God is POWER, Thus Spoke Calvinuthra

[Jeremy E Walker]

Right, but I thought you were of the opinion that we AREN'T free moral agents. That it's already decided, we have no choice to accept or deny, thus most of humanity (assuming the apparent mainstream Christian thought that most are not believers, or true believers, is true). And that's what I am saying would be very depressing.

In some sense we are responsible for the choices we make. Too many scriptures support this to argue against it.

In some sense, we are incapable in and of ourselves of coming to God. Too many scriptures support this to argue against it.

In some sense, God will hold us accountable for the things we have done in this body. Too many scriptures support this to argue against it.

Some people will reject God. Some will accept Him. Some will hate Him and some will love Him. Too many scriptures support this to argue against it.

We have been commanded to go into all nations and preach the gospel. God saves through His word being preached.

In a sense we are free and yet God is still sovereign. Only those who see the two concepts as contradictory try to reconcile them. I do not see them as contradictory so do not see a need for reconciling them.

 

[Received]

In some sense, you've made a contradiction of scriptures by holding to Calvinism, but you try to sweep this contradiction off by just laying these contradictions at our feet with "some sense."

 

[quatona]

In some sense, you've made a contradiction of scriptures by holding to Calvinism, but you try to sweep this contradiction off by just laying these contradictions at our feet with "some sense."

I notice there are already some dissonances in your and Elionai´s young partnership?

 

[lesliedellow]

but you try to sweep this contradiction off by just laying these contradictions at our feet with "some sense."

Coming from you. That's rich.

 

[Received]

Coming from you. That's rich.

Yeah, at least I give you a substantive meal with dessert.

 

[Received]

I notice there are already some dissonances in your and Elionai´s young partnership?

What does that mean? I'm assuming it's something a grouchy German would say.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yeah, at least I give you a substantive meal with dessert.

That's supposed to be a virtue when I spend the following day with dirrhoea?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

The telephone game is a complete red herring, given the number of NT manuscripts there are, and the role of textual critics.

Oh I get it. I am supposed to believe that Isaiah 14 refers to Satan being cast into hell. Well sorry, but I don't.

The telephone game was well before the writing of the bible which are re-clothings of Mesopotamian myths. Churches also have a way of fabricating dogma around convenient "creative" translations. The "Lucifer" of Jerome is a prime example. The "taking of the kingdom of heaven by violence" is another. "Eternal punishment" is another huge doctrinal error.

 

[Received]

That's supposed to be a virtue when I spend the following day with dirrhoea?

Hey man, don't blame me if your stomach is too weak for my jalepeno smoothie.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

In some sense, you've made a contradiction of scriptures by holding to Calvinism, but you try to sweep this contradiction off by just laying these contradictions at our feet with "some sense."

I am not a Calvinist. I never said or even implied I was.

 

[lesliedellow]

The telephone game was well before the writing of the bible which are re-clothings of Mesopotamian myths.

"When on high the heaven had not been named,
Firm ground below had not been called by name,
When primordial Apsu, their begetter,
And Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all,
Their waters mingled as a single body,
No reed hut had sprung forth, no marshland had appeared,
None of the gods had been brought into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies determined--
Then it was that the gods were formed in the midst of heaven.
Lahmu and Lahamu were brought forth, by name they were called."

Yep, it could scarcely read more like Genesis 1 if it tried, could it?

Churches also have a way of fabricating dogma around convenient "creative" translations. The "Lucifer" of Jerome is a prime example. The "taking of the kingdom of heaven by violence" is another. "Eternal punishment" is another huge doctrinal error.

Anything you say, oh wise one.


Oh, and by the way:

O Heilel Ben Shachar - oh shining one of the dawn.

Lucifer - morning star.

How absolutely terrible of Jerome to translate a Hebrew phrase with its near Latin equivalent. Especially as he was translating into Latin.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

"When on high the heaven had not been named,
Firm ground below had not been called by name,
When primordial Apsu, their begetter,
And Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all,
Their waters mingled as a single body,
No reed hut had sprung forth, no marshland had appeared,
None of the gods had been brought into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies determined--
Then it was that the gods were formed in the midst of heaven.
Lahmu and Lahamu were brought forth, by name they were called."

Yep, it could scarcely read more like Genesis 1 if it tried, could it?

Tiamat the great unified waters before division... in Hebrew the word for the deep in the beginning is Tehom.

You have to look at the actual functional elements and their order.

Comparing the Genesis and Babylonian stories of creation

Bible:
Creator(s) of the universe A single God, YHVH.
Initial state of the earth Desolate waste covered in darkness.
First development Light created.
Next development Firmament created - a rigid dome over the earth separating the earth and heaven
Next development Dry land created.
Next development Sun, moon, stars created.
Next development Creation of men and women.
Gods rest and celebrate.


Enuma Elish

Creator: A God battling a Goddess.
Beginning conditions: Chaos; enveloped in darkness.
1: Light created.
2: Firmament created; also perceived as a rigid dome.
3: Dry land created.
4: Sun, moon, stars created.
5: Creation of men and women.
6: Final development God rests and sanctify the Sabbath.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Genesis Revisited - 08

How was man created?


A Sumerian text has immortalized the answer given by Enki to the incredulous assembled Anunnaki, who saw in the creation of an Adamu the solution to their unbearable toil:




The creature whose name you uttered—
IT EXISTS!
All you have to do, he added, is to
Bind upon it the image of the gods.

In these words lies the key to the puzzle of Man’s creation, the magical wand that removes the conflict between Evolution and Creationism. The Anunnaki, the Elohim of the biblical verses, did not create Man from nothing. The being was already there, on Earth, the product of evolution. All that was needed to upgrade it to the required level of ability and intelligence was to “bind upon it the image of the gods,” the image of the Elohim themselves.


For the sake of simplicity let us call the “creature” that already existed then Apeman/Apewoman. The process envisioned by Enki was to “bind” upon the existing creature the “image”—the inner, genetic makeup—of the Anunnaki; in other words, to upgrade the existing Apeman/Apewoman through genetic manipulation and, by thus jumping the gun on evolution, bring “Man”—Homo sapiens—into being. The term Adamu, which is clearly the inspiration for the biblical name “Adam,” and the use of the term “image” in the Sumerian text, which is repeated intact in the biblical text, are not the only clues to the Sumerian/Mesopotamian origin of the Genesis creation of Man story.



The biblical use of the plural pronoun and the depiction of a group of Elohim reaching a consensus and following it up with the necessary action also lose their enigmatic aspects when the Mesopotamian sources are taken into account.


In them we read that the assembled Anunnaki resolved lo proceed with the project, and on Enki’s suggestion assigned the task to Ninti, their chief medical officer:



They summoned and asked the goddess, the midwife of the gods, the wise birth giver, [saying:]
“To a creature give life, create workers!
Create a Primitive Worker,
that he may bear the yoke!
Let him bear the yoke assigned by Enlil,
Let The Worker carry the toil of the gods!”





They created "Adamu".

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Oh, and by the way:

O Heilel Ben Shachar - oh shining one of the dawn.

Lucifer - morning star.

How absolutely terrible of Jerome to translate a Hebrew phrase with its near Latin equivalent. Especially as he was translating into Latin.

A description gets turned into a "proper name" and now you have the majority of Christians actually believing in a rebel angel named Lucifer. Creating evil where there is none.

The Hebrew word heilel does not translate as "morning star." The same exact word is found in Zechariah 11:2 and Ezekiel 21:12, both times translated as "howl" ("wail"). Heilel ben shachar translates as "howl, son of the morning." The phrase "son of the morning" may refer poetically to the planet Venus as though born in the morning, as that is a time when it appears brightest.


How it should really read:

"How you have fallen from heaven,
Wail (weep), oh son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations! "



Now doesn't that make perfect sense?

 

[lesliedellow]

A description gets turned into a "proper name" and now you have the majority of Christians actually believing in a rebel angel named Lucifer.

Do we really? Some fundamentalists in the southern states of America perhaps.

But that wouldn't let you walk around with a head too big to fit through the door, so it has to be "most Christians".

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Do we really? Some fundamentalists in the southern states of America perhaps.

But that wouldn't let you walk around with a head too big to fit through the door, so it has to be "most Christians".

You assert that the dogma of Lucifer the fallen angel is not a part of mainstream Christianity? Because that would be news to me.

And yes, I should specify the establishment and not the bell curve of it's adherents.

Perhaps what you mistake as my "big head" is a passion for Truth and zeal against lies that chain mankind in ignorance and fear. Especially by those who would pose as an authority between man and God.

 

[lesliedellow]

You assert that the dogma of Lucifer the fallen angel is not a part of mainstream Christianity? Because that would be news to me.

I suspect most things would come as news to you.

And yes, I should specify the establishment and not the bell curve of it's adherents.

Apparently, even in the seventeenth century conservative Protestants knew that Lucifer referred to the King of Babylon. Admittedly he manages to draw a reference to the Fall into it, but only be way of analogy:

Isaiah 14 - Matthew Henry’s Commentary - Bible Commentary

 

[Received]

I suspect most things would come as news to you.

I wonder if this snazzy comment was predestined, or...

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I suspect most things would come as news to you.

Oooh BAZINGA! You sure got me there!

Apparently, even in the seventeenth century conservative Protestants knew that Lucifer referred to the King of Babylon. Admittedly he manages to draw a reference to the Fall into it, but only be way of analogy:

Isaiah 14 - Matthew Henry’s Commentary - Bible Commentary

And what is taught by the majority of Church's? Would most pastors tell you that "Lucifer" is euphemism?

The "Fall" of whom/what? Venus?

 

[lesliedellow]

And what is taught by the majority of Church's? Would most pastors tell you that "Lucifer" is euphemism?

I don't know which universe you live in, but I have never once heard a pastor or priest say that Lucifer referred to Satan. Apart from anything else, it would be perfectly obvious to anybody who could read that it didn't. And, believe it or not, you are not the only literate person in the universe

The "Fall" of whom/what? Venus?

I am sure you are not that ignorant of Christian theology. As an atheist would be only too happy to point out, without the Fall of Man the whole of Christian theology falls apart.