Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Top Ten Anne Henriques Answers at Quora - on Religion - Part II

83 views

Published on

Top Ten Anne Henriques Answers at Quora - on Religion - Part II

Published in: Entertainment & Humor
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Top Ten Anne Henriques Answers at Quora - on Religion - Part II

  1. 1. 1. If Joseph had died, and Mary, had other son after Jesus, with a non-Christian, even so, would she continue a virgin? [X] Tim Chiswell, former Psychology of Culture and Beliefs Answered January 11 1 Joseph, Mary, and Jesus were not Christians. They were Jews 2 A woman that's had sex is not a virgin, regardless of the circumstances 3 According to the Bible, Mary did have other children. James, Jesus' younger brother is referred to several times 132 views View Upvoters Vern Wall, DD Bible Research, Universal Life Church (2019) Answered January 16 If Joseph had died, and Mary, had other son after Jesus, with a non-Christian, even so, would she continue a virgin? The bible was not written in English. The word translated “virgin” meant a woman who had not had a baby yet. After she bore Jesus she was no longer a virgin. 11 views Jonatan Hainana, former HIV/AIDs Facilitator ,Paramedic Answered January 14 what is a virgin according to your understanding? Upvote Anne Henriques January 14 Hi, Jonatan, The unreachable of God, The purity, under the angle of the sanctity: it’s not an attribute of the woman, but of the man: the will of God for the man: that he was virgin, equal to Him. The virginity isn’t a sentiment, but a rationality: the rationality of the Innocence. The virginity, overall, is a concept of servitude: that who delivers his own body: it’s not a condition of chastity, but of use: that who accepts being used, is a virgin: and only for this, a Saint.. . I’d have to cross a Christian wall and a Jew sea to be able to arrive in the nature: and I’d have to do this without passing by the name: In mode that, I’ve talked only about the meanings contained in The Book, there’s no how misunderstanding God as not being the evil as well: and even for this, the virginity is understood in the sexual latu sensu, because, indeed only the sexual ones are virgins. The virginity is a condition-child, that who was and now isn’t anymore: a marking, the growth: that who accepts the permission as being his arrival in God: that exists a door and exists an owner: What is it after the door it’s not important, the importance is in you arriving in the permission: you will be talking to the Owner: and this is the proof that you’ve arrived: and now you may turn your eyes back to behind and see the as much you’ve walked, and from there, marking the beginning: It was something that was taught, one moving like this and feeling himself like this. In mode that one needing to see to feel is believing in the image. One seeing himself and feeling himself like human is an attribute of the virginity. The sex is a condition of the purity, now, this is also the understanding of that who overwrote the nature, the human.. The humanity claimed its ideas had a physical state: and that this physical state was named body. The solid is the unique place in the universe where this state is found.., that which was called existence, a construction, which state was not found in the physical. The human conditions, in the latu sensu of life, cannot be misunderstood as organics. The virginity is something spiritual, once the sex was so understood as the human nature. And for this it is so easily understood as a
  2. 2. value. All that which the human being tried to reach, he tried to use it, to create: it doesn’t exist such a thing in the nature, the virginity. The virginity is the spiritual value of God, a spirituality. Reply Jonatan Hainana Original Author · January 14 i mean the reason why im doubts is cos after Maria got a baby in the bible, no further scripture referring her as a virgin. I don't understand why people further then called her virgin Maria (christians) Reply Upvote Anne Henriques January 14 Hi Jonatan, I think so I’ve even asked this here at Quora already, if James were a son from a Roman soldier, for example, in case Joseph had died first, if Mary would be still a virgin.. . As I told you, Mary was a virgin because she delivered herself to the use of her attributions: she didn’t cease to be woman, she continued serving God as a sinner, and she would go back to be a virgin once again if God had appeared once again wanting a son. The Father, the Son, the Man, the Woman, the Marriage, the Birth, the Death, the Resurrection are conditions of functioning, the Seed is that which falls in growth. The difficulty in understanding the rationality of the Christianism it’s because these things are involved with angles where that which is, ceases to be, and goes back to be, at every instant: the permanence only exists in function of these two movements. The end goes back to the beginning: this is a constant. So, while saint, Mary was virgin, outside of the virginity, she goes back to be a woman once again: it’s a relation of body- and-spirit. Now, I’m not a Christian, so, if you’re a Christian, you shouldn’t be asking these things for a non- Christian, because this is sin.. . This was the condition of the woman, in those days, and it is until today, and of any human being: hour he’s in the earth, hour he’s in heaven: it’s unsustainable the position.. . Mary was virgin while Christ, after this, she lost her virginity and died as woman: this is understood as a natural death, for all those who served God in the ultimate condition of total delivery of the body in attributions, these will be transformed in Saints: because they’re served God in life, even though for a small time. Working for God is losing and gaining the entire time. Paul explains very well this functioning: read 1Cor15, it is a good intro. But yes, thanks for asking, few times along the year I come at Quora, and whenever I may, I try to clear things up, because, my preoccupation is with the Forest.. I think so The Book stayed owing informations, and talking about the nature, in these conditions, it’s impossible, because, the understanding of The Book already is, by itself, a misunderstanding, so, it would stay difficult explaining to the own woman, who carries a ring in the head and only for this the sex is free, which is the nature of the human procedence: the use: and only for this the innocence existed. You don’t lose the innocence for asking, you lose the innocence for having stopped serving, even though for just an instant: but you may be with God, in the following moment, and this is the Grace. For this, insist on it, don’t stay with my opinion only, do question the others about the virginity: pay attention that you will always arrive in two results: the ones who agree that Mary was a virgin, and the ones who agree that Mary continued virgin: because this is the state-of -the-being, in the Christianism. The question which no one clears up indeed is who is the father of Jesus. So, it’s plan that the woman localizes herself in two different positions, the pleasure of being with God, which’s spiritual, and the sexual pleasure of being with the Man. You may say it treats of two different things, but indeed, it treats of a same thing, because such localization it’s an angle. So, if you didn’t understand the Biblical angles, you don’t have
  3. 3. how to understand indeed the Rationality of the Innocence. It was basically what you’ve asked. Big hug. Reply 2. Is it written in the Quran that Allah would have said to the Muslims that in situations of danger, high risk, and survival, they should not fight and make a pact with the enemy? [X] Jawa Jin Answered January 14 The Quran on Wars And Aggression The religion of Islam, described by God in the Quran stands for peace and tolerance. It does not condone or encourage terrorism. When can Muslims resort to war? War is only allowed as a measure of security and is restricted to fighting in self-defence. All aggressors have been strongly condemned. As long as disputes can be settled through conciliatory means and rights and claims can be peacefully attained and imposed, we are required to refrain from fighting. Only, when there is no other option, must we then fight with full vitality and induce the enemy to see his relief in peaceful and equitable co- existence with the believers. Aggression is Forbidden. The Quranic verses on this are very clear. God repeats, "do not aggress", multiple times. Only if attacked, is one permitted to fight back. If the other party refrains from aggression and offers one peace, we are told to stop fighting. […] Anne Henriques January 14 Hi, Jawa, Thanks for answering. I’ve few knowledges on the Quran and who wrote it: for this, I came try to clear up, along with the Muslims, if Allah spoke about the shame and the cowardness, if the Quran has understanding of the nature. It doesn’t exist pacts in the nature, nor lesser yet promises of attack nor self-defense, it doesn’t exist fight in the nature, neither instinct of survival: thing which your religion seem to understand very well, Allah seems to have explained, in the best way, to his people, how to act in difficult situations, those where he feels inferior: and not fighting may be so easily misunderstood as pact of defense… even more when the intention of the enemy be clear, and it’s involved with the definition of the evil.. . The nature indeed hasn’t such understanding, human, of the matter: the existence of the enemy, of the evil: did Allah gave any instruction, to the Islamic, of ending up with the evil.. [?]. The Christians signed this commitment. By what you’ve written, it didn’t stay clear if Allah also established this kind of charging, because, indeed, if it doesn’t exist the enemy, the evil, that, narrated in The Book terms, the Laws which you’ve quoted don’t clear up indeed that which was asked. So, if the enemy, in the condition of the evil -Satan, so I think- ceases the oppression, so would Allah have instructed this, some kind of alliance..? one making a pact of peace with Satan..? because, Satan isn’t the aggressor anymore..? In mode that, if it doesn’t exist Satan in your religion, what I’ve asked makes no sense. I don’t know, Jawa, I didn’t stay with a good impression of Allah, or, then, you didn’t pass me a good impression of Allah, because, there’s a very big tolerance from Allah, almost an acceptation of the shame.. . It doesn’t exist, in the nature, the preoccupation of an animal with the death, the nature doesn’t move in the challenge, neither has how to understand what is attack and defense , the nature moves in the taste.. for this, it doesn’t exist such table pact, where one is better than the other.. . If the Islamic stayed this way, it’s because
  4. 4. they’ve become human beings, and this explains Allah and the Islamism. It was what I came charge from the Christians of the Occident, their naturalness, because, animal who doesn’t act as an animal is a coward. And I’ve questioned myself, if it would be this the sentiment of the Iranians, if they’re indeed Islamic, or if they’re becoming each time more American, if Allah had written something about this, which’s the compromise of the Islamic people with Allah. I think so, that, for it be better cleared up some of my collocations, one must take in count not only the understanding of the nature. The oil reserve is up to only five more years. Reply Jawa Jin Original Author · January 15 May peace with you. You seemingly complicated yourself with your personal opinion of God (English equivalent for Allah), an Arabic word used only if you’re expressing in Arabic. This would only gives the false impression to the English speaking people that “Allah” is an Arabic God or a Muslim God! Reply Upvote Maha Rizma January 14 · 1 upvote Salam. The question is phrased very technically (“make pact”!) so that many Muslim fall in trap and deliver a wrong message. You covered the subject matter fully and beautifully. Reply Upvote · 1 Jawa Jin Original Author · January 14 W'Salaam Reply Upvote Mohammed Bala February 22 · 1 upvote from Maha Rizma Very true. Some people are just unbelievable. I don't spare them when they come my way…every type of devil. Reply Upvote · 1 View More Comments
  5. 5. Jeremy Boulter January 14 Good answer. However, I think the last paragraph should have been the introduction. Reply Upvote Jawa Jin Original Author · January 15 Peace with you and thanks for the comment. Reply Upvote Jeremy Boulter January 14 Do you have an article on this subject I can share in a blog or upload to Academia edu? Reply Upvote Jawa Jin Original Author · January 15 Peace, I don't, this is a random reply to a question. Thanks. Reply Upvote Robin Ward, former Former Owner of 3 Hates Shops Retired Answered January 16 Quite the OPPOSITE—-without prejudice—- Allah and Koran are INVENTIONS of Muhammad. They did not exist before 600 AD . ALLAH does not exist as a sentient deity. I have listed a few verses for reference Please try to remember It was Muhammad that INVENTED ALLAH , KORAN , ISLAM and SHARIA LAW ( the woman haters law> Muhammad was a war lord and worse It just is not true , that Islam is a religion of peace.Muhammad was confused with the three moon Goddesses that his Pagan parents worshiped , so he took the Arabic word ALLAH and invented his own GOD His religion , ISLAM was spread by offering people the chance to ACCEPT ISLAM OR DIE. Koran 2–191 , 3–28 , 3–85 , 5–33 , 8-12 , 8-60 , 8–65 , 9–5 , 9–30 , 9–123 , 22–19 , 47–4 , 68–4 , 32–21 , 65–4 26 views View Upvoters Upvote · 1 Share
  6. 6. Anne Henriques January 19 Hi Robin, thanks for answering. Where do I find the literature of the three Goddess of the moon, that Muhammad’s parents worshiped? I think so much of the problem of the current religions are involved with understanding of more primitive religions, and I have a special interest for more ancient cults, by what you’ve said, the Koran might have happened in the form as a you’ve understood: due to understanding or misunderstanding of something which preceded it. Reply Padain Padop January 19 Robin Ward: Christian researchers have found that the Bible has 800 verses condoning violence and the Quran has 300 verses on violence. Is Islam a religion of peace or does the Koran advocate violence? Frank Langben “Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” “If your brother …secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death.” (Quotes are from the Bible.) Jo Wharrier, Read Bible and the Quran carefully which is why I'm atheist Answered January 15 This was Mohammed’s strategy early on. When in the minority then keep your head down but as soon as you have a majority it was on with the “Convert, Tithe or Die.” mantra. Of the top ten countries which show determined religious persecution, the vast majority are Muslim. China and India have joined the list and much of it driven by fear of Islam. When you look around the world and see what comes with Islam then this is hardly surprising but nonetheless I view it as entirely unacceptable. As Heinlein said It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. [Robert A. Heinlein, Postscript to Revolt in 2100.] That certainly appears to be the way of it in Islamic countries. Given half a chance the evangelical right will take the US that way. It is how the BJP are behaving in India and the communist leadership in China. 48 views View Upvoters Akintunde Ayorinde, Planner at Hospitality Management (2006-present) Answered January 13 Somehow Yes. V 47:35 The admonition that when you are gaining upper hand you should not make peace as God will give victory, is like saying what you are saying in another way. Winayak Angne January 13 Very cunning to make peace when you know your enemy is stronger than you. But show no mercy when you are winning. Absolute cult
  7. 7. John Smith, Chief Engineer Answered January 14 Nope, you’re just naive, is all. The Quran does not permit “holy war” like the Jews engaged in, nor “total war” like the Christians engaged in. The Quran, in translation, only permits self defence and defence of others. But one should not seek to fight, hence the need for pacts and alliances. Umar Abbas, BSc Religion & Sexuality, University of Karachi (2019) Answered January 16 No 3. Did Jesus Christ die a virgin? [X] Anonymous Answered January 14 Contrary to popular opinion, there is every reason to believe he was married and had children. The bulk of the writers would not have known, and if they did, they would not have considered it worth mentioning. It is not unusual to omit data about a spouse and famiily, given the low value placed upon women in that cultutre, compounded by Jesus' desire for secrecy to prevent retaliation by the High Priests and to prevent deification of his children. 107 views Philip Marshall Answered January 14 Jesus was gay and hung around with 12 men all the time. Of course he wasn’t a virgin, he’d have had an arse like a wizard’s sleeve. Anne Henriques January 14 hi, Marshall, thank you… I know.. indeed, I don’t know, but, I do find your concordance valid, yes, and I do hope Quora do not create any kind of obstruction to it, because, it makes sense your answer, even because, in the Biblical concordance, Jesus came performing the human shame, thus he came at the image of the death and of the sins, so, few matters what he did in life, because, the virginity is the state of a saint, in mode that, even though Jesus be conform your understanding, that one wasn’t exactly ‘Jesus’, there was an ‘other Jesus’ in the scene, and it ‘wasn’t him’: because there’s the resurrected Jesus and the Jesus who died. I say these things because, for the good Biblical understanding, any sexual truth about Jesus hasn’t the power of annulling his sanctity, that who delivered in use his body for God: it’s the same condition as Mary’s. I think so, yes, Jesus was gay, as much as many others who’ve read and rewrote The Book, there does exists a relation of sexuality in Christ, and even for this, being strange the innocence of Christ being hidden in the angle of a truth, his virginity: it wasn’t exactly in the ass nor in the penis, in the latu sensu of the body, because, the virginity is something spiritual. Then you say ‘fuck, but a guy who does these things could be a son of God..?!’: yes, the Biblical God did things way worse than this.. Christ’s orgy is small, compared to other Biblical reports… : “fuck, Anne, but what about Sodom and Gomorrah..?!”: Sodom and Gomorrah weren’t in Christ, it’s a Biblical detail, the understanding of the relation, that that which is allowed it’s also
  8. 8. prohibited, and that the prohibited were the angle of a relation.. . In mode that it is in Christ and it is as well in perfect concordance with what you’ve written Mardick Nadjarian January 14 No kidding, and despite all that he was still able to manifest God what a marvel, are you capable of such heroism? Reply Upvote Philip Marshall Original Author · January 14 I could easily shag 12 men, all at the same time too. I think that’s pretty heroic Reply Upvote Mardick Nadjarian January 14 Good for you, but the real heroic part is to overcome yourself without depriving yourself of any animal pleasure and still manifest God, and that is really heroic. Reply Upvote Joe Anthro, Master... Answered January 14 I hope not. I’m sure he was hung though and could get any guy he wanted. ;) I’m not sure though. I didn’t know him personally. Or her. I have no idea. Ray Ross, Data Extraction at Mxkintl (2007-present) Answered January 14 I was going to say if immaculate conception is genetic maybe but his mom was not a virgin so anyways …. Jesus had at least one son and probably a daughter but could have been a son. 4. Why does the serpent, the devil, persecute the woman that brought forth the man’s child? [X] Anne Henriques January 17 writer, editor, botanist It doesn’t exist such a thing in the nature, the persecution.. and yes, you are wrong, it’s the contrary..: any animal in the nature steps himself away from the Son of the Man.. : if an animal goes after the other, it’s because he likes.. . That whom invented the contrary must have better explanation for this, the why of the enmity in His intention.. it can only be the explanation of that who created the distaste. But, indeed, animals and plants would like to understand, what is it that who persecutes something, the spirit.. why does he need so much of a certainty, to validate the force of his right, the ‘dominate over the nature’..? who created the Son of the Man, created the Son of the Demon: Otherwise, Eve would never be Mary, neither Cain would be Abel, neither God would be Man, and neither the nature would be name… That who pointed the evil, hated his reflex,
  9. 9. and only for this, a conception existed.. I think so Mary has a good understanding of that which she carries in the belly, at the end of the bills, it was God, wasn’t it..? 6 views 5. What are the problems with natural law? [X] Anne Henriques · February 2 writer, editor, botanist This is the problem… the natural law isn’t natural. The nature never proclaimed any law. The law isn’t natural. In mode that, that who created the law, created a law for himself and created a law for the other. The Creator is well-known of all’s, and He affirmed that the nature has a law, that the nature moves in the displeasing: and that the proof of this affirmation is that the nature had denied Him, that the nature said no. And this makes sense in a certain form, when, on the lights of the current understanding, the Science affirms this denial: the Science was also denied, on example of what happened to its friend, the Religion. By the other side, God could affirm, then, His own Law: the Law of God is the Law that the man is not the nature, even though Him denying this as well: so, this is the understanding of that which’s called Law, it’s a contradiction, a metaphor: God, in Law, as much denies as affirm. And the juridical understanding is that the Law is something which can only be understood in the Justice, the unspecific Will of God. In mode that the nature went to stop by in the Court, was judged in the condition of defendant, and the action of the nature was understood as criminal. In mode that, the double aspect of a crime, the guilty and the innocent, went to stop by in the table, in the evolutionist latu sensu of the idea, the Christianism, so… In mode that, the matter which involves the natural Law it’s quite broad, and it’s interesting how the authors of the Law got to, along the history, writing in belief their judgement and passing misperceived along the history as “impartial beings” which “sought indeed the truth, independently of its results”: I think so the Scientists have understanding of this, that the community indeed isn’t so naive, that it always knew what it was looking for, a phylogenic answer for the Beginning, in mode that this is only a preliminary adjust to my answer, once my understanding don’t be characterized as a misunderstanding of the Law in matter, because the purpose, in this sense, doesn’t go beyond an obligation, an availability, in the latu sensu that the Available angles itself between the Freedom and the Natural. ‘The Law of the man is the law of the nature’: it’s not only Paul’s understanding, but Darwin’s as well. Yes, Darwin believed in two consciences: inclusive, he didn’t discard the possibility that the human conscience were original of the monkey. And ‘original’, in Darwin, isn’t exactly equal to natural. It is strange talking about the existence of a natural law, where the own science discards the naturalness of the law: ones distrust that the nature has a law, but the “knowledge” isn’t exactly equal to the natural : in the human laws on which the nature was angled in grandness’s, movements and substantiality, are involved with false constants, subjected to the lens, and to the constant of the observer. The human being may affirm that he’s the center of his observation, but he cannot affirm being this the position of the nature. For that the human condition could be considered valid, he’d have to be, obligatorily, at the center of the universe. The homogeny and the isotropy, in the cosmological latu sensu, hasn’t how affirming, for example, in which kind of direction the galaxies move, in their imaginary center of stepping- away. The gravity still isn’t comprehended by many physical aspects, on of them is the own mass, the other, the understanding of the black matter, in the inflation calculations. Einstein himself abandoned his table, and asked for others not to try. The same had happened to Newton. The same had happened to Darwin. It’s not the fact of them not being convinced, but
  10. 10. not having arrived to any convincement at all: The sentiment is the same: of frustration. They’ve written many interesting things, many things of which were not only inspiration for the posterior ones, but a base of an understanding closer to that which could be called Science, a proof, things which could be called fact, and not suppositions. In mode that, talking about ‘natural law’ is following supposing, and it would be improbable that the Theoretical Theological model from the Humanists of the past could have better rationalists explanations that the one of the current Science. The understanding of the current Science is that it hasn’t naturalness. In mode that, it’s innocuous talking about the existence of a natural law: in the maximum affirming that the nature has a law, but that it is unknown, because the entire tables were broken. I think so, in a certain form, it was what ones have always looked for, since the tables appeared, but the Christian table needs to understand that it has the same problem as the of the Judaic law: it may yes be understood as an adaptation, or, as an evolution, in the latu sensu that the human Tree of Life have such ontological understanding, the growth, but it cannot misunderstand itself as structural condition creative of anything at all in the universe: because it would be always in route of stepping-away of the natural, which would result in the loss of organic materialness in the equation of the life: the Unity would lose its Integrity, if it stayed lacking something to it, more yet, that this something which stayed lacking could not be explained: In mode that the hypothesis falls in the singularity of the natural. Such a thing was not encountered in the nature, the one of various: because all the forms of sequencing the nature, have failed: the nature doesn’t repeat itself: the nature doesn’t move in a repetition. The Science followed a sequence, but the sequence failed. In mode that, I do stay, yes, upset with the Scientists, because they should be here explaining what happened, and not, extending themselves overly in that which they don’t even believe. In mode that, ones tried, yes, humanizing the nature, and calling this natural law, but, as it was already said, the most capacitated person, Charles Darwin, already removed himself from the table. The same happened to Einstein, and the Science, for still being sustained by an Institutional vice, exposes, obligatorily, Scientists to the ridiculous, to proclaim things, as if this was some kind of remedy in the maintenance of a disease. I think so the community in matter knows this, and not being able to offer another thing, resurrecting cadavers be seen as some Institutional favor, because, nowadays there does is the understanding that all the theories which tried to equation the nature in a juridical standard, have failed. In mode that, it isn’t indeed a light in the end of the tunnel, aren’t purposes considered not even valid by most of the serious scientists, the amount of stupid things which affirm things in the base of easy-information. The nature it’s the unknown, period. And the law, lesser yet. 65 views 6. How can you effectively characterize what human nature is? And do you believe this is all there is to us, is a human nature? What’s your rationale? [X] Anne Henriques · February 10 writer, editor, botanist Yes, my friend… it’s what the Creation is.. the Creation is a rationality. The human nature is, rationally, of God. The problem which involves the rationality, the model- judgement, is that neither the everything is exactly everything and neither the nothing is exactly nothing: it was where the word Nature was invented: rationalized. In mode that, the object in matter, the nature, it’s involved in a relative concept. The word nature, in the understanding of The Book, refers to surface: because the surface is the angle of a laterality. The rationality of God is plan: This means that the nature may as much be a side, an affirmation, as it may be the
  11. 11. other side, a denial: the definition of nature it’s involved in parallels of ends: the nature as much is as isn’t: and it’s used, always, for inclusion and exclusion of God. So, the nature as much may be of God as the nature may not be of God: so, in the rationality-judgement there’s a break of rationality: this break of rationality, in the understanding of The Book, is well-perceived in all the analogies which involves the permanence and the changing: ‘everything changes, but, nor everything changes’: generally understood inside the philosophy as ambiguities. Indeed, it’s upsetting, more yet, it drives one crazy. In mode that, this would be the first important observation, in that which you’ve asked, because the nature is an angle between God and the man. The man is also an angle of God-and-the-nature, so, defining which is the right sequence of the understanding it’s also a problem, because, the Biblical disposition is geometrical, in the definition of the objects, but it is phylogenic, on explaining its movements, so, it’s more an alert for the PhD’s, in not elongating themselves in so many sequential misunderstandings: the event loses its form in the time, if it anticipates to its causality: putting in risk the permanence. The infinite loses its form if it tries to anticipate to the movements. The philosophy in the Occident emerged with a multiplexed pyramidal treatment, where the ideological base it’s always increasing in size, dispersing itself in theories, theories these which haven’t the capacity of explaining the appearing of the point: and this is basically explaining the appearing of the first side: because it’s the first side who affirms the procedence of the second side: a phenomenon of the reflexion: the arrival, in the latu sensu of a separation. What happened along the history is that the reflexion was never well-accepted by other people: the resemblance wasn’t exactly an equality, but a disexplanation of the loss of property. Whether God had created something, this something wasn’t exactly equal to Him: and, on the measure on which the Science passed to explain the structural trace of God, it seemed to make sense the sequence of The Book, the phylogeny, the Beginning, the First.. . However, in the current studies, the scientific model of the past, encountered problems for all the angles of naturalness: it were not found the sides, nor the plan, nor the center, neither the point: in nothing in the nature: because these things could only be explained through an elemental substance which could be used as proof of a Unicity: such a structure isn’t the structural- condition of nothing in the universe. And this would be affirming that the human body isn’t something structural of the nature. In mode that God may have any kind of relation with the man, since the man don’t be the nature: because the understanding of nature is a surface. And I think so the question should be this: ‘which would be the human surface?”: the human surface is God. And the other question would be, “if the man were of the nature, which would be his naturalness?”: it wouldn’t be human: Wouldn’t be human because the humanity is a separatist concept. Because the understanding of conception is something quite broad: God describes a disposition, in His creationist action: and for the current science, there’s a problem in God’s sequence, which structurally isn’t natural: it isn’t present, in the entire universe: the idea isn’t organic, the man isn’t nor animal nor plant, the human nature is spiritual. It wasn’t found the spirit, in the nature: And, even though one pleads the evil, it is also original from God, because the certainty of the evil is the man. It happens that the man isn’t natural: in mode that the human nature isn’t exactly equal to an affirmation, but the angle of a denial: because it’s how the end and the beginning are related: The man, in God, excludes the nature; the man, in nature, excludes God; God, in nature, excludes the man: it’s a rule of three.. .but which doesn’t result in a phylogenetic equation: the metaphor lost its efficacy in the time, charging from the judgement a better relation of sides, for that the rationality don’t be understood as a form of schizophrenia, in the latu sensu that the reality indeed be an image So, I think that this must be the tonics of any debate or questioning, and it would be necessary that better definitions existed on the nature, in the latu sensu that the unknown wouldn’t be one more manifestation of God: the nature hasn’t how to be found at the lens, the nature hasn’t how to be found in the spirit, and the nature also hasn’t how to be found in the man anymore: the nature disappeared from the human eyes.. It’s a sentiment. .. if you have it, or, if you want
  12. 12. it, it’s because you’ve already validated the entire human conditions and being human is the only thing you can be, I think so the humanity has the perfect understanding of its acceptation, even besides not having the understanding of the size of its violation, what to say of that who accepted existing without the love..? of that who exchanged the smile for the suffering..? and obstinate himself in usual standards, exchanging even the infinite: it’s from the infinite to the dust, from the cement to the ground, it’s from the innocent to the bread, from the yeast to the bread. The human being misunderstood the life in death, realizations as dreams, natural senses in existence.. I indeed haven’t words for the human understanding. And talking about God, in this sense, would be accepting the concordance of the table. More yet, I’d be extrapolating the misunderstanding of the table. I think so the virtue doesn’t reach so much, because the attribution would be extrapolating its rational limit, in the latu sensu that it would be putting in risk the existence of the end or of the beginning, the religion also wouldn’t accept this understanding of the science, because there’s an explicit charging, a satisfaction for those who took seriously the proof: the acceptation hasn’t such a power on the believing. There is had already a result in hands. In mode that the conversation cannot assume a such unspecific result like this, because the looking for would be always questioned: the looking for an end arrived to an end, period: I think so the questioning about what is indeed the nature, must begin by there: the man cannot be anymore the center of an observation: the human being already knows who he is: the human being already knows who is God, too: what’s known indeed, is what is the nature. .. So, I think so, to answer what you’ve asked, even though one hasn’t in hands a scientific ballast, seeking for another form of understanding what is it exactly the unknown, the nature, be another form of evolution, once the science exhausted its possibilities. Recently I’ve read a report that said the following “abandon the ploughing, it is the worst thing, because it destructs the rhizosphere”: the plough is the definition of a productive model: if the production is seeking for a naturalness, and says itself today contrary to the understanding of God, may be an understanding of naturalness: and the naturalness of the capitalism may constitute itself in a naturalness of the democracy as well, and this may be a changing and the humanity be abandoning the understanding of The Book, and seeking for a restructuration, in the latu sensu of an adaptation, in some kind of natural truth, even though very far from what one could call a new beginning. Indeed, I don’t believe in this, I think so humanity lost the gap, and I also don’t believe in fatalities, in the apocalyptic latu sensu, because they’re all seated at the table, so, I think so the worrying indeed with the natural it’s very far from even being a human truth. And in the same mode, I think so it’s irrelevant, not for unknowledge, talking about concepts of the past, where, in humanity, the nature was described in concepts as the of natural law, humanized in a theological dictionary, as Charles Darwin’s Evolutionism: because the human standard of naturalness, it’s very far from ancient civilizations, as Greeks, Egyptians, and even Romans and Barbarians: one would have to have in hands a ‘savage-model’, which don’t be involved in cannibalism, in an image of the evil, in the reflex as procedence of the eyes… as I’ve already said in other topics, I have descendance with Amazonian tribes which date from more than 10 thousand years. And if they got to stay for so long alone and, in certain form, isolated, it was because their productive and organizational models do carry some truth of the earth: truth this which is related to something in the universe: the universe may be somehow related to God, in that on which something was misunderstood as horizon. And in this sense, the concept of God would have to be redefined for that the concept of nature may be redefined and, consequently, redefining all the human concepts. Because, otherwise, talking about nature, God, and the man, will be always a question which is involved with the objects available at the table. I indeed refuse to seat at it, in these conditions, because ones wouldn’t be talking indeed about the nature, only explaining the problematics of the human concepts: one would be only validating the existence of the world, and validating, implicitly, that this is the human nature, that everything that there is, for the man, is the world: I think so the world has the capacity of explaining God’s nature, in the latu sensu of a surface, but the world hasn’t how to
  13. 13. explain the nature, so, what I can tell you is just something of significative importance, and this may be understood as a help, in understanding better what’s the nature, this, which is not from God: the human nature it’s something which isn’t natural: and that which isn’t natural, is God: because God is the inversion of the nature, and only for this, the Heaven… : at the same time on which I affirm that The Book didn’t deny this, on the contrary, It affirmed. God’s certainty is the pointing of the evil, the typification of the nature as criminal, as something contrary to His will: it’s the sentiment of a contrariety: why did God see the nature as criminous? It would be the third important observation. Independently of having created it or not, why did He see with these eyes..? yes, the sentiment of the human being it’s important, the human sentiments are contrary to the nature, a contrariety to the senses: there exists an implicitly human necessity of destroying to construct, it’s the latu sensu of The Seed, that which falls in growth.. . it’s the understanding of the plough, so, it’s lacking earth in the human eyes, other people didn’t see the nature like this, as a gain. So, how good that you’re listening this from an Amazonian indian, no one better than these to talk about it. The Atroaris of Amazon are the most ancient of the human civilizations existent in the earth. Scientists from the entire world come to the Amazon, just as the own Brazilian Army, to learn with these indians, how did they got to survive for so long, and how does the human being with his entire technology, it’s so close from the extinction..? this would be the fourth important observation: the atroari indians like the amazon, they’ve refused to inhabit the world. From where did it came the wisdom of these indians, and from where did it came the of the human beings..? how to relate their grandness’s, and extracting, with this, at least one drop of nature: and this be a natural sentiment, and not of the human being. 22 views Upvote Share 7. Why didn't the Jews accept Jesus as the successor of King David? [X] Benny Beit-Hallahmi Answered February 1 As Leonard Shapiro says, Jesus and Harry Potter are both fictional. So is “King David”. Let me quote again what I have written in response to similar questions: “The notion that there is any reality behind religious texts is naive, if not absurd. The human imagination created all religious texts. Don’t search for rhyme or reason in religious mythology. All religions are created equal, and there are thousands of equally fictional scriptures. Whether the source is Judaic, or Islamic, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or Christian, or any other religion, all stories about Mary Magdalene, the Judges, Solomon, the conquest of Canaan, Abraham, the crucifixion, the Exodus, Saul, David, Joshua, Adam, Eve, Muhammad, Jacob, Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Zeus, or Osiris are fictional.” 153 views View Upvoters You upvoted this Aaron Davis February 2 Except we have independent confirmation of a House of David: the victory stele commissioned by Pharaoh Shoshenq I describes a grand raid into the Levant during which he “killed the King of the House of David”. EDIT: Sorry, it was an Aramean king's stele that claimed to have killed the king of the House of David separately, but the rest of the stuff about Shoshenq is correct.
  14. 14. He's believed to be the same pharaoh as the “Shishak” whom the Bible references in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles as having plundered Solomon's temple during the fifth year of King Rehoboam's reign. Reply Upvote Benny Beit-Hallahmi Original Author · February 2 Could you provide a reference or a copy of the inscription? It does not appear in any sources. Reply Upvote Aaron Davis February 2 Shoshenq I - Wikipedia Tel Dan Stele - Wikipedia Okay, so I actually conflated a couple of different things, my mistake. We've got the Biblical account of Shishak's raid corresponding to Egyptian records of Shoshenq I (22nd Dynasty), and separately a stele erected by an Aramean king claiming to have k … (more) Reply Upvote Benny Beit-Hallahmi Original Author · February 2 The supposed evidence for David, which I hear about every day, is no evidence at all. If the reading MLK BYTDWD, as suggested, is correct, it may refer to a group that believed in was descended from DWD, who might have been a god or a hero to them (Was it David or Dod?). Many leaders in ancient and m … (more) Reply Upvote Yishai Barr February 3 ‫,דוד‬ is David. No vowels in the scriptures doesn't mean there wasn't a tradition of how to pronounce them. “Dod" and “David" are different words. MLK BYTDWD is “melech bet David". King from the house of David. ‫מלך‬‫בית‬‫דוד‬ . There are various mistakes in the transliterations for the bible, but this isn't … (more) Reply Upvote Fabio Araujo, studied International Relations Answered March 30 In my view, the Jews were the only people that realized that Jesus was a forgery created by the Romans, initially in the first century to destroy the Jewish expectation of a Messiah which was to be a military leader and fight the Romans. In a second moment, in the fourth century to make all peoples under the rule of the Roman Empire to accept a religion that could make them sweet
  15. 15. as lambs and accept the Roman rule. Many Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark say it was originally written in Latin. Have you never asked yourself why no Gospel was written in aramaic only in languages spoken in the Western part of the Roman empire? 42 views Barry Austern, studied Chemistry & Religion at Columbia University (1963) Answered February 2 Why should they? What evidence is there that the guy was in any way a worthy successor? Certainly, he was not a descendent of David by the adult male line if he did not have a human father. The burden of proof is upon those who think he was a successor to David. I don’t see him as any more valid than Shabbatai Zvi, another false messiah from about 5–600 years ago. He attracted many followers at the time. The Turkish authorities gave him two choices: die or convert to Islam. He converted. 86 views View Upvoters Al Lundy, Practicing Catholic for 60 years, Deacon, servant of God Answered February 1 Not as King, Jesus never said that he came to succeed David as King of the Isrealites. He came as the Messiah, the saviour of the world. And many, many Jews saw him as the Messiah even some of the Pharisees. You must remember that a huge number of the first Christian's were Jews who believes that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah. Scripture tells of thousands at a time becoming Christian. 123 views View Upvoters C.S. Friedman, Science Fiction and Fantasy novelist Answered February 1 I assume you mean descendant. “Successor” suggests he should have inherited the throne of Judea. Doesn’t matter if he was or wasn’t. I seriously doubt anyone back then talked about it or cared. Jews didn’t not believe he was the son of God because to them, clearly, he wasn’t the son of God. God didn’t have sons. End of story. And,if we are going to get technical, tribal identity inherits through he father, and he supposedly wasn’t really Joseph’s son, so he wasn’t a descendant of David. You can’t have your theological cake and eat it too. 426 views View Upvoters Upvote · 22 Share Anne Henriques February 1 Hi, C., Thanks for answering.. . The succession is phylogenic it’s not spiritual nor genetics, it’s the understanding of the King: anything above him, is God, anything below him is man: the King is that who came to solve the problem between God and the man, and this is the latu sensu of the crown. The Jews understood this very well.. . Just as Paul understood that the crown was the
  16. 16. head, the Theology doesn’t go beyond the bread: and the bread doesn’t go beyond the seed. David was a seed planted by God. From David’s tree didn’t born Christian fruit, therefore, you may eat all the apple, that even still, it won’t give King, it will give man. The Theology which you refer to, doesn’t go beyond the disappearing, of that who, by himself, disappeared. To God, it didn’t exist the successor of David: for this, the story of the Jews finished there: any Jew knows this: it didn’t exist other one equal to David. It’s a super important detail: David killed Uriah, but he didn’t kill Bathsheba. God didn’t need to invent Mary, He had already arrived in the result: and He knew that the rest of the story would be of the men. You may stay with The Book, it hasn’t importance for me.. and neither for God, as well.. . Reply Petter Häggholm February 2 · 1 upvote The funny thing is, the way statistics work out, if Jesus really was a descendant of David, then probably almost everyone in Judea and Galilee was, after roughly a millennium. So it is almost certainly either untrue or true but unremarkable. Sort of the way you can pick most any earlyish European monarch and divide Europe into royal lines that went extinct, people who can trace their royal descent, and people who can't trace descent due to lacking documentation. Teleri Ferch Nyfain February 2 Jews DID believe it. Some of them. Christianity started out as a JEWISH sect - well after the death of Jeshua ben Josef. Reply Upvote C.S. Friedman Original Author · February 2 · 1 upvote I asssumed the question was talking about the Jews who rejected Jesus, since the question makes no sense otherwise. Teleri Ferch Nyfain February 2 The early history of the sect, & why it split from Judaism, are fascinating :d Mati Berman Falk February 1 · 1 upvote But you can halve your theological cake and eat it two… Donald Brent O'Gara February 1 · 1 upvote …but I want to eat my theological cake and have it too… Reply Upvote · 1
  17. 17. Dwight Wascom, former Chaplain , Massachusetts Department of Corrections (1987-1988) Answered February 1 In 70 AD the Romans came to Israel and destroyed the country. The people scattered. This is know as the great diaspera. Rome did this because the Jews rebeled against them. Christians didn't fight or rebel with the Jews. The Jews kicked Christians out of their synogogue and blamed this new movement as the reason for the Diaspora. So with Christians went any belief in Jesus as well. 104 views Laine Frajberg February 7 The break between Judaism and Christianity preceeded the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.Rather it began with Paul’s mission to the gentiles (in the 40’s) and the message he brought to his putative converts. Lucien Abramowicz, I have an Ivy bachelor’s and a doctorate in a social science Answered February 4 The short answer is because Jesus was not the successor of King David, Here is the long answer: Faith Strengthened : Index of Verses Leonard J Shapiro, Owner at Shapiro Tax Consultant (1980-present) Answered February 1 Same reason Christianity has not started worshiping Harry Potter. Both are fictional Upvote · 10 Share Elly Reichman, Reprographics Operator at University of Otago (2000-present) Answered February 1 Most likely because he was not… Kevin Todd Clepps, studied at Michigan State University Answered February 1 Jews believe he did not fit the criteria of a messiah. Karl Broberg, Over ten years blogging and Bible teaching experience. Answered February 1 Their idea of a Messiah in their conventional wisdom was one to deliver them from the yoke of Rome and bring back Israel to its former glory as under King David. When this failed to materialize, they lost faith in Him. He wasn’t a general with an army, but a pacifist in their understanding. 164 views View Upvoters
  18. 18. Dave Saruya Answered February 1 Some did! They became Christian. Being that there was a long time between the two, and there’s no linkage between them, I’d say the point is moot. John Smith, Chief Engineer Answered February 1 You’re confused. He never said (or claimed) to be a successor or king. He was just a rabbi and prophet, but the Jews were cowards and unwilling to fight for their freedom from occupation. Nor were they willing to go back to the faith fully. Because Jesus had them over a barrel both ways, they could not cope with him nor kill him and thus rejected him, and ratted him out to the Romans. The irony being the Romans are the ones who ended up following Jesus. Mainly to maintain their subjugation of the Jews. 47 views View Upvoters Answer may need improvement Upvote · 3 Share Anne Henriques February 2 Hi, John, Hehehehehe … I know.. . but, what about the sword..? where’s the crown..? it’s interesting how the crown turned into a head.. . no confusion, and, I think so the crown went back to God, or then, the crown was stolen: it’s strange a crown disappearing.. . I really wanted that the Jews, these, which I refer to, explained better what happened to the King. I think so nor all the Jews agree with this, I think so the grand majority died for this. Of certain that David was an escroto [pt], but, God proves to David the why that Uriah couldn’t be the king: certainly, he would die in the hand of the enemy. I think so the Jews, in a certain form, misunderstood what they’ve misunderstood with God. The King is that who follows the Will of the Owner, the Will of God was never of freeing the Judaic people from His sword, the word… God didn’t ask, He gave a command.. killing, killing the evil. David killed the evil, in his time, destroying all the oppressors, Christ didn’t do this in his time, if not, he would’ve destroyed the Roman empire.. . I think so, for this, Christ hasn’t really how to be King.., he may be another thing. Reply Mark Lajoie February 2 I fear, Mr. Smith, that it is YOU who are confused. In fact those “cowardly” Jews drove out the Seleucids and initiated several insurrections against Roman occupation and rule, resulting finally in the eventual destruction of their kingdom. Jesus, if he existed at all, was nobody special until Christianity became the Roman state religion and it became a capital offense not to espouse Christianity. This was convient for Rome because Christianity required: "Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will
  19. 19. receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality." -- (Colossians 3:22-25) "Slaves, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly." -- (1 Peter 2:18-19) "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer." -- Romans 13:1-4 "Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor." -- (1 Peter 2:13-17) Contrast that with: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." But Christians still gobble the diaper pudding and wait for pie in the sky by and by when they die. Who are the cowards, Mr. Smith? Reply Upvote Curtis Scissons, B.S Biology & Chemistry, Northwestern State University (1998) Answered February 2 Because he wasn't of the direct unbroken line, father to son, from David. Joseph wasn’t his father. John P. Herling, Reference Librarian (2005-present) Answered February 2 Because the Jews were Jesus’ own people. They knew him during his lifetime, and they knew exactly who and what he was and wasn’t. They passed that knowledge down to their descendants. […] 8. Who sculpted the Virgin Mary? [X] Anne Henriques · February 1 writer, editor, botanist Hi, Fabio, Who sculpted Mary was Sharon Stone, the Jewish woman knew that she would be taken to a room, would be obliged to seat in a chair…. You must’ve seen the movie, the decharacterizing
  20. 20. of the senses in a generality: the taste is null: anything which seats in this chair, will have the reach of result: the result is of the scene, and not of the taste: Mary accepted the man which she never saw, and called this God.. Mary sculpted Sharon Stone. The woman is the chair where God seats. Who sculpted the woman’s pleasure was the man. Now, of course, St. Cyril and Michelangelo helped, the image of the woman is a scene. It’s in the sin that the virginity develops itself. The woman would give to the man the motives of his interruption, while he walked in innocence: if it didn’t exist the evil, there wouldn’t exist Mary’s virginity, neither the innocence of Adam, for there wouldn’t be how to characterize the nature as a Creation. 16 views 9. Did God “ask” or “commanded” the man? [X] No answers. 10. Natural theology expresses itself in two basic modes. One (1) primary continental (laws of form), the other British (adaptationism). How and why? [X] We cannot construct trees, only planting seeds… Hi, Petra, It’s all there, for that which you’ve asked.. . The logic form of a form it’s a construction. The logic form of a construction it’s a shape. The preemptive principle of a result it’s the growth: it was in the nothing that the idea happened. One wanted very much an explanation for the nature, that the dust could make a star, and that, for this, the beginning happened, and one unique
  21. 21. thing could be the form of all the things… that from his feet could come out roots, from the arms, be born leaves, and from the fingers be born fruits., and that the head could be a sun, that the eyes were a seed, and that this was the image of the human body... and that the belly was water, that the nature was name and that the human form was the form of the nature, and that the man’s form was God: The ‘formology’ failed in the standard-form, in explaining its sequence: the nature it’s impossible of being sequenced: the DNA of the universe still wasn’t found in nothing at all, to the point of being proclaimed an Intelligent Design, that such a thing exists in the nature, “adaptation”, that such a thing occurs in the universe, an evolution… . None Theology may be applied to the nature, all the Tree of Life models failed, ontologically, in explaining its growth through a propagation: the purpose of the nature it’s unknown, will never be found: as certain as the Higgs Particle. Without unicity of the matter, none shape may be applied to anything: the image loses its permanence towards the changing: it’s something that as much the religion as the science have the perfect morphological understanding. It doesn’t exist a human face between the stars, to the point of calling a black hole mouth, as if a straight line could be drawn between the stars , and finding, with this, a center. So, I leave there my artistic interpretation, of what I think about the Intelligent Design, the image of the nature, the morphology of God. Why..? The love. The love is Two, the shape of the nature would never be a unity. How..? The taste... the nature moves in the taste, and not in a functionality: there isn’t a relation of use, neither of exchanges, nor losses and gains, nor dynamic equilibriums turned to the self- preservation which could be justified through a mutual cooperation, which result would be an importance, the existence, the life. ‘It will birth, it will be a creation. It will grow, it will be a creation. It will die, it will be a creation’: the nature hasn’t shape, it’s not known the universe form. We know the formula: it is equal to 1: but the nature it’s not a constant, the nature is the changing. Thus, I leave it for the observation explaining that which it saw.. if any tree in the nature looks like this, a Metal Tree.. . 32 views View Upvoters · Answer requested by Petra Radajic-Tucci

×