! Wetin man go do now?

Father Abraham? Where I go turn?

Dis one no be otapiapia, hin hot pass am

Ye! Abeggy, bros obadiah777 talk am ooo but na my strong head

My own don better, make I no talk another one

Please "e gbami ooo", I no fight am again. Come separate me comot from hia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBw1drDlca0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c-YT3VOgeQ

One love to these guys,
Them try, music, video etc
- not sure what "azuka" is though
- maybe a saro lingo

Shame about Majeed staying put in Yankee

@ Yooguyz

Hand caught in the cookie jar.
What were they playing at?
They are turning out to be like a right load of silly pranksters now
All these shocking exposé you've been uncovering so far sef,
makes one wonder, what other skeleton(s) has Watchtower in the cupboard. Hmm.

obadiah777:

been around the world yeah yeah yeah, still cant find my baby ( lisa stansfield )

@obadiah777

Where's Lisa, she still around?

Remembering Barry now, just gave me goosebumps.

Gone are the days of when legends produced GOOD MUSIC
- Teddybear Pendagast, Luther Vandross, Marvin Gaye etc etc

and not the sort the nowadays pretenders to the throne lot screech and bawl out. SMH

Kabieosi: @Seun

Was going about pointing out the typo error
only to next find out after refreshing browser that it has been corrected from tall from wide
- thought maybe it was an attention to detail catch out

# 4 ads before Sunday, hmm, tall order, considering but will give it a try

@^^^

My first attempt, ever, of creating advert banners
Never had the chance to use the skill until now (i.e. Seun's clarion call)
Phew. What an experience, almost gave up and jack them in after the first two,
compromised a lot and scampered through the other last two.
Smh didn't use other skills in depth (i.e. masking etc etc)
My word spurned me on to complete them
Guess, I deserve my bed now.

alcuin:

Interesting, I get your point. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Well, the basic assumption is false.

As much as many Christians believe that God takes personal inventory of their lives and guides them or even personally hears their prayers.

It is not true. That view of God is the bane religion. God is not anthropomorphic.

Man is directly subject to the laws of nature, what he gets is dependent on how he swings in these laws.

God does not personally intervene in any situation.

Mind you, the extent of these laws has not been fully experienced by man.

So manifestations may erroneous be called "supernatural" or miraculous.

It is simply natural laws playing out in ways not yet known by man.

Thanks

- EDITED-
@alcuin

If you haven't already done so, you'll soon tie self up in knots

You are going round in circles and unnecessarily riling up rationalmind

If God doesn't know. How come He wrote names in the Book of Life before the foundation of the earth?

"God does not personally intervene in any situation" - alcuin

On the contrary, God DOES personally intervene in any situation albeit exclusively on invite or granted request

God will bend rules and do the "supernatural", "stupendous" or "miraculous" when man's consent is given

Man; with a human body is the only being officially and legally allowed to FUNCTION and OPERATE on Earth and it's current dispensation

God always sought invitations and clearances first before overriding the status quo

"Christians believe that God takes personal inventory of their lives and guides them or even personally hears their prayers" - alcuin
- Yes, as inventory is for the latter accountability.
- Yes, but guidance and/or answered prayers given if righteous

"Man is directly subject to the laws of nature, what he gets is dependent on how he swings in these laws." - alcuin
- Yes, as the principle(s) or the laws of nature prepares one for living on Earth
- but the Person (i.e. a relationship with God; not to be confused with religion) prepares one for living in the Kingdom of Heaven

alcuin:

Kabieosi, my point exactly. All definitions of religion are coined by men, and as such man's idea.

The verse you quoted reflects James' idea, I, Alcuin, can have another idea.

But all our ideas are limited to the extent of our perceptive capicities.
What James described in the verse above is charitableness and chastity, which are very good but do not totally encapsulate religion.

Religion has other arms too like rites and rituals.

Again, that's my idea.... You see, you cannot run away from the subjectivity of this topic.

Thanks.

@alcuin

Stop trying to wriggle out.

James 1:27 said what TRUE religion is and which God accepts as PURE and FAULTLESS

Rites and rituals are not necessarily acceptable pure and faultless

rationalmind:

When you knew you didn't get my point, why not ask me for clarification?

I'm not talking about weather God exists or not.

I'm saying the general consensus amongst christians when God gives them a No answer to their prayer is that God has a better plan for them.

Which means God already knows the end of the choice they were asking of, didn't answer them because he wants them to make another choice that will have a more favourable end.

This idea clearly shows depicts God as having perfect knowledge of ones choices and the end.

When faced with the logical absurdities of this definition of God, christians change tactics.

They change the meaning of the word omniscience to suit them.

That is what I call double standard and that exactly is my point.

@rationalmind

Still don't get from all you've posted up there, why denying God knows everything or all things

Have you tried pottery?

What happens to the inhibitions, knowing that the clay has a mind of it's own?

Do you jack in and stop the creativity. Hmm?

Have you watched Bruce Almighty?
- It is a 2003 religious comedy film/movie
about a down-on-his-luck TV reporter who was offered the chance to try being God himself for one week
after complaining that God was not doing His job correctly.

Try watch it (i.e. and others)- it might give a different perspective of God

alcuin:
You may be correct in another context. All men must drop the physical body, in a process we call death.

Well, all religions MAY the false. But, this is not a proof of the nonexistence of the Magnificience and Splendour of God.

Religion can be loosely understood as "man's idea" of God.

This clearly presuppposes the religion can be wrong, as man's ideas are generally limited to his perceptive capacity.

That said, religion serves a useful purpose on earth but there is no religion in the spiritual.

Thanks.

Religion Religion Religion - Arrghhh !

Stop! Pack it in!! Cut out the misinformed notion of religion!!!

The watchword is relationship, in tune with true religion

Look at James 1:27 to know what true religion is and what it is all about?

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this:
to look after orphans and widows in their distress
and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world
^{- James 1:27 New International Version (NIV)}

rationalmind:

What is this one saying?

When I say christians pray and God doesn't answer, what I mean is that, his answer is NO answer. What don't you understand?

@rationalmind

No, since the rules are not followed, events are not triggered and certain functions do not run or get activated via the arguments or parameter passed or called

Click on nairaland, expecting an orange to pop out on your screen,

you'll be waiting till eternity, as Seun did not assign an element to respond to your whim

Oh, forgot, you're more engineering and so FORTRAN

rationalmind:

Please, if u have nothing meaningful to add, don't derail us with silly vidoes

@rationalmind

Actually watched it, out of curiosity, it was OK
but was a mix of over-the-top content in some areas, some misinterpreted or half truths, rhetorics, some intolerances etc

rationalmind:

reminds me of how muslims try to defend the most loony verses of the quran. They pick up words and then twist its meanings to suit them.

When christians pray and God doesn't answer, the general consensus is that, he has something better for you which you don't know. That means he knows the end of the choice ure about making and also knows the end of the choice u'll make if he doesn't grant the present one. So he wants you to choose the other one cos of the end he knows.

So you see, on one hand, you people agree with the general definition of omniscience but when ure confronted with the logical implications, you twist the meaning of the word.

@rationalmind

"christians pray and God doesn't answer"

The joke is on you, as considering alcuin is one with a programming background and skills

he is probably laughing his rockers off at your inability to relate it with syntax, function calling, event handling etc etc

rationalmind:

, religion is only meant for people who refuse to use their brains.

How else will someone believe a fish swallowed jonah if not that he has refused to use his brain

@rationalmind

[img]http://3.bp..com/-YLCta2Xi7q0/T1ZFOWLKjOI/AAAAAAAAAjI/OQgfhrSnLdE/s400/73257-050-7BA1BE72.jpgr[/img]

Probably not the kind of fish you are familiar with or currently know

Religion is translated from "ligare"; latin for "to bind".

Drop religion, relationship is a sure fire solution

alcuin:

Your logic is staggering. I think it borders on ignorance. Are you perchance saying that meanings of words do not change with time?

In fact, it may well happen that the word "good" will be extinct in the next 2000 yrs. I even doubt if it existed 3000 yrs ago.

Consider the word "Lucifer".

Isn't it worrisome that the word meaning "bearer of light" is now given to the so called spirit of darkness?

If in the next 2000 yrs, going by this trend, the word becomes synonymous with darkness, will u ever think it was once associated with light and beauty? That is, if you stand on current meanings.

That was just an instance. I'm not a Luciferian apologist.
Thanks.

@alcuin

Knowing that Lucifer is a Latin name, is what should be slightly more worrisome

That "heylel" (i.e. the original Hebrew text) meaning "shining one; like brass or with brass-like lustre" is what was, among others, translated to Lucifer is interesting,

That Lucifer ended up in the old testament, a Hebrew literature written before there was Roman language is enough to make one think, what else or similar in the bible (e.g. Sheol, Gehenna and Hell) was injected, mistranslated or taken out of context

hakuna matata:

I have 3 @ d moment. ws advised to release them 1 after d other. Its slated for release next week. U wld be invited to do a critique too

@hakuna matata

Thanks. Looking forward to the listening.

I don't know the jobsworth that moved your Gospel song premiering post (i.e. for the attention of the Christians) from the Religion forum in here

@rationalmind

I haven't abandoned our collabo
- soon come

nwuyag:

[size=16pt]See, I was once a xtian,[/size]

so dont tell me nonsense .

All those buushyt are cool mind stuff. I can still kneel down and pray or do those religious stuff.

I know how cool it is to feel that there someone you are talking to or there is some power within you and those delusions.

So dont act like you understand anything that i dont. There is no special thing to understanding the bible.

I will stop there. I know your next question. I dont want to derail. I ve taken note of the bolded.

@nwuyag

Knew you were a backslid christian

Come clean, what happened? What was it?

What tipped the scales? What pushed you over the edge?

Noticed the way, you've been acting all over the forum and conducting yourself - went through your posts, read them all, all your posts.

What is the cause of your emotionally charged resentment behavior, especially towards things pertaining to God and Christians?

What rattled your cage? What pissed or is pissing you off?

A problem shared is a problem halved. Hmm?

@^^^


Touché. Word up Image123

Alfa Seltzer:

This:

40 That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.

Gotcha

Lament the denial, yep

He didnt have to seal anything, the daughter was willing to abide . . .

That is the message

Kay 17:

Words carry their self evident meaning, and accordingly Evil Brain especially, conveyed everyone's thoughts as to what Jepthatjh's vow meant. And I doubt if semi colons function to alter the natural meanings of words! The meaning of the words remain.

As to the sentence "she knew no man", I t means she was unmarried, childless, virgin. And that she would never be a complete woman (for her lack of children resulting from premature death).

@Kay 17

"she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man.
And it was a custom in Israel"
- Judges 11:39

So what became the custom then, after that?

Was it "she knew no man" or others following suit sacrificing their daughters too?

mazaje:

The interpretation that his daughter wasn't sacrificed began only recently by modern scholars. . .

voltron:

Please ask yourself this question, when it comes to Bible Verse Translation, who would you begin with.. the Hebrew Manuscripts, Greeks, Romans or Early Othordox Christians.. I would place my bet with the original scribes.. the Jews.. and according to the Jews.. Jepthah "SACRIFICED" his daughter for Military Success. Plain and Simple.. It is a wonder that the Jews have no problem with this but Christians do.. They (@Ola and his ilk) Justify and Defend this act when the original Hebrew Text clearly states that this dude Sacrificed his Daughter for Military Success.. why can't Christians Accept this.

WHY!

@^^^

Because of the below verse with the punctuation : or colon which NIV flagrantly disregarded and others choose to omit

"she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man.
And it was a custom in Israel"
- Judges 11:39

I hope you ALL did notice the punctuation mark (i.e. : or colon) in the above verse and what followed after it (i.e. the immediate five words after and ending with the custom sentence)

- It was a coded vow

@Alfa Seltzer

You have a good observation Alfa,

It was rampart and commonly practised by the pagan nations but God didn't want anything to do with the sort

mazaje:

Here is a Jewish scholars post on the sacrifice of Jephthah. . .This is some one that knows Hebrew very well. . .

The first is an issue of lexical semantics. In his vow, Jephthah promises a burnt offering (Hebrew, ‘olah). In the nearly 300 occurrences of this word in the OT it is always a sacrifice that is wholly burned on the altar. The first point is simple then—to suggest that this word has a unique and different meaning here is special pleading. The text says what it says, however disturbing that may be.

The second issue occurs earlier in the vow when Jephthah indicates that he will sacrifice "whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph" (NIV). What scenarios does Jephthah imagine here? While it is true that the Israelite four room house could accommodate animals, animals do not go out to meet someone. Dogs were not kept in houses, were not generally kept as pets and were unsuitable for sacrifice. Cows, goats and sheep do not come forth to meet someone. Furthermore, a simple animal sacrifice would not be appropriate for the extent and significance of the victory Jephthah has achieved. Returning champions were commonly greeted by a procession from the town to welcome them home.

If we inquire about the Hebrew word translated "whatever" we will find that this is a translator’s interpretation. The Hebrew text has a participle, a word that could be stretched out as "the one who comes forth." It would be highly unlikely that Jephthah would use this form with the meaning "the thing that comes forth." It can therefore be concluded that Jephthah is anticipating a human sacrifice. If his expectation is clear and the intended action is clear, the text leaves us no legitimate alternatives.

Why then did God allow Jephthah to have the victory if such was the Judge’s intention? The spirit empowered him to bring deliverance for Israel, and that was what God’s plan was. God need not indulge the foolishness of individuals at the expense of his plan for his people.


John H. Walton (PhD, Hebrew Union College) teaches Old Testament at Wheaton College

- See more at: http://www.koinoniablog.net/2008/12/hebrew-corner-16.html#sthash.5UYbKqJX.dpuf

@mazaje

I am still referring you back to the punctuation; : (i.e. colon)

Go and find out the implications of the following punctuations too: bicolons and tricolons

The only human sacrifice God ever accepted was that of a sinless Man

mazaje:

What is this man up about?. . .Why are you telling lies without shame?. . .

The custom was talking about the custom that became after her, why didn't you put it in full?. . .We all have bibles and can read from it too. . .

She knew no man means she died a virgin, his vow was to sacrifice what ever comes out of his house as a burnt offering and he did according to his vow end of story. . .

mazaje:

It can be used for human beings you shameless liar, you do not know or understand the english language better than us at all. . .

carry your lies to some where else. . .Let me give you a simple example. .Your baby is very cute, i feel like stealing it. . .

Here I just gave you simple example where it is used for humans. . In the case of Jephthah he used it to generalize, since he knew that anything could come out from his servants, animals etc . . .

He said what ever comes out of my house to meet me. . .He knows people can come out to meet him and his pets as well. .

So your apologetics is just pathetic. . . .take your lies somewhere else pls. . .

@mazaje

In the case of Jephthah he used it to generalize? - ROTFL

Yeah right - ROTFL x2

I'll call you IT from now on

It doesnt know what IT is talking about

It (i.e. Mazaje) wants to murder grammar
Two peas in a pod - Evil Brain and It

I knew you'd hit under the belt with "it" is used for a human being which is why I first warned you both against it

@Seun

Was going about pointing out the typo error
only to next find out after refreshing browser that it has been corrected from tall from wide
- thought maybe it was an attention to detail catch out

# 4 ads before Sunday, hmm, tall order, considering but will give it a try

@Evil Brain @mazaje

"she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man.
And it was a custom in Israel"
- Judges 11:39

I hope you both noticed the punctuation mark ( : ) in the above verse and what followed after it (i.e. the immediate five words after and ending with the custom sentence)
Go figure?

Evil Brain:

There you go again copying and pasting from nonsense sites like answersingenesis and refusing to use your own brain.

The bible is very clear and completely unambiguous that Jepthah sacrificed his daughter by burning her.

That you didn't quote the two verses that show this is evidence of how dishonest you and the apologetic hack that originally wrote that post is.

For the sake of those who are willing to think instead of just swallowing what they are told, I'm going th post the relevant passage below.

From Judges chapter 11:
" 9 Then the Spirit of the LORD came on Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. 30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”
32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. 33 He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.
34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break.”
36 “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.” 38 “You may go,” he said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never marry.
39 After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.
From this comes the Israelite tradition 40 that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite."

mazaje:

Obviously liars like Oladegbuu will never accept what is written in black and white. . .

From the bible. . . .

Judges11:39 After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed.

What was his vow. . .

Judges 11:30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”

Tear that part off your bible if you don't like it instead of lying to yourself as you do all the time . . .

@Evil Brain @mazaje

Evil Brain on this subject matter, again. SMH

Slowly read Judges 11:31 because I am hoping you will spot and detect the dichotomy in the verse

Then it shall be, that whatsoever comes forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD'S,
and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
- Judges 11:31

Jephthah made was a coded or as it were a pregnant or loaded vow

#1: "whatsoever comes forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD'S"

#2: "and I will offer it up for a burnt offering."


It is like this:

Referring to #1: Whatsoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me shall surely be the LORD'S (i.e. dedicated or vowed to God)

Referring to #2: Better still, if it happens to be an IT (i.e. an animal and not a human being) then I will offer IT, the animal up for a burnt offering as a bonus.

Father and daughter knew the fate of the daughter is now a lifetime of celibacy and dedication to God (i.e. as per #1)

Please do not hit under the belt with "it" is used for a human being

(i.e. please recognise and understand that the "it" in the verse is referring to an animal and not a human being or Jephthah's daughter)

JMAN05:

* inherent omniscience - the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known.
* total omniscience -actually knowing everything that can be known.

So God has the ability, but chooses not to use it always.

check wikipedia.com

^^^

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, it is not a site to base research(es) on

Even the creators of Wikipedia are the first to admit that not every entry is accurate

and that it might not be the best source of material for research papers

so be careful of what you read on wikipedia because it may not consistently be reliable

^{JUST PASSING}
----oooO----
----(----)----
-----\--(--
------\_)-
-----------Oooo ---
-----------(--- -)---
------------)-- /----
------------(_/ - ^BY

nwuyag:

Xtians be like; repent!, hell fire!, this is a sinful and wicked world, heaven is a wonderful place.
Yet, they are trying to twist on the same source which said thou shalt not kill.
Cos they are scared.
#Christian hypocrisy.

If you promise not to tell, I'll let you in on a secret

It actually is written "Thou shall not murder"

- You need to be shown where the rocks are

A priest, a minister and a rabbi are on a fishing trip.

They get out on the water and the Priest goes,
"Oh darn, I forgot the picnic basket!"
so he proceeds to step out of the boat and WALKS to shore,
grabs the picnic basket and comes back out to the boat.

The rabbi looks on in bewilderment.

The minister looks around as he's about to cast and realizes, "I forgot the tackle box!"
He also proceeds to get out of the boat
and WALKS to shore, grabs the tackle box and heads back to the boat.

The rabbi is absolutely shocked at this point.

Finally, the rabbi turns to the priest and minister and says, "I forgot the bait."
He steps out of the boat and SPLASHES around in the water.

The priest turns to the minister and says,
"You forgot to show him where the rocks are didn't you?"

frank3.16:


Dude, stop calling God omini-everything and the go ahead to describe him to us with an unomini angle example.

Just for instance imagine u we an ominieverythin being and try an think like that, then explain to us while still thinking like that, then u might understand where I am coming from.

Stop trying to explain what u can't comprehend... U make the creator of this world look foolish.

U know nothing, accept understand that ur religious stance is just ur delusion.

@frank3.16

Listen to yourself.

You are making out that God played russian roulette

I too have wrestled with getting the understanding, like you too, before

and make sense of it.

- You are just an object; a variable