Post by: throwingks on March 29, 2006, 11:01:00 PM
and...
2. Why do Christians for the most part find it perfectly reasonable that Mary had a son without having sex, but most do not believe in aliens? Even though Ezekial alludes to a UFO. Isn't it just as probable that someone gave birth through miraculous conception as it is that we are not alone in the universe?
I am not trying to start fights. I am just trying to understand logic. The most important thing to me is the thought process, behind the conclusions. Not proof of the conclusions.
Post by: Statecowboy on March 30, 2006, 06:45:00 AM
Been a long time since I got into any of these. Anywho, Puck is completely right about your first question (at least right in the since that that is what I would say). As far as why some Christians don't believe in aliens and believe in the virgin birth...I would say that at the core of the answer is the bible. I'm not sure what percentage of Christians hold the bible as sacred and inspired by God, which makes it infallable and truth. So, with no mention of aliens one can assume that they do not exist, or at least demand a physical proof of their existence. Vice versa, with the virgin birth, it is explicitly written about by the inspired workd of God, therefor true.
I am one of those Christians that (attempts) to believe everything in the bible as inspired by God. I'm not going to lie and tell you that it isn't difficult to fathom someone living in a whale or a virgin giving birth etc.
BTW, let's try to keep this clean, every former religion topic I saw got turned into insults and rants.
Post by: damam on March 30, 2006, 09:38:00 AM
Much of the book of Acts deals with this question. Until the original christians started letting gentiles into the club, they were considered a jewish sect - even by the jewish non believers. It was not until Paul argued that gentiles should not have to convert to judiasm and follow jewish law, before converting to christianity that the church broke off officially. I say officially because from that point on the Romans and Jews no longer saw christianity as a jewish sect from that point on. They saw it as a cult. Before that point they were protected by Roman law. It was definitely a bold move by paul, sacrifice safety for the opportunity to gain a larger market share.
So to answer the question Jesus was a jew and certainly was perceived as a jew in his day. Paul was the one that altered the course of christianity and left judiasm.
@2
ezekial -
People that use ezekial as evidence of UFO's seem to ignore all of the other trips (in the LSD/shroom sense) ezekial went on. there is just as much evidence that ezekial was on the shroom trip of the melenia (my personal theory) as there is that he saw aliens. That little piece of "alien" evidence is small, and really does not explain all of the other wacked out visions he had.
I am not saying that aliens dont exist - only that ezekial does not offer the proof your saying it does.
virgin birth
actually puck there are several human virgin births around the world each year. the most common way of conceiving for a virgin birth is to be "playing" around in the bath tub. technically no intercourse, but sperm can be slick little fellas and it only takes a slight tear in the hyman . . . Anne landers a while back wrote a column on it saying that on average US hospitals report 8 virgin births yearly across the country. The bath tub scenario turns out to be the most common cause, but a couple each year go with an unknown causes. My professors in "Enviromental and Statistical Biology" class also did a lecture on it as well although he did not talk about the bath tub method. So mary is not all that unique.
there are natural mechanizms that would also allow for a virgin birth. Mary, for example could have been a mutant. On a discovery show they put the odds of such a mutation extremely high ( i believe it was in the trillions ) but none the less possible. She also could have been a chimera which is a lot more likely as chimerism is becoming more detectable and is becoming a lot more common to name another possibility.
But as a christian, I really dont base a lot of my faith on the idea of a virginal birth. Before converting to christianity i was already aware that it does happen with relative frequency in todays world. It may have happened to mary but my simple kowledge that she is not the only one takes away the "ooooh awhhhhh" factor. I believe it played a role in persuading early greeks, but today for me it carries little weight or much of a "leap of faith". Im not tied up in it, and if we invent a time machine and they produce some porno of mary playing in the hay fields, I am not going to abandon my faith.
Post by: Statecowboy on March 30, 2006, 12:18:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Mar 30 2006, 12:41 PM) 
Ummmm real quickly StateCowboy....are you saying that Aliens cannot exist because the bible does not mention aliens? That seems ridiculous....since the bible doesnt mention cars either....but we now know that they exist....
If you are instead saying that the bible supports virgin birth and not aliens....then the comment makes a little more sense
I think you know what I'm saying. With no biblical representation or hard scientific facts and evidence, I would say I don't believe in aliens. However, back to your argument about cars, I see them all the time, therefor I believe they are real.
I never stated that the bible is the end all be all of what exists. That's an encyclopedia. I simply stated that because the bible does not support any discussion on aliens, and I have not seen any myself or any evidence to support them, then I do not believe they exist.
And Puck, a lot of your arguments are based on the premise that the bible is not a non-fiction book, but yet a novel full of short stories and made up tales. So it's hard to debate or get one's point across when explaining to you our opinion because seemingly you have already made up your mind that it's not truth.
You're obviously intelligent, expand your mind to deal with the fact that you may not be able to comprehend everything the universe entails.
Post by: damam on March 30, 2006, 12:21:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Mar 30 2006, 07:13 AM)
Damam
I was referring to the likelihood of virgin birth without the indirect assitance of a man...in other words..self-fertilization...such as the kind found in frogs....
A chimera? I wasnt aware that they were any more likely to produce independent offspring than anyone else....
chimera can be both male and female and chimeras and can have an odd expression of genitalia that varies widely. Essentially the equivalent of a brother/sister offspring. such an offspring would be a rare occurance as well, but far more likely than self fertilization seen in frogs.
my point only is that virgins do give birth with relative frequency. people seem to overlook this. If the story is true, its not like mary was the only one in the history of humans to have experienced it. However, I seriously believe that it was probably made up to convince the greeks. They have numerous people (greek equivalent messiah figures) in there history that really did live and claim to be born of a virgin through immaculate conception with a god like being that predate christ. The jews have no such history. Then you have paul - the helenized jew - who grew up in turkey and would have been exposed a lot to greek beliefs, history, dealings and teachings and could have easily intoduced the concept. I dont believe the Jews believe the messiah necessarily has to be born through immaculate conception. So the only reason for it would be to get gentiles to join who would probably look to there own religions for parallels that rang true.
Post by: damam on March 30, 2006, 12:45:00 PM
yesevery once in a while I meet one that still does
Post by: Statecowboy on March 30, 2006, 12:51:00 PM
QUOTE(Arvarden @ Mar 30 2006, 03:50 PM)
Don't alot of hardcore Christians believe UFO's are the anti Christ in disguise....Satin and his cronnies catching some serious G?
I've never heard that, but it's pretty funny!
Post by: lordvader129 on March 30, 2006, 01:33:00 PM
QUOTE(Arvarden @ Mar 30 2006, 01:50 PM)
Don't alot of hardcore Christians believe UFO's are the anti Christ in disguise....Satin and his cronnies catching some serious G?
yeah, i got into an argument with a guy back in grade school, he said aliens didnt exist, so i showed hima bunch of unexplained UFO pics and asked him what he thought they were, he said demons and i laughed my ass off
Post by: _iffy on March 30, 2006, 01:36:00 PM
"Jesus was a Jew"
1)The word jew means son of a jew. So jesus was a jew based on his ethnic background.
2)Like any rabi, his preachings and ideas were shared so he would still be considered a man of the jewish faith.
but...
jesus performed miricals (spelling?) and he did claim to be the son of god. At the time the Jewish comunity
didn't agree with this and thats why he was killed. However some jewish people did believe him and started
the roman catholic church (in rome that's were everything became official) This would make him "not jewish"
because his daddy was the guy who was worshiped. He would be a leader not a follower.
"virgin mary"
so many things wrong with this, but this is were "faith" comes into play. Whether or not you want to beleive it.
but...
you have to look at it as when it was written. If mary got knocked up by anyone other than joe, she would have been put to death. Joe says he didn't do her, but mary is obviously prego, so to keep her alive, she was a virgin. Here's were faith comes into play. You could believe that mary was a virgin and god knocked her up. Or you could think that on mary and joeseph's wedding day they did the deed, (which was the custom of the day), and mary was only "labeled" a virgin when the new testiment was written.
This really is the most important thing. Your not 2000 years old. You don't know anyone who's 2000 years old.
If you look now at the way events are recorded, it's all digital. You have satalite links, photography, video,
thousands of independant media. Anything that happens in the world, you know is true. Everyone knows the twin towers are gone (reasons not for this thread), everyone knows russia is no longer comunist. Even hiroshima (spelling) were a nuclear bomb detonated.
2000 years ago, none of this recordable media was availible. Very few people knew how to write. News was delivered by word of mouth. If any of you know the telephone game you know what i'm getting at (purple monkey dishwasher)
Faith is very personal. Organised religion is bullshit. You can read the bible, koran, torah, even the new new testiment from the mormans. It's up to you to decide what you believe.
No one has the right to tell another human being what to believe.
btw i personally look at the bible/koran/torah/buddist scrolls/etc as guides. nothing more.
EDIT: aliens??? wtf
Post by: jha'dhur on March 30, 2006, 04:27:00 PM
QUOTE(throwingks @ Mar 30 2006, 01:08 AM)
1. I understand that Jesus was born to a Jewish mother. So he was born Jewish. That much makes sense. But, it is said that he knew he was the Messiah at around age 12. Wouldn't that then make him no longer Jewish. People that believe he is the son of God, are Christians (for the most part). For that reason Jesus, Satan, and whoever else are Christian. So doesn't that make Jesus not a Jew, through simple logic? I always hear "Jesus was a Jew", I don't think he was.
and...
2. Why do Christians for the most part find it perfectly reasonable that Mary had a son without having sex, but most do not believe in aliens? Even though Ezekial alludes to a UFO. Isn't it just as probable that someone gave birth through miraculous conception as it is that we are not alone in the universe?
I am not trying to start fights. I am just trying to understand logic. The most important thing to me is the thought process, behind the conclusions. Not proof of the conclusions.
Jesus Christ was not a JEW, in the sense that you are implying. The popular definition of a jew is someone that prescribes to the Jewish faith. However ethnincally A Jew is someone of the Tribe of Judah.
Ancient Isreal was split into two kingdoms upon the dawn of the age of the gentiles.
Isreal and Judea. Jesus was born in Nazareth which is in Philstia or modern day Palestine.
QUOTE
Even though Ezekial alludes to a UFO. Isn't it just as probable that someone gave birth through miraculous conception as it is that we are not alone in the universe?
Where???
QUOTE
"Jesus was a Jew"
1)The word jew means son of a jew. So jesus was a jew based on his ethnic background.
2)Like any rabi, his preachings and ideas were shared so he would still be considered a man of the jewish faith.
1)The word jew means son of a jew. So jesus was a jew based on his ethnic background.
2)Like any rabi, his preachings and ideas were shared so he would still be considered a man of the jewish faith.
@ _iffy
JEW is short for JUDAH, it was an acient racial slur. It may have many other modern connatations but that is the biblical origins.
Funny you mention rabbis, I saw a special which perfomed genetic analysis of Rabbis, which concluded that the Rabbis, are only slightly ethnic jews. A "Jewish genome sequence" or DNA sequence was extrapolated from these analysis and it proved to their dismay that they were not ethnic Jews.
The same DNA analysis has been performed on American blacks, note I left out African because these analysis astonished many to find out that they are not even mildly of African descent.
Heiroglyphics which are several thousands years old would indicate that writing skills have existed for some time.
P.S. Chariot = horse, motorcycle, tank, car. Semantics, again I see.
@ Statecowboy the biggest religous lie has to be that picture in you sig..
Post by: _iffy on March 30, 2006, 04:42:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Mar 30 2006, 05:09 PM)
BTW...What was all of that about Roman Catholics....
The early Christian kicked around for centuries before the "Roman Catholic" church....
They had all kinds of fun debates...they tried to decide if Jesus was divine or not..
They were playing around with early versions of the new testament...
QUOTE
(in rome that's were everything became official)
The organized christian faith began here. But your right about the early christiansQUOTE(jha'dhur @ Mar 30 2006, 06:34 PM)
Heiroglyphics which are several thousands years old would indicate that writing skills have existed for some time.
Are you sure about the judah thing, cause i always thought that that's why people who convert to judaism weren't considered real jews.
BTW we are all african in origin
Post by: throwingks on March 30, 2006, 08:58:00 PM
QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Mar 30 2006, 04:34 PM)
Where???
This is just a quick source I found on google.http://www.bibleufo.com/zezekiel.htm
QUOTE(puckSR @ Mar 30 2006, 06:15 PM)
so, ThrowingKS....what definition of "Jew" were you asking about?
I understand the the term 'Jew" is used 2 ways. As a race or as a religion. My question is pertaining to the religion, as that is the context I understand it to be, when the statement "Jesus was a Jew" is made.I have been reading all the responses, and I am purposefully staying out of the conversation, as I am just trying to take in what everyone has to say. I appreciate what everyone has said already, and it is clearing a few things up.
Based on what you have said so far, my opinion on the matter for question #1 has not changed. Jesus was not a 'Jew' in my opinion. He believed he was the Messiah, making him, in a sense Christian.
As for #2 I still do not understand why it is unfathomable to believe in UFOs for the majority. Ezekial alludes to something 'other-worldly' for whatever reason. If you can say Ezekial was high, why can't you say any other person in the Bible was, including Mary? Why are Ezekial's statements not taken literal, and Mary's are? Both are just as ludicrous, or just as sane, as the other. If the Bible is meant to be taken literally, why isn't it for Ezekial?
Post by: jha'dhur on March 30, 2006, 11:05:00 PM
QUOTE(throwingks @ Mar 30 2006, 11:05 PM)
This is just a quick source I found on google.
http://www.bibleufo.com/zezekiel.htmI understand the the term 'Jew" is used 2 ways. As a race or as a religion. My question is pertaining to the religion, as that is the context I understand it to be, when the statement "Jesus was a Jew" is made.
The source you quote doesnt include any biblical reference, what chapter and verse does this transcript refer to.
Jesus was a christian.
QUOTE
The Greeks and the Romans both had rampant literacy...that had existed for centuries....
We actually have historians the like from the time of Jesus...they were keeping careful records...
The problem? Until he was 30 something... Jesus was not a very important guy....
BTW...this rampant literacy explains why they had to edit the bible...there were hundreds of texts in circulation....and some of them were wilder than others...
its an interesting topic...
but yeah...lots of people could read/write 2000 years ago.
We actually have historians the like from the time of Jesus...they were keeping careful records...
The problem? Until he was 30 something... Jesus was not a very important guy....
BTW...this rampant literacy explains why they had to edit the bible...there were hundreds of texts in circulation....and some of them were wilder than others...
its an interesting topic...
but yeah...lots of people could read/write 2000 years ago.
That is just plain bogus,
Biblical history clearly illustrates that people in the times of Moses or Abraham were quite advanced.
The Pyramids in Egypt and S. America illustrate advanced mathematical and building skills as well as literacy. The Great pyramid at Giza is 2000 years older than Greek civilization.
Not to mention the great wall of China or the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.
There isnt much archaelogical evidence to even indicate that while pyramids were being constructed across Africa that mankind hide spread out of Africa/Arabia.
The christian bible detials the many known world powers to threaten the 12 tribes thousands of years before
the greeks/gentiles or for that fact any of the caucasian group appeared.
QUOTE
This is based on your misunderstanding of who the Messiah really was...
He was a fabled king of the Jews who would come and save them...
The term "Christian"...didnt even exist for awhile after Jesus left.
His followers were primarily Jewish...and continued to be Jewish.
The problem, and Christians have a problem with this, is that your only looking at it from a Christian perspective.
A Christian thinks that a Jew is someone who believes in the God of Abraham/Jacob/Moses...but who doesnt believe in Jesus. This is only because anyone who follows Jesus calls themselves Christian today.
There is absolutely nothing that would prevent a Jew from believing in Jesus...except that he would also be a Christian...
So Judaism is not the denial of Christianity...that is just a definition of convenience....fir Christians
Judaism simply follows the old testament.....since the coming of a savior was foretold...divine Jesus could easily be a Jewish belief....
I will give you an example...during the protestant reformation...protestants broke from the Catholic Church...
Protestants frequently refer to themselves as "Christians" and Catholics as "Catholics"....
now obviously Catholics are Christians....but a protestant would not normally refer to them as such, and this convention is normally understood by Catholics as well(even though they get offended)
Definition and "common convention" often conflict in a small way...but it makes for a clearer understanding
He was a fabled king of the Jews who would come and save them...
The term "Christian"...didnt even exist for awhile after Jesus left.
His followers were primarily Jewish...and continued to be Jewish.
The problem, and Christians have a problem with this, is that your only looking at it from a Christian perspective.
A Christian thinks that a Jew is someone who believes in the God of Abraham/Jacob/Moses...but who doesnt believe in Jesus. This is only because anyone who follows Jesus calls themselves Christian today.
There is absolutely nothing that would prevent a Jew from believing in Jesus...except that he would also be a Christian...
So Judaism is not the denial of Christianity...that is just a definition of convenience....fir Christians
Judaism simply follows the old testament.....since the coming of a savior was foretold...divine Jesus could easily be a Jewish belief....
I will give you an example...during the protestant reformation...protestants broke from the Catholic Church...
Protestants frequently refer to themselves as "Christians" and Catholics as "Catholics"....
now obviously Catholics are Christians....but a protestant would not normally refer to them as such, and this convention is normally understood by Catholics as well(even though they get offended)
Definition and "common convention" often conflict in a small way...but it makes for a clearer understanding
That is just plain bogus, I take that back upon further review it is just completly bogus.
@ throwingks
I would encourage you to read the bible for yourself, I would categorize the vast majority of this thread as pagan propaganda. In my travels must that love to exalt their biblical understanding have not even read the entire book cover to cover.
And this is apparent by the "urban legends" being recieted in this thread. The U.S. christian church is full of Bin Ladens also.
You can tell them by the fruit that they bear.
Post by: jha'dhur on March 30, 2006, 11:45:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Mar 31 2006, 01:23 AM)
umm dude.....rampant literacy=people could read.....
**hang on...i think i see your misunderstanding....
I wasnt denying that people could read before the Romans...
I was simply talking about literacy at the time of the Romans...***edit***
how is it totally bogus???.i said the same thing you did.....
and what urban legends did i list?
Sure Jesus was a Christian....
but was Jesus Jewish?...thats the question......and the answer is yes...unless at some point he denied the Torah, the Prophets or the Writings...in which case...let me know
The very concept of Jesus is diametrically opposite the Jewish belief system.
Can you be Muslim and Jew?
Post by: jha'dhur on March 31, 2006, 12:29:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Mar 31 2006, 02:09 AM)
Ill explain the difference....later
BUT FIRST
What the heck was all that about my comments on literacy being bogus?
And what "urban myths" did i mention
Mathematics, science blacksmithing, masonry, and written language have existed well over 2000 years.
Archaeologically twice that given the 7 wonders.
QUOTE(puckSR @ Mar 31 2006, 02:09 AM)
p.s. you might want to change your comment about the "concept of Jesus" to the "practice of modern christians following the instructions of paul"
Paul is irrelevant, Yes I know he was the only GENTILE apostle. Christianity here at its essence is no different from Ethipioan denominations or anyone else for that matter.
Ask the British?
Post by: throwingks on March 31, 2006, 01:22:00 PM
QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Mar 30 2006, 11:12 PM)
The source you quote doesnt include any biblical reference, what chapter and verse does this transcript refer to.
Jesus was a christian.
In the link all the numbers that are in bold refer to the part in the bible. For convenience, here is the link again.Jesus was a christian.
http://www.bibleufo.com/zezekiel.htm
There are many many more sites. If you would like me to post more links I will.
QUOTE
@ throwingks
I would encourage you to read the bible for yourself, I would categorize the vast majority of this thread as pagan propaganda. In my travels must that love to exalt their biblical understanding have not even read the entire book cover to cover.
I could read the Bible cover to cover, but I have no desire. I do not wish to better understand Christian theology, I wish to understand their thought processes. I do not think the 2 are related, unfortunately.I would encourage you to read the bible for yourself, I would categorize the vast majority of this thread as pagan propaganda. In my travels must that love to exalt their biblical understanding have not even read the entire book cover to cover.
Was Jesus kosher? I know Christians aren't because Jesus 'made' it okay to eat whatever you want. That isn't a determining factor in deciding his religion, but it does kinda lean it one way or the other.
I feel since you are all helping me find some answers, it would only be fair to give you some background info on me... I am not now, nor have I ever been a Christian in any sense of the word. My family is Jewish and I am agnostic. However, my wife and I are raising my son Jewish, simply to help instill moral values into his life. He will be free to choose whatever he wishes to believe. We will encourage him to research all avenues and make a logical decision on his own.
P.S. Thank you Statecowboy, for coming back to this hostile environment and answering a few of my questions from your perspective. People with your perspective (knowledgable practising Christians) don't really have a presense over here anymore. Most of the confrontational people no longer post here and I hope your stay is longer this time.
Post by: damam on March 31, 2006, 02:18:00 PM
QUOTE
Based on what you have said so far, my opinion on the matter for question #1 has not changed. Jesus was not a 'Jew' in my opinion. He believed he was the Messiah, making him, in a sense Christian.
that would be like saying King David, was not a jew simply because he believed he was a great king and social revolutionary. That is all the messiah is: a great king and social revolutionary that was supposed to end the reign of the gentiles. It does not make him any less of a jew to have believed that. He was also not alone in professing to be a messiah. There were tons of them at that time (all still considered to be jews). What made him unique from the vast majority was that he did not push for an armed revolution as well as a social revolution, he only pushed a social revolution within the jewish community. The biggest problem is that you are taking christian concepts that have evolved quite a bit from there jewish roots and forcing them back onto jewish beliefs. You also seem to be confusing Paul with Jesus.
QUOTE
Was Jesus kosher? I know Christians aren't because Jesus 'made' it okay to eat whatever you want. That isn't a determining factor in deciding his religion, but it does kinda lean it one way or the other.
yes jesus was kosher in my oppinion, he followed the law and traditions. Even after his death they tried to give him proper jewish burial which implies that everyone around him still saw him as jewish. There is one incident (Mark 2:23-28) where jesus and his disciples were picking grain in a field and eating the raw grain on the sabath while they were on a walk. The pharisees saw this as a form of work on the sabath because in there oppinion they should have picked whatever they needed to eat the day before. Jesus basically argued that eating when you are hungry is not a crime.
It was Paul that made it ok to eat what ever you wanted. Not Jesus.
QUOTE
As for #2 I still do not understand why it is unfathomable to believe in UFOs for the majority. Ezekial alludes to something 'other-worldly' for whatever reason. If you can say Ezekial was high, why can't you say any other person in the Bible was, including Mary? Why are Ezekial's statements not taken literal, and Mary's are? Both are just as ludicrous, or just as sane, as the other. If the Bible is meant to be taken literally, why isn't it for Ezekial?
ezekial could have seen a ufo. we will never know. I am simply saying that ezekial had about 48 seperate visions and (based on the page you posted) a couple of them supports the notion of a ufo. how does the person that looks to this as a ufo experience explain the other 40 or so visions? By most accounts the "UFO" visions is one of the tamer ones. This is a person that had a lot of visions . . .
Its also interesting to note that stoners today seem to make up the bulk of the UFO witnesses. According to mufon they are more open to the experiene due to the drug use and are less likely to repress the memory
Not that they were tripping hardcore or anything as simple as that and simply had a hallucination.QUOTE
Paul is irrelevant, Yes I know he was the only GENTILE apostle.
Paul was born a jew, and became a self imposed gentile. The minute the other apostles all decided to follow paul (which is illustrated in acts) they became gentiles as well. Acts is the demarc point where christians became a cult in the eyes of the roman rulers.
Post by: damam on March 31, 2006, 04:01:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Mar 31 2006, 11:22 AM)
also...why arent Christians kosher....Paul had this to say about respecting Mosaic law
"That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."
Meat without blood refers to kosher meals....but he may be allowing pork and shellfish....kinda sketchy...
but they are still obviously enforcing the "meat sans blood" part of the kosher law
there is more to it though (which i am sure you know but i am just saying for clarification). . . . paul was not simply argueing that it was ok to eat all meat as long as there was no blood
Paul was argueing that gentiles need not convert to judaism or practice jewish traditions and follow the law in order to be christians. The apostles were saying the exact opposite. Before Paul (B.P. ?
), in order to be a christian you had to first be a jew or a jewish convert and be practicing the law and traditions. What made this come to a head is when they started getting gentiles who wanted to join the sect and did not mind following the law and traditions with the exception they did not want to be circumsized (the wimps). Theres sections of ACTS that can be loosely interpretted as the apostles getting into brawls (as in fist fights) with Paul over this matter to give you an idea of how controversial it was to the apostles. This eventually led the path down to a virtual abondonment of all things that jews normally associate with being a part of the jewish culture.It also turned christianity into a highly adaptable religion for all cultures.
Post by: puckSR on March 31, 2006, 04:03:00 PM
Post by: heinrich on March 31, 2006, 06:34:00 PM
Others prescribe to the theory that he didnt become Christ did he was crucified, but the baptism idea fits well with having to be baptised to become a christian.
But really, who cares? ;p
Post by: jha'dhur on March 31, 2006, 07:06:00 PM
QUOTE(damam @ Mar 31 2006, 04:25 PM)
Paul was born a jew, and became a self imposed gentile. The minute the other apostles all decided to follow paul (which is illustrated in acts) they became gentiles as well. Acts is the demarc point where christians became a cult in the eyes of the roman rulers.
What bible version are you reading from? You must have one of those hillbilly bibles that say negroes are cursed.
Saul AKA Paul was a greek, commonly refered to as a gentiles. In English a white dude...
QUOTE(damam @ Mar 31 2006, 04:25 PM)
It was Paul that made it ok to eat what ever you wanted. Not Jesus.
BOGUS!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was Jesus that forced apostles to eat traditionally unclean foods like swine after they had prayed over it.
Your interpretations are contadictory to the christian beliefs I was raised with.
Post by: damam on March 31, 2006, 07:56:00 PM
QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Mar 31 2006, 03:13 PM)
What bible version are you reading from? You must have one of those hillbilly bibles that say negroes are cursed.
Saul AKA Paul was a greek, commonly refered to as a gentiles. In English a white dude...
Since I am not sure which one is the hilbilly version I will quote the two most commonly used ones today. Let me know for future reference which one you prefer. . .
He was known as Saul/Paul of Tarsus which is in modern day turkey and he was a jew. At this time there were jews all over the place (asia, africa, and europe) and they all identified themselves as jews.
wiki on tarsus
Acts 21:39
NIV(new international version) = Paul answered, "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people."
KJV(King James Version) = But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.
Acts 22:3
NIV = Then Paul said: "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.
KJV= I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
QUOTE
BOGUS!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was Jesus that forced apostles to eat traditionally unclean foods like swine after they had prayed over it.
Your interpretations are contadictory to the christian beliefs I was raised with.
It was Jesus that forced apostles to eat traditionally unclean foods like swine after they had prayed over it.
Your interpretations are contadictory to the christian beliefs I was raised with.
Jesus never said that or did that or endorsed such behavior. PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG BY SHOWING THE VERSE.
As a matter of fact jesus said he only came for the Jews and they never would have listened to him if was doing the behavior you describe.
Another note is that Mathew, Mark, Luke & John only talk of pigs twice that i know of: Once when he put the demons in a herd of pig and then ordered them off the cliff (nothing about eating them afterwords) and once when discussing the Prodigal Son whome in the parable (ie did not really happen) fed pigs and did not eat them.
If I didnt know better I would say your trolling . . . .
Post by: heinrich on March 31, 2006, 08:53:00 PM
Post by: _iffy on March 31, 2006, 09:11:00 PM
all historical records from that time are bias.
They didn't have newspapers back then. There were no street signs. There weren't "best selling novels"
Tom clancy wasn't born yet. How can you people say their population was mostly literate. There is no infalible evidence that they were.
Much like the middle ages (dark ages) the majority of the people couldn't read or write. Most people were poor farmers or bakers or dentists. Uneducated.
But that's not to say paul didn't get a monk to write for him.
you can't take 2000 year old text that's been edited every century, translated 20 or more times, and use it like it was a photograph.
Faith is very personal. What you believe. Please don't confuse fact with faith. They're independant of each other.
Post by: damam on March 31, 2006, 09:20:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Mar 31 2006, 04:41 PM)
. . . except for the Paul being Jewish thing...I think he might have lied a little to gain some extra acceptance....why else would he be so strongly opposed to Jewish law?
I suppose its possible, but it is certainly not my oppinion. I think it would be very hard to be an outsider and claim to be a jewish fundamentalist. Atleast for a while he did live stictly by the law and traditions while he lived with the apostles. He also would have had to have circumsized himself which I would assume is an undesirable experience for an adult male(?) . . . But your right its all doable and possible.
another point is that there were jews at the time that did not practice the law or atleast picked and chose which ones they would follow and ignore. The infamous Josephus being one of them. I know that christians say that absolute adherence to the laws and traditions were required back then, but alternative records dont really support this notion. So it is not exactly unheard of for jews at the time to be anti-mosaic law.
I hope that we can alteast agree that because he was from tarsus that does not close the book on the possibility of him being a jew.
QUOTE
Faith is very personal. What you believe. Please don't confuse fact with faith. They're independant of each other.
so true
Post by: Arvarden on April 01, 2006, 11:17:00 AM
Post by: jha'dhur on April 01, 2006, 11:58:00 AM
QUOTE(damam @ Mar 31 2006, 10:03 PM)
Since I am not sure which one is the hilbilly version I will quote the two most commonly used ones today. Let me know for future reference which one you prefer. . .
He was known as Saul/Paul of Tarsus which is in modern day turkey and he was a jew. At this time there were jews all over the place (asia, africa, and europe) and they all identified themselves as jews.
wiki on tarsus
Acts 21:39
NIV(new international version) = Paul answered, "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people."
KJV(King James Version) = But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.
Acts 22:3
NIV = Then Paul said: "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.
KJV= I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
Jesus never said that or did that or endorsed such behavior. PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG BY SHOWING THE VERSE.
As a matter of fact jesus said he only came for the Jews and they never would have listened to him if was doing the behavior you describe.
Another note is that Mathew, Mark, Luke & John only talk of pigs twice that i know of: Once when he put the demons in a herd of pig and then ordered them off the cliff (nothing about eating them afterwords) and once when discussing the Prodigal Son whome in the parable (ie did not really happen) fed pigs and did not eat them.
If I didnt know better I would say your trolling . . . .
I am not debating whether Saul/Paul was a Jewsih convert. I am debating whether he was a descendant of the 12 tribes of Isreal.
From your very own words clearly he wasnt (of Judah) he was a convert Turk.
QUOTE
If I didnt know better I would say your trolling . . . .
You know if I was trolling I would probably respond in kind to Puck's gestures. I am sorry I dont think like you and you find that threatning. Take your own advice, turn the channel.
@ Puck, 4 individuals have PM'd me (so you know) describing you with not so kind words. I am not going to occupy myself with your childish antics. Your personal attack is a clear indication that you have nothing constructive to add only dramaitcs. But I am sure they are all wrong not you Puck
So in you imaginary world, Paul can be Judah Paul Hur, and you can be an Native American.
Post by: jha'dhur on April 01, 2006, 02:16:00 PM
Judah is one of the 12 tribes. From hence the Christ is a descendant.
Jew is slang for Judah. Jews or descendants of Judah lived in Judea.
There became a point in Isrealite history where Israel and Judea split.
The northern tribes embraced greek culture while the southern tribes allied themselves with the Afro Arabs.
Saul later Paul was a religous Jew by tradition. He was to spread the "good news" to the Gentiles, because he was best qualified, he was an insider.
Saying you are a catholic while you believe in abortion is a contradiction. You are a "whatever" by tradition, (non practicing).
I am not the type to pick up axes ground by others but, you are an expert in your own opinion.
I am willing to bet if I sat down and read your last 50 post every single word would be corroborated only with your opinion.
Actually after reading the Haliburton thread, you are the troll but I guess you and the female are trolls of the same affiliation.
But I did get a good laugh out of the fact that you actually believe you can tell the future or that people can make gold.
Could you send some gold to my paypal account.
Post by: jha'dhur on April 01, 2006, 03:26:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 1 2006, 04:52 PM)
I think the "make gold" reference is to my comment that modern science could sythensize gold....so here is some info.
"in 1980, Glenn Seaborg transmuted lead into gold, though the amount of energy used and the microscopic quantities created negated any possible financial benefit."
-wikipedia
another article on the same thing
smart guy...go read up on him...he also synthesized gold
[/i]
Unsubstantiated, much like the morons that claimed they cloned a person from Clone AID.
OR UFO'S (Why they are unidentified)
Bigfoot
Loch Ness
Yes there are fools on this planet I believe you probably know and share the same last name with a few.
Your digging a bigger hole for yourself PLEASE continue....
Post by: puckSR on April 01, 2006, 04:00:00 PM
QUOTE
Unsubstantiated, much like the morons that claimed they cloned a person from Clone AID.
are you actually claiming that we have never turned one element into another?
Are you comparing a highly decorated Chemist to the Raelians?
How is this anything like clone aid...if your going to go all conspiracy theory...at least compare him to that Korean scientist....who got into trouble for doing "bad work"
You say Im lying...but you dont produce anything to prove me wrong...
Im sure you found a lot of articles claiming that it did happen....where is the one claiming that it is unsubstantiated?
WOW....all i can say is WOW.....
So...Tell me more about Jesus praying over unclean meat...and then eating it....I want to hear about this....
LMAO
Ummm...how many links would you like to prove your full of shit?
Pork unclean to Jesus
So....apparently we cannot change atoms?
Apparently Jesus said something that he never said?
Apparently a brilliant Chemist lied about doing something that is scientifically quite possible?
Apparently i dont do anything but spout opinion?
Can i come to your world sometime...and enjoy the craziness...
mine is getting rather boring right now, having to talk to idiots like you
Maybe you realize your wrong...and you just are not man enough to admit it....
in which case...I understand...just be quiet...and apologize to everyone you insulted....
Post by: jha'dhur on April 01, 2006, 07:27:00 PM
QUOTE
"Chemist Turns Lead Into Gold."
Really? When? Oh, in 1980? Maybe?
"Is Alechemy Real?"
Is it? I don't know. If you're going to ask a mind numbing question to lead into your article then at least take the time to answer it properly.
This post is insidiously stupid. Not only is it blatant spam for About.com but it also contains NOTHING even close to news... unless I'm mistaken and we are in the middle of the Cold War. This is nothing but a few minutes from a 9th grade chemistry lecture from a fake chemist on a crummy site. This is slashdot for special eds and an offense to the digg community as a whole. Marcelo should have his account suspended for posting this pile.
Really? When? Oh, in 1980? Maybe?
"Is Alechemy Real?"
Is it? I don't know. If you're going to ask a mind numbing question to lead into your article then at least take the time to answer it properly.
This post is insidiously stupid. Not only is it blatant spam for About.com but it also contains NOTHING even close to news... unless I'm mistaken and we are in the middle of the Cold War. This is nothing but a few minutes from a 9th grade chemistry lecture from a fake chemist on a crummy site. This is slashdot for special eds and an offense to the digg community as a whole. Marcelo should have his account suspended for posting this pile.
"from a fake chemist on a crummy site."
QUOTE
Seaborg was a great man who in addition to his scientific breakthroughs, made major contributions to the University of California in various areas. He visited my Chemisty 1A class one day and afterwards he would gladly sign periodic tables featuring such elements as seaborgium, californium, and berkelium. Also a proponent of athletics, Seaborg would be excited about Saturday's Big Game -- Go Bears! I'm joyed to seem him mentioned on Digg, albeit for this odd article.
"albeit for this odd article"
QUOTE
About dot com is a circus of information with lots of advertisements
Speaks for itself.
QUOTE
leegleechN: Sure they are, if you consider chemists to work with subatomic and nuclear particles. It's just that the majority of chemists do their work at a higher level.
This is really pretty old, and I don't expect that it would be a very stable gold atom, probably an isotope
This is really pretty old, and I don't expect that it would be a very stable gold atom, probably an isotope
The smartest comment yet ..
I wonder why no patent exist for this revelation of yours.
Did about.com cornor the Scientic Information markets since they are the only source of this scientific revelation.
I wonder why...
BOGUS
Whats the name of the process?
Did it produce a stable isotope of gold?
Who witnessed the procedure.
Who independantly verified the results ?
What was the upper threshold of the production yields?
Who wrote the BOGUS about.com article?
Why are they the only ones to present this information.
What (respected) technical journal has reported these findings?
The sky is falling
Post by: _iffy on April 01, 2006, 09:40:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 1 2006, 12:17 AM)
Umm...there is no infallible evidence of most things
what I believe you meant to say was there is no accurate or trustworthy evidence...in which case...
there is plenty
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 1 2006, 03:08 PM)
OOOOh....Im a complete jerk....trsut them on that
I will call you an idiot when you say something stupid
And...if you just start posting random information...and dont corroborate it....I will call you anything I please
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 1 2006, 04:52 PM)
Hmm...how much do you want to bet....because on this thread alone i can find several where i either corroborated my claims with either biblical passages, encylopedia entries, or books by historians.
can you give a source or evidence that wasn't written by a guy in the past 5 years?
What objective evidence do you have to support your claims?
Do you have a 2000 year old "year in revue" newsletter?
Where are these letters paul wrote? Who has them?
So here's a chance to put all your critics to rest. But...
You can't use the bible a truth. You can't use the internet as fact. Encylipedias don't count as evidence.
THE GOLD SUBJECT
a particle accelerator can add individual electons/protrons/nuetrons.
Scientists can make any atom they want. Even gold.
I'm not sure exactly what you guys are argueing but science can make gold out of wood. (so to speak)
BTW puckSR can you give a link to the gravity theory thread? I've heard it mentioned a couple times
Post by: jha'dhur on April 02, 2006, 10:38:00 AM
QUOTE(_iffy @ Apr 1 2006, 11:47 PM)
THE GOLD SUBJECT
a particle accelerator can add individual electons/protrons/nuetrons.
Scientists can make any atom they want. Even gold.
I'm not sure exactly what you guys are argueing but science can make gold out of wood. (so to speak)
BTW puckSR can you give a link to the gravity theory thread? I've heard it mentioned a couple times
QUOTE
Scientists can make any atom they want. Even gold.
I'm not sure exactly what you guys are argueing but science can make gold out of wood. (so to speak)
I'm not sure exactly what you guys are argueing but science can make gold out of wood. (so to speak)
In theory yes. Atomic structure isnt quite as trivial as that however.
In theory I can fly but in praticallity you know that this is just theory.
I find it highly suspect that no real source has substantiated these findings. I attended a University which had an operating research reactor. The story of lead shields transmutated to gold is simple science fiction.
Why can noone else reproduce his reasearch. A key procedure in the release of scientific discoveries.
Independant verification.
DNA analysis are independantly verified and "reproducable" hence science fact.
Cloning people isnt, hence science fiction. (At the moment)
Making "real" stable gold isnt either. Scientific zealots are a dime a dozen. And this hoax is quite commonplace, and it is the reason there are checks and balances in the scientific community.
BECAUSE people make BS up. I have seen respected scientist go on shows and say how there are alien corpses in Roswell and how these aliens made stealth bomber.
QUESTION:
P.S. There are hundreds of nuclear reactors worldwide why has no other facility substantiated this claim?
@ PUCKSR Hey I got a bigfoot toenail for sale on EBAY I will give you 500 shipped PAYPAL......
Post by: puckSR on April 02, 2006, 01:32:00 PM
QUOTE
In theory I can fly but in praticallity you know that this is just theory.
According to what theory exactly can you fly?
unless we are being really loose with the term "i can fly"...in which case...of course you can...its called an airplane...
QUOTE
I find it highly suspect that no real source has substantiated these findings. I attended a University which had an operating research reactor. The story of lead shields transmutated to gold is simple science fiction.
I wasnt referring to the lead shield part of that article...I was referring to the experiment at Berkley...
Now...did i ever claim that he created "stable" gold?
QUOTE
find it highly suspect that no real source has substantiated these findings.
Except you ignored the multiple accounts of this claim....
Does the New York Times count as a "real" source?..
Google it...you will find plenty of sources...
QUOTE
Why can noone else reproduce his reasearch. A key procedure in the release of scientific discoveries.
Independant verification.
DNA analysis are independantly verified and "reproducable" hence science fact.
Independant verification.
DNA analysis are independantly verified and "reproducable" hence science fact.
No one "reproduced his research" because it wasnt research....
if you can create Einsteinum...then you can create Gold....
He didnt do this as research....he did this to "do it"...
it got his school some attention...and it allowed them to claim that they had finally accomplished the great mystery of alchemy...
Im sure anyone else could do this...but why?
Its completely within the known laws of science to be possible
it requires a great deal of money and time to accomplish...
it doesnt produce anything near viable for the synthesis of gold
Someone else already did it first.....
You keep acting like this would shake up the scientific world....
IT DOESNT....
Everyone knew you could do it...especially this guy....since he discovered 5 elements using the same process.
Didnt I post a link to the American Chemisty Society...or some similiar group
QUOTE
BOGUS!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was Jesus that forced apostles to eat traditionally unclean foods like swine after they had prayed over it.
Your interpretations are contadictory to the christian beliefs I was raised with.
It was Jesus that forced apostles to eat traditionally unclean foods like swine after they had prayed over it.
Your interpretations are contadictory to the christian beliefs I was raised with.
Ummm...since this entire thread is on religion...
mind explaining this one
Post by: jha'dhur on April 02, 2006, 02:38:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 2 2006, 02:39 PM)
Except you ignored the multiple accounts of this claim....
Post them they are probably as lacking on the specifics as you are.
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 2 2006, 02:39 PM)
No one "reproduced his research" because it wasnt research....
I am going to start calling you Semantic BOY.Then what was research, experiment, felder garb.
witchery.
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 2 2006, 02:39 PM)
Except you ignored the multiple accounts of this claim....
Does the New York Times count as a "real" source?..
Yeah it was next to the article on the big foot sighting. How about a recognized, credible scientific journal.
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 2 2006, 02:39 PM)
if you can create Einsteinum...then you can create Gold....
Funny, since know one else has observed documented or reproduced this "revelation"
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 2 2006, 02:39 PM)
Im sure anyone else could do this...but why?
Its completely within the known laws of science to be possible
it requires a great deal of money and time to accomplish...
So let me get this right I have a nuclear reactor, like Iran, I use my nuclear reactor to produce an alement like Plutiniuom 239 (Pu -239) That doesnt exist in nature. So that I can make bombs plus I get gold from the shielding around the reactor.
1) The electricty that I generate and sell from the nuclear power plant,
2) Coupled with the Pu that I generate to blackmail Americans, sell to Al Qaeda or just sit on to keep Bush from invading. You do understand that Pu is the most expensive mineral on the face of the earth.
3) And I get Gold also.
4) Lets see back of the envelope calc.
Electricity $.07per kw-hr
The typical power reactor produces 3000 Mega Watts
Given the heat engine effiecency 1000 Mega Watts of sellable energy.
That amounts to about a million dollars a day in revenue.
Sounds like a f*ing lottery to me.
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 2 2006, 02:39 PM)
Didnt I post a link to the American Chemisty Society...or some similiar group
Now you know the answer to that.
P.S. I know you probably dont grasp the significance of the above. So let me just add one final caviat. Most knowledgable physicist and nuclear scientist attribute these claims to the little known fact that there are trace amounts of gold in Lead Ore. .
P.S.S. And given the fact that your "claim" mentions an upper threshold on the mass fraction or mass ratio of Gold to Lead, that is probably the likely explanation of his research/experiment or whatever.
P.S.S.S. I would gander to guess that the concentration he "detected" was not in excess of the natural abundance.
QUOTE
BOGUS!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was Jesus that forced apostles to eat traditionally unclean foods like swine after they had prayed over it.
Your interpretations are contadictory to the christian beliefs I was raised with.
Ummm...since this entire thread is on religion...
mind explaining this one
Now wouldn't that kill all the fun, Senior Thread Crapper. I am really enjoying you making a total baboon of yourself.
Post by: jha'dhur on April 02, 2006, 05:59:00 PM
QUOTE
transmuted several thousand atoms of lead into gold at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. His
experimental technique, using nuclear physics, was able to remove protons and neutrons from the lead
atoms
experimental technique, using nuclear physics, was able to remove protons and neutrons from the lead
atoms
I know you are probably not familiar with mass spectroscopy, mass spec is a tool used to analyze samples to the part per trillion (ppt) this is currently the lower end of resolution. TODAY...
1 part per trillion is one atom in 10^9
1000 atoms, there are Avogadros Number (Na = 6.023*10^23) atoms/mole-gram.
10^23 atoms in one gram. A pack of M&M's is a little less than 100 grams.
That is one hell of alot less than 1 ppt. With 1980's technology. And you insist he counted 1000 atoms.
With what technology... Bomb detectors at the airport arent that sensitive.
BULLSHIT....
You sound like a politician now. Trying to understand science. Google want give you understanding....
I am going to talk so you can understand me. Imagine curling a 50 lb bar, I walk by and flick a booger on it
and you notice a discernable difference in the weight of the now
50.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
.1 lb dumbell.
You really dont get it.
Post by: lordvader129 on April 02, 2006, 06:26:00 PM
Post by: jha'dhur on April 02, 2006, 06:52:00 PM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Apr 2 2006, 07:33 PM)
10^23 atoms of lead isnt 1 gram, its about 207 grams, plus he said "several thousand" not just 1000, granted this doesnt change the numbers much, but if your going to argue about moles at least learn how to use avagadros number properly
Let me clarify
QUOTE
Avogadro's number can be applied to any substance. It corresponds to the number of atoms or molecules needed to make up a mass equal to the substance's atomic or molecular mass, in grams. For example, the atomic mass of iron is 55.847 amu, so Avogadro's number of iron atoms (i.e. one mole of iron atoms) have a mass of 55.847 g. Conversely, 55.847 g of iron contains Avogadro's number of iron atoms. Thus Avogadro's number NA corresponds to the conversion factor between grams (g) and atomic mass units:
You are correct I mispoke in my hast 10^23 is one mole gram. Nice of you to dissect my words and find a small flaw in my argument. or just a type O since I said Na= X mole-gram on the line before.
And one gram of a substance is Na * AMU
@PUCk 1 amu = Atomic mass The red number on the chart
QUOTE
"several thousand" not just 1000, HUH???
So, in other words you dont sh*t to add. That really changes the conclusion.
@ Vader (Real original)
New "smart guy"
Either you are also of the opinion that a detector that has a sensitvity of 10^9 atoms
can resolve a "few thousand" atoms out of 10^23.
OR
You just have a big mouth. And are trying to save face for your buddy.
Either way....
Post by: _iffy on April 02, 2006, 07:06:00 PM
...sorry it's not in english.
a partical accelerator is different from a nuclear power plant. In fact it's huge! Acre's huge! America has one, Russia has one, and i think france is building one. (i know it's in europe) They are extreamly expensive to own and operate. Thats why people aren't makeing gold. And if they were, the value of gold would decrease,
making it even less economical.
FYI - uranium does exist naturally in nature. The US, China, and Russia each have a mine.
All nuclear power plants are sourced from those three. Russia has said they will sell some to Iran if they can prove they will only use it for power generation.(another topic)
@puckSR just tell me were the original letters are, and who has them and i'll be happy(proof of existance)
jha'dhurNice pic, but don't underestimate the powers of the emporer...
Post by: jha'dhur on April 02, 2006, 07:10:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 2 2006, 07:44 PM)
jha'dur...
You have completely missed the point....
if the point were in my pocket...you would be on the moon at this point....
Why are you making such a big deal out of this.....?
I dont have any vested interest in the accuracy of being able to turn lead into gold....
Hmmm.....maybe this will make you happy....
jha'dur is correct....this never happened...the burden of proof was on me...and because i lack the time and energy to grab an obscure research paper that probably doesnt exist....I will concede...
No one has ever...ever...and never will....turn lead into gold....
?????
Does it matter?
Did it have anything to do with the conversation?
There....i read some articles on the net...they were obviously lies....and i completely retract my comment
Now....lets get back to the topic
I realized shortly after my first post why you selected Puck as a username.
You and your little brother (Vader) are amusing.
QUOTE
( Padme', He didnt say 1000 he said 3 thousand 492)
I know a little bit more about you than you think (thanks to the other users that you commonly antagonize.) I even was sent links to of your MUG and fetishes.
If you dont like the message don't shoot the messenger.
I am suprised you apoligized for your "BOGUSITY" <- new word
I dont require an apology. You believe one thing I believe another.
But, why are you so obsessive. You have pulled this "same game" with a few people.
Google said so, gotta be right.
Post by: jha'dhur on April 02, 2006, 07:47:00 PM
QUOTE(_iffy @ Apr 2 2006, 08:13 PM)
These are all man made using a partical accelerator
...sorry it's not in english.
a partical accelerator is different from a nuclear power plant. In fact it's huge! Acre's huge! America has one, Russia has one, and i think france is building one. (i know it's in europe) They are extreamly expensive to own and operate. Thats why people aren't makeing gold. And if they were, the value of gold would decrease, making it even less economical.
From the original BOGUS article.
QUOTE
There is an earlier report (1972) in which Soviet physicists at a nuclear research facility near Lake Baikal in Siberia accidentally discovered a reaction for turning lead into gold when they found the lead shielding of an experimental reactor had changed to gold.
This would insinuate that neutron bomabardment of lead and the resulting decay chains would produce a daughter element namely gold. Which isn't true.
QUOTE(_iffy @ Apr 2 2006, 08:13 PM)
Thats why people aren't makeing gold. And if they were, the value of gold would decrease,
making it even less economical.
Given the nature of paper currency I beg to differ. If N. Koreas was to launch a preemptive strike against US the dollar would go to shit. Our only tangible wealth internationally would be our gold stockpile and a promise to pay(Which Bush is reuning). Originally money was merely a silver certificate. But that is impratical today as a result of inflation.
This is why in times of war people sell paper money for gold certificates and gold skyrockets So.
What is a dollar worth. A U.S. government promise. Therefore the value of gold is inmaterial, the value of the dollar is the kicker.
QUOTE(_iffy @ Apr 2 2006, 08:13 PM)
Thats why people aren't makeing gold. And if they were, the value of gold would decrease,
making it even less economical.
I beg to differ read my last statement.
QUOTE(_iffy @ Apr 2 2006, 08:13 PM)
FYI - uranium does exist naturally in nature. The US, China, and Russia each have a mine.
All nuclear power plants are sourced from those three. Russia has said they will sell some to Iran if they can prove they will only use it for power generation.(another topic)
I said Plutonium not uranium. And to my knowledge US doesnt have any existing Uranium mines. I could be mistaken. And China is trying to negotiate uranium ore purchases from Australia.
Dude I work at a Uranium/ Plutonium facility. I will leave it at that, although I am a new guy I do have the academic credentials to hold my own against PuckSR on nuclear physcis/science.
@Puck
I would point out your misconceptions in gravity/gravitational force/gravitational theory ramblings but I dont have 3 pages in me, nor do I desire your further apologies.
@_iffy or @Vader Question for you:
Is there a limit to the mass number of an element that can be produced by this manner. As illustrated in the chart you posted. (i.e Why has noone surpassed Uun or 110 or more exactly 110 protons) If this entire sysnthesis procedure is a simple as you and Puck suggest.
Hint:
Everything decays to LEAD.
The answer to that question and consideration of the hint will demonstrate why making gold is simply scientific "foolishness" the reason why noone with an IQ above 30 gives it any real credance.
P.S.
I am not trying to insult you or anyone elses intelligence(well maybe Vader), but that is for cock grabbing by proxy. My only allegiance is to the truth.
@DAMAN I haven't forgotten about you. Your qoutes are on the way.
Post by: jha'dhur on April 02, 2006, 08:14:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 2 2006, 08:52 PM)
It just that Electrical Engineers dont get much of a chance to use chemistry....LOL
I had heard you were an electrical engineer. What cast a shadow of a doubt on the curriculum of your particular university. I that you as an EE student DO NOT GRASP the concept of lower threshold limits in electronics.
The reason you can always beat a 5 mph over speeding ticket is not that radar theory is flawed the detector cant see down to that resolution the electronics arent that efficent.
Anytime you perform any measurement you calibrate your instrument. To determine the error or instrument bias. Thats why counting 3000 atoms from an "X" g sample is just comical.
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 2 2006, 08:52 PM)
Im a fair and honest guy...
but you really have to watch IrishBastard/Bluedeath/xmedia....they will pull a Bill O'Reilley....
They dont even bother to "google" it....they just make it up and hope they are correct.....
Funny since one of those guys presented very similiar arguements as I just did to you concernig "making" gold and they just simply gave up on arguing with you.
I am not saying anything they said, I just sat here coach ridden recovering from an ankle injury with a few beers.
I probably come across as an obsessed a hole like you.
QUOTE
They dont even bother to "google" it....they just make it up and hope they are correct.....
Anyone can (in your case) read information(not facts) on the internet and present them without really understanding them and when met with scrutinity not respond.
(God help Us) but when you complete graduate studies you will have to verbally defend your thesis. All those numbers are out the window, and your basic understanding of the science will show. GOOD LUCK Google is not going to be there.
It is my contension, that you and DAMAN are wrong about the Jesus thing also. And you are going to spin it off an a side tangent as well.
QUOTE
Claim #1
I claim that there is a new testament story where Jesus presents an apostle with unclean meet, and he will not eat even after he has seen Jesus walk on water, and he is rebuked.
I claim that there is a new testament story where Jesus presents an apostle with unclean meet, and he will not eat even after he has seen Jesus walk on water, and he is rebuked.
QUOTE
Claim #2
I do remember also a new testament story where Saul/Paul while accompanied by some of the apostles is beaten by a Greek soldier, he replied to the soldier that he was a "Greek" and that stop beating him
I do remember also a new testament story where Saul/Paul while accompanied by some of the apostles is beaten by a Greek soldier, he replied to the soldier that he was a "Greek" and that stop beating him
That is my recollection, The fact that I dont have my annotated personal bible is the only reason you can cling to the last straw of credibility that you have.
Post by: _iffy on April 02, 2006, 08:25:00 PM
QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 2 2006, 08:54 PM)
From the original BOGUS article.
QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 2 2006, 08:54 PM)
What is a dollar worth. A U.S. government promise. Therefore the value of gold is inmaterial, the value of the dollar is the kicker.
QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 2 2006, 08:54 PM)
I beg to differ read my last statement.
QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 2 2006, 08:54 PM)
I said Plutonium not uranium. And to my knowledge US doesnt have any existing Uranium mines. I could be mistaken. And China is trying to negotiate uranium ore purchases from Australia.
appologie - sorry. plutonium. my mistake
QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 2 2006, 08:54 PM)
Dude I work at a Uranium/ Plutonium facility.
QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 2 2006, 08:54 PM)
@_iffy or @Vader Question for you:
Is there a limit to the mass number of an element that can be produced by this manner. As illustrated in the chart you posted. (i.e Why has noone surpassed Uun or 110 or more exactly 110 protons) If this entire sysnthesis procedure is a simple as you and Puck suggest.
They were man made but highly unstable.Is there a limit to the mass number of an element that can be produced by this manner. As illustrated in the chart you posted. (i.e Why has noone surpassed Uun or 110 or more exactly 110 protons) If this entire sysnthesis procedure is a simple as you and Puck suggest.
This planet, with it's gravity and atmospheric pressure, is not adequate to support their existance. They can make them but they don't "live" very long. Oh and they don't exist naturally here on earth.
QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 2 2006, 08:54 PM)
Hint:
Everything decays to LEAD.
jha'dhur I appologize if i've offended you, but if your not willing to listen and think, then conversation is meaningless. It's not always important to be right.
A partical accelerator can be used to make gold. It's fundamental design let's you do just that.
That's not to say it's a good idea though.
Post by: jha'dhur on April 02, 2006, 08:39:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 2 2006, 09:09 PM)
LMAO....
Physics isnt a weak point for me....
Just Solid State(Detector) physics HUH.
LAMAO..................
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 2 2006, 09:09 PM)
Remember, however, when you are reading those posts...that I was arguing with a complete idiot....
Not a guy who was misinformed, not a misunderstanding....he was a complete idiot....
OHH, The irony........
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 2 2006, 09:09 PM)
Which...if you go back up...you will see my discussion of the famed Dr. Seaborg....
the guy who discovered/created plutonium....along with a few others....
1 for "several thousand" you are on your way, BROTHER........
QUOTE
[in Darth Vaders voice]
Padma, (takes long breath, more of a weeze) He said several thousand, not 1000.
[/in Darth Vaders voice]
Raise arm[initiates Sith force choke]
[in Darth Vaders voice]
BITCH, Please........
[/in Darth Vaders voice]
Padma, (takes long breath, more of a weeze) He said several thousand, not 1000.
[/in Darth Vaders voice]
Raise arm[initiates Sith force choke]
[in Darth Vaders voice]
BITCH, Please........
[/in Darth Vaders voice]
Post by: jha'dhur on April 02, 2006, 09:04:00 PM
QUOTE(_iffy @ Apr 2 2006, 09:32 PM)
actually it's true. those elements are man made. Partical accelerators are not nuclear power plants, and they are big structures.
Gold is bought and sold every day. the value of gold is set by the worlds supply aswell as demand. If a "gold makeing factory" was built, it would flood the market with gold - lowering it's value.
why quote me twice? Does it make you sound smart?
America does have a mine. I was wrong about china.
appologie - sorry. plutonium. my mistake
dude, ask your boss were you get your uranium. They were man made but highly unstable.
This planet, with it's gravity and atmospheric pressure, is not adequate to support their existance. They can make them but they don't "live" very long. Oh and they don't exist naturally here on earth.
even diamonds?
jha'dhur I appologize if i've offended you, but if your not willing to listen and think, then conversation is meaningless. It's not always important to be right.
A partical accelerator can be used to make gold. It's fundamental design let's you do just that.
That's not to say it's a good idea though.
#1) Dude you havent offended me.
#2) A nuclear reactor is in essence a neutron(particle) accelerator. The concepts of fission/fusion is what lead to there development (Particle accelerators)
#3) My excollege roommate works for the largest Uranium mining outfit in the world Framatone. The vast, vast majority of nuclear fuel service is bought from abroad. That doesnt not exclude domestic Uranium mining I can not say for 100% so I will abstain. But whats the point
#4) The statement "Everything decays to lead implies that the atom is radioactive. Although daimnds can be bombarded by particles to produce exotic colors and increase their value they are not naturally radioactive.
QUOTE
This planet, with it's gravity and atmospheric pressure, is not adequate to support their existance. They can make them but they don't "live" very long. Oh and they don't exist naturally here on earth.
even diamonds?
even diamonds?
Dude, please dont repeat this statement ever, ever again. It is highly inaccurate. And you probably pulled it out of your backside. In fact I know you did. Not to be offensive.
QUOTE
A partical accelerator can be used to make gold. It's fundamental design let's you do just that.
That is just not true in the "real world". That is more Star Trek than science fact.
QUOTE
Gold is bought and sold every day. the value of gold is set by the worlds supply aswell as demand. If a "gold makeing factory" was built, it would flood the market with gold - lowering it's value.
why quote me twice? Does it make you sound smart?
why quote me twice? Does it make you sound smart?
You really really really are starting to sound like a kid now. No insult intended. I am going to agree to disagree with you, I now have a headache from reposting the same widely accepted scientific theories.
QUOTE
Partical accelerators are not nuclear power plants, and they are big structures.
Funny, the particle accelerator I conducted experiments with took up the space of a small lab or maybe 2-3 offices.
Dude this is really starting to sound like " I know you are, what am I"
I tell you what you find a "credible" scientific publication that details the manufacture of gold from lead in excess of its natural abundance endorsed by the scientific powers that be"I will send you $100.00 USD paypal."
Post by: lordvader129 on April 02, 2006, 09:06:00 PM
QUOTE
Hint:
Everything decays to LEAD.
Everything decays to LEAD.
interesting statement, given that its not true
and im not even arguing the semantics that "everything radioactive decays to lead" because thats not true either, for example, tritium, or hydrogen-3, decays into helium-3
oh, BTW, as for distinguishing small numbers of atoms, heres 35, count them yourself
Post by: throwingks on April 02, 2006, 09:14:00 PM
My Paypal is in my sig.
Post by: jha'dhur on April 02, 2006, 09:29:00 PM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Apr 2 2006, 10:13 PM)
interesting statement, given that its not true
and im not even arguing the semantics that "everything radioactive decays to lead" because thats not true either, for example, tritium, or hydrogen-3, decays into helium-3
oh, BTW, as for distinguishing small numbers of atoms, heres 35, count them yourself
You obviously arent a scientist, and they called me a troll.
I have only been exposed to nanothilthography in passing.
It took you 3 hours to find and present this. It has no real bearing on detector responce and the distiguishment of of Xe atoms from Ld atoms. Now does it. Given the fact we are discussing an event from nearly 30 years ago now.
What real bearing does this microscope, are they Xenon atoms because thats what the caption says.
Let me guess the presenters already knew the answer befroe posing the question since they set up the experiment as well as the controls.
Are sure one isnt kryton or Rubidioum the 3rd one on the left kind of looks like Carbon to me.
Post by: jha'dhur on April 02, 2006, 09:40:00 PM
The citizens of Nagaski and Hiroshima can atest to this. Film from ground zero had peculiar ghost traces on it very similiar to the image you posted. It was from the neutron and gamma pulse upon detonation.
Technially you are not looking at atoms more so than for lack of a beter term "xray" of film exposed and corresponding lack of exposure corresponding to their position.
@ Vader: Why cant you you see the electrons.
Dude, look up in the sky, is it a bird, no it is a plane.
Post by: lordvader129 on April 02, 2006, 10:01:00 PM
QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 2 2006, 08:36 PM)
You obviously arent a scientist, and they called me a troll.
I have only been exposed to nanothilthography in passing.
It took you 3 hours to find and present this. It has no real bearing on detector responce and the distiguishment of of Xe atoms from Ld atoms. Now does it. Given the fact we are discussing an event from nearly 30 years ago now.
What real bearing does this microscope, are they Xenon atoms because thats what the caption says.
Let me guess the presenters already knew the answer befroe posing the question since they set up the experiment as well as the controls.
Are sure one isnt kryton or Rubidioum the 3rd one on the left kind of looks like Carbon to me.
im simply pointing out that is an STM can see individual atoms im sure there is more sensative equipment than a mass spectrometer
QUOTE
Funny, the particle accelerator I conducted experiments with took up the space of a small lab or maybe 2-3 offices.
funnier i have a few particle accelerators in my bedroom, but i think throwingks was referring to high-energy experimental accelerators like this one
of course only the "big boys" get to work with the big cyclotrons, lol
i think this is the most current atom model, or at least the one that replaced the bohr model while i was in high school (seems you arent much of a scientist either)
Post by: throwingks on April 02, 2006, 10:22:00 PM
QUOTE(damam @ Mar 31 2006, 02:25 PM)
So do you consider yourself to a jew?
I have a friend that is agnostic, but still conseders himself to jewish. He actually left the states and moved to israel.
Sorry, I didn't answer your question before. Yes I do still consider myself to be a Jew. In the Old Testament there are too many things that are above human comprehension that some sort of more intelligent being had to of had a hand in creating it. Those same things do not apply in the New Testament, especially mathematically.I have a friend that is agnostic, but still conseders himself to jewish. He actually left the states and moved to israel.
QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 2 2006, 08:47 PM)
Dude, look up in the sky, is it a bird, no it is a plane.
That looks like what Ezekial described!!!QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 2 2006, 09:19 PM)
Seriously new guy...start a new thread....this is just damn annoying
I concur.P.S. jha'dhur - Take it easy on Vader. I don't recall seeing him attack you personally yet. For being a Mod, I think he is being extremely patient with you. Just because he was helping correct your calculations does not mean he is against you. He may be now, but he wasn't then.
Post by: _iffy on April 02, 2006, 10:23:00 PM
Post by: jha'dhur on April 03, 2006, 05:04:00 AM
QUOTE(throwingks @ Apr 2 2006, 11:29 PM)
Sorry, I didn't answer your question before. Yes I do still consider myself to be a Jew. In the Old Testament there are too many things that are above human comprehension that some sort of more intelligent being had to of had a hand in creating it. Those same things do not apply in the New Testament, especially mathematically.That looks like what Ezekial described!!!I concur.
P.S. jha'dhur - Take it easy on Vader. I don't recall seeing him attack you personally yet. For being a Mod, I think he is being extremely patient with you. Just because he was helping correct your calculations does not mean he is against you. He may be now, but he wasn't then.
You are arguing semantics like Puck, trying to put your own spin on a translation of a translation of a translation of a vey old document.
And maybe if Vader has something substance to add other than to just throw pebbles I could respect that even if he was wrong _iffy was just blatantly misconceptually wrong. Seabourg was mistaken, so was Vader. I have been mistaken because we are humans. But down through your BS up in the air an expect noone to take notice.
I guess bieing a "MOD" makes him infallable also, Seabourg as well.
I you, whoever should take note with skeptiscism of junk science. You all drummend out that Raelian FOOL.
@VADER what stake do you hve in this discourse, Puck you little dumb brother or something.
Teacher, you still havent answered my question wise one.
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Apr 2 2006, 11:08 PM)
im simply pointing out that is an STM can see individual atoms im sure there is more sensative equipment than a mass spectrometer
funnier i have a few particle accelerators in my bedroom, but i think throwingks was referring to high-energy experimental accelerators like this one
of course only the "big boys" get to work with the big cyclotrons, lol
i think this is the most current atom model, or at least the one that replaced the bohr model while i was in high school (seems you arent much of a scientist either)
QUOTE
im simply pointing out that is an STM can see individual atoms im sure there is more sensative equipment
Actually you are just pulling shit out of your arse to save face. PRIDE....
GOOGLE built for morons.
What is high energy? Please define? When you wish to demonstrate some understanding please let me know.
What element is that, you post a picture of?
Post by: throwingks on April 03, 2006, 09:15:00 AM
QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 3 2006, 04:11 AM)
You are arguing semantics like Puck, trying to put your own spin on a translation of a translation of a translation of a vey old document.
I am not the one who made this correlation. Do you have a better explanation of what he saw. Keep in mind the Bible was meant to be taken litterally. Or else, it is possible Mary wasn't a virgin. This is my point to this whole thread until you vultured it with your name calling and useless banter. It seems to be that the people that resort to name calling are the ones who lack the confidence in their statements that they carry enough weight on their own. Is this the case now? Or are you so pissed off that someone out there in the world sees something different than you do? Honestly, I am gonna miss you when you are gone. You made this section enjoyable again, even if only for a little while.
QUOTE(slightly_damp @ Apr 3 2006, 07:47 AM)
Post by: damam on April 03, 2006, 11:16:00 AM
QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 2 2006, 03:21 PM)
. . .
It is my contension, that you and DAMAN are wrong about the Jesus thing also. And you are going to spin it off an a side tangent as well.
QUOTE
Claim #1
I claim that there is a new testament story where Jesus presents an apostle with unclean meet, and he will not eat even after he has seen Jesus walk on water, and he is rebuked.
I claim that there is a new testament story where Jesus presents an apostle with unclean meet, and he will not eat even after he has seen Jesus walk on water, and he is rebuked.
QUOTE
Claim #2
I do remember also a new testament story where Saul/Paul while accompanied by some of the apostles is beaten by a Greek soldier, he replied to the soldier that he was a "Greek" and that stop beating him
I do remember also a new testament story where Saul/Paul while accompanied by some of the apostles is beaten by a Greek soldier, he replied to the soldier that he was a "Greek" and that stop beating him
That is my recollection, The fact that I dont have my annotated personal bible is the only reason you can cling to the last straw of credibility that you have.
Claim #1
These are the stories of Jesus walking on water:
Mark 6:44-51
John 6:10-21
Matthew 14:17-34
I dont think there is anything in there that collaborates your claim.
Perhaps you are talking about Matthew 15:10-20?
QUOTE(NIV Matthew 15:10-20)
10Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "
12Then the disciples came to him and asked, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?"
13He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14Leave them; they are blind guides.[a] If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
15Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."
16"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "
12Then the disciples came to him and asked, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?"
13He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14Leave them; they are blind guides.[a] If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
15Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."
16"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "
QUOTE(KJV Matthew 15:10-20)
10And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
12Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
13But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
14Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
15Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
16And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
17Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
12Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
13But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
14Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
15Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
16And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
17Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
I guess you could argue that this is proof he was a proponent of eating unclean food. But that certainlyis not my oppinion of this scripture. And there is definitely nothing here about him praying over pork and then rebuking his apostles for refusting to eat it.
claim #2
I dont recall the story but if it is true that would not necessarily change anything since he was a helenistic jew. He might have even been an official citizen of rome but I doubt it.
QUOTE(NIV Acts 23:6)
6Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead."
QUOTE(KJV Acts 23:6)
6But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
Either he was a convert and that would make him a liar or he was a full fledged jew.
Really claim #2 is trivial to me. It makes no difference to my faith. But claim #1 would alter my entire perception of christ. If you really do think you can prove this, please post the book chapter and verses.
@Puck
are you sure that Paul was anti-mosaic law? Or was he just anti forcing gentiles to follow the mosaic law?
Acts 23:1
Acts 25:7-8
Acts 28:17
these seem to suggest that he did live by the law and traditions as well. Really to maintain legitamacy within the pharisees and saducees they would have to live by the law and traditions. Much of what they did were legal arguements and debates at the synagogue . . .
Post by: damam on April 03, 2006, 11:28:00 AM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 3 2006, 06:32 AM)
About Paul being anti-Mosaic law:
I dont believe that he personally violated Mosaic law, or that he kept Mosaic law for that matter....
I just think you can observe the early christian church, and their dismissal of Mosaic law, and you can point to paul. I dont know if i can say it any other way. I dont think he "had a hand in it". I think he was just trying to be as open to the gentiles as possible, and in the process decided that if the new guys didnt want to follow Mosaic law then it was ok. This attitude, in my opinion though, led to a complete dismissal of Mosaic law which we seen in modern christianity.
I agree with that . . . it just sounded like you were saying that he was anti-mosaic law as in giving them the big FU and mooning the pharisees while he ate pork etc
Post by: jha'dhur on April 03, 2006, 04:06:00 PM
QUOTE(damam @ Apr 3 2006, 12:23 PM)
That is my recollection, The fact that I dont have my annotated personal bible is the only reason you can cling to the last straw of credibility that you have.
Claim #1
These are the stories of Jesus walking on water:
Mark 6:44-51
John 6:10-21
Matthew 14:17-34
I dont think there is anything in there that collaborates your claim.
Perhaps you are talking about Matthew 15:10-20?
I guess you could argue that this is proof he was a proponent of eating unclean food. But that certainlyis not my oppinion of this scripture. And there is definitely nothing here about him praying over pork and then rebuking his apostles for refusting to eat it.
claim #2
I dont recall the story but if it is true that would not necessarily change anything since he was a helenistic jew. He might have even been an official citizen of rome but I doubt it.
Either he was a convert and that would make him a liar or he was a full fledged jew.
Really claim #2 is trivial to me. It makes no difference to my faith. But claim #1 would alter my entire perception of christ. If you really do think you can prove this, please post the book chapter and verses.
Acts 10
QUOTE
Peter's Vision
9) About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14) "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
15) The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
16) This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
9) About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14) "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
15) The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
16) This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
This is why you pray over your food of whatever preference before you consume it.
I will not argue semantics like others and insist (Jesus =God). But it was Peter and not Saul the convert.
P.S. My bible expert seems to recall claim #2 and is locating exact passasge.
Post by: damam on April 03, 2006, 04:20:00 PM
QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 3 2006, 11:13 AM)
Acts 10
This is why you pray over your food of whatever preference before you consume it.
I will not argue semantics like others and insist (Jesus =God). But it was Peter and not Saul the convert.
P.S. My bible expert seems to recall claim #2 and is locating exact passasge.
I am well aware of the verse. I personally make a clear distinction between the living jesus (ie pre Crucifixion), and what has been revealed through revelation (like peters vision). I am also aware that many of my fellow Christians dont (such as yourself?). So on this point I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Thank you for posting it.
Post by: damam on April 03, 2006, 05:07:00 PM
QUOTE
Thats why I was asking him about his whole outlook.....
First for this belief to hold any truth....G_d=Jesus
Secondly, you have to believe that the "vision" of G-d is the same thing as Jesus in corporeal form to hold his claim....
I think I mentioned this passage when the whole argument broke out....
First for this belief to hold any truth....G_d=Jesus
Secondly, you have to believe that the "vision" of G-d is the same thing as Jesus in corporeal form to hold his claim....
I think I mentioned this passage when the whole argument broke out....
yeah you did.
I also make a distinction between revalations in which they say they saw jesus specifically. . .
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 3 2006, 12:05 PM)
I also do not understand how this scenario would extend to other Christians?
The animals that Peter saw had "come down from Heaven"....
Unless your food comes in a sheet from Heaven...I dont see how this is applicable to you
chyaaa, what ever dude. I get all of my food in sheets descending from heaven. Its one of the perks of being a christian
Post by: jha'dhur on April 03, 2006, 05:15:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 3 2006, 06:05 PM)
Thats why I was asking him about his whole outlook.....
First for this belief to hold any truth....G_d=Jesus
Secondly, you have to believe that the "vision" of G-d is the same thing as Jesus in corporeal form to hold his claim....
I think I mentioned this passage when the whole argument broke out....
Plus...if you will notice...there is no mention of praying over the food...I dont know where you got that...
G_d didnt say that if you pray over it I will make it clean
G_d said that He had made it clean....
SEMANTICS..................
Post by: jha'dhur on April 03, 2006, 05:55:00 PM
QUOTE(damam @ Apr 3 2006, 12:23 PM)
Perhaps you are talking about Matthew 15:10-20?
I guess you could argue that this is proof he was a proponent of eating unclean food. But that certainlyis not my oppinion of this scripture. And there is definitely nothing here about him praying over pork and then rebuking his apostles for refusting to eat it.
claim #2
I dont recall the story but if it is true that would not necessarily change anything since he was a helenistic jew. He might have even been an official citizen of rome but I doubt it.
Either he was a convert and that would make him a liar or he was a full fledged jew.
@ DAMAN:
Perhaps you can also explain to me why Saul/Paul (who you claim was a religous JEW at birth), assisted in the deaths of several ethnic and religous JEWS even the prophet Stephen?
Was he a JEW when he was helping the gentiles stone JEWS.
I have seen history channel documentaries that attempt to connect HITLER with religous jewish family/upbringing. (The Irony)
One More Question: How does any revelation about Saul affect the the (your) Christian face since it is the blood of the lamb that grants salvation.
Post by: throwingks on April 03, 2006, 06:06:00 PM
QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 3 2006, 05:02 PM)
Was he a JEW when he was helping the gentiles stone JEWS.
I have seen history channel documentaries that attempt to connect HITLER with religous jewish family/upbringing. (The Irony)
That is referring to the race Jew not religious Jew. We already established when we mention Jew in this thread, we meant religion. Hitlers mother was half-jewish "if that is possible, in the religious sense." That doesn't mean he can't hate Jews, and blame them for the world's problems. I know self-hating black people. Does that not mean they are black anymore? Hell, that fits Bobby Fischer's profile as well. But, he is not Jewish anymore (the religion).
I have seen history channel documentaries that attempt to connect HITLER with religous jewish family/upbringing. (The Irony)
Post by: jha'dhur on April 03, 2006, 06:26:00 PM
QUOTE(throwingks @ Apr 3 2006, 07:13 PM)
That is referring to the race Jew not religious Jew. We already established when we mention Jew in this thread, we meant religion. Hitlers mother was half-jewish "if that is possible, in the religious sense." That doesn't mean he can't hate Jews, and blame them for the world's problems. I know self-hating black people. Does that not mean they are black anymore? Hell, that fits Bobby Fischer's profile as well. But, he is not Jewish anymore (the religion).
Thank You DAMAN..........
Post by: damam on April 04, 2006, 04:52:00 PM
QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 3 2006, 01:02 PM)
@ DAMAN:
Perhaps you can also explain to me why Saul/Paul (who you claim was a religous JEW at birth), assisted in the deaths of several ethnic and religous JEWS even the prophet Stephen?
Was he a JEW when he was helping the gentiles stone JEWS.
I dont have much time to respond so ill make it fast . . .
First, stoning was a common jewish practice for breaking the law. It involved the stoning jews. Saul showing up at a good old fashion stoning would not necessarly have been out of the question. jews usually stoned jews, but occasionaly gentiles joined in. In the case of a stoning conviction given by the sanhedrin, an official of the sanhedrin would be present to ensure the rules of stoning were adhered too (ie announce the convected crime, right sized stones, no women stoners, etc).
Second, Saul studied under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) who was the who was the grand poopah of the Sanhedrin (the high court of Judea). It has been surmised that since he studied under Gamaliel, he was also a part of the Sanhedrin or at the very least filled some sort of official role. Stephen, in Acts 7, was speaking to the Sanhedrin. So he was likely to have been there when Stephen spoke. He was also likely to have been one of the members of the sanhedrin that took stephen out of the city and stoned him thus explaining his presence. Note that he had not converted at this point.
Third, as a worker of the Sanhedrin one of his job would have been over seeing stonings as well as arresting people for heresey. The passage to which your alluding too (Acts 7:58) could have had him there as an official representative for the Sanhidrin. We also know that he prosecuted many christians and in order to do so he would have to have had the authority of the sanhedrin to do it since they were still a jewish sect at this point in the eyes of the romans.(Acts 8:1-3).
QUOTE
One More Question: How does any revelation about Saul affect the the (your) Christian face since it is the blood of the lamb that grants salvation.
it doesnt. as i stated the claim #2 is trivial to me. Paul being a gentile would make absolutely no difference to me.
The reason why christ's apostles breaking the sabath to eat wheat grain is so controversial is because in order to be christ he had to have lived his life on earth by the laws and traditions. Its the closest example of him breaking that because he basically allowed them to do it. So when you suggest that he ate pork . . . well that would be incredibly controversial to say the least.
Post by: jha'dhur on April 04, 2006, 06:49:00 PM
QUOTE(damam @ Apr 4 2006, 05:59 PM)
I dont have much time to respond so ill make it fast . . .
First, stoning was a common jewish practice for breaking the law. It involved the stoning jews. Saul showing up at a good old fashion stoning would not necessarly have been out of the question. jews usually stoned jews, but occasionaly gentiles joined in. In the case of a stoning conviction given by the sanhedrin, an official of the sanhedrin would be present to ensure the rules of stoning were adhered too (ie announce the convected crime, right sized stones, no women stoners, etc).
Second, Saul studied under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) who was the who was the grand poopah of the Sanhedrin (the high court of Judea). It has been surmised that since he studied under Gamaliel, he was also a part of the Sanhedrin or at the very least filled some sort of official role. Stephen, in Acts 7, was speaking to the Sanhedrin. So he was likely to have been there when Stephen spoke. He was also likely to have been one of the members of the sanhedrin that took stephen out of the city and stoned him thus explaining his presence. Note that he had not converted at this point.
Third, as a worker of the Sanhedrin one of his job would have been over seeing stonings as well as arresting people for heresey. The passage to which your alluding too (Acts 7:58) could have had him there as an official representative for the Sanhidrin. We also know that he prosecuted many christians and in order to do so he would have to have had the authority of the sanhedrin to do it since they were still a jewish sect at this point in the eyes of the romans.(Acts 8:1-3).
it doesnt. as i stated the claim #2 is trivial to me. Paul being a gentile would make absolutely no difference to me.
The reason why christ's apostles breaking the sabath to eat wheat grain is so controversial is because in order to be christ he had to have lived his life on earth by the laws and traditions. Its the closest example of him breaking that because he basically allowed them to do it. So when you suggest that he ate pork . . . well that would be incredibly controversial to say the least.
You seem to be insinusting that because he had a proffessor, that practiced Judaism that makes him a religous JEW.
Was this before or after his conversion from Saul to Paul. The whole "convert" thing implies a transition would you agree?
Post by: damam on April 05, 2006, 01:48:00 PM
QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 4 2006, 01:56 PM)
You seem to be insinusting that because he had a proffessor, that practiced Judaism that makes him a religous JEW.
Was this before or after his conversion from Saul to Paul. The whole "convert" thing implies a transition would you agree?
i dont want to get into the Sanhedrin to much. Suffice it to say they had some very odd and horrible laws and view points. Simply put they did not hire non-jews, it was there belief that everything the sanhedrin did was g-ds work and to do so would have been tainting it. Dont believe me research the Sanhedrin and view point on gentiles.
Paul comes to christ in Acts 9:1-19. Acts 13:9 is when saul becomes paul (atleast its the first time we the reader are made aware of it). He had at this point left the sanhedrin. Interstingly, Paul never discusses or explains his name change, its luke that does it, and he never really goes into detail as to the why either. But the name change occurs well after he comes to christ and only starts appearing when he starts apostylitizing to the gentiles. This has actually been suggested as a reason for the name change. 1 Timothy 2:7 states that g-d told him to teach the gentiles. Saul ( Shaul pronounced shaw-ool ) could have changed his name to something easier to pronounce for the gentiles or a gentile equivaelent of his name for greater acceptance. Another suggestion is that it marked a new chapter in his life as your suggesting. We just dont really know.