Let me now come to my senses. When the essential beliefs of a person are questioned, you question the quintessential essence of the person themselves.
I dare not do that. I will not change my beliefs and neither will you. Let be stop before I irrevocable offend you in my zeal to win the argument. Peace and love my friend: axil On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 2:00 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: > ** > That is in error, my friend. The Old Testament was completed several > hundreds years before Christ. In fact, the entire Old Testament was > translated to Greek about 323 BC. That version of the Old Testatment is > known as the Septuagint. > > The New Testament books were compiled and assembled by a man named > Erasmus. He took the commonly accepted letters and compiled it > specifically ignoring gnostic works and pseudogospels. > > It is a misunderstanding that Constantine assembled the Bible in the > Coucil of Nicaea. He did not. He merely sanctioned and promoted its > widespread acceptance. > > Frankly, I do not considered the Catholic church as Christian. The Roman > Catholic Church is the largest Christian cult. It is so far out in its > teachings and they do not even claim Biblical authority anymore. To them, > traditions, commentary, and papal pronouncements are the true and only > doctrines of the church. If there is a conflict between papal > pronouncements vs Biblical teachings, the papal pronouncements are > infallible. That to me is a mark of a cult. Heck, not even Peter the > Apostle or Paul the apostle claimed infallibility. Peter was dinged by > Paul when he was in error. > > > Jojo > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:37 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA > > The info in the bible was not edited and sanctioned as sacred until the > First Council of Nicaea. At that time, the heretics were identified and the > bible was purified. > Therefore, how could Christ accept a book that had not yet been written? > > The Old Testament contains 39 (Protestant) or 46 (Catholic) or more > (Orthodox and other) books, divided, very broadly. > > There are many versions of the bible accepted by the various sects of > Christian belief. > > How can one determine which version of the Bible that Christ favored? He > died before the fact. > > > > > > > axil > > On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> ** >> The erroneous acts of polygamy and slavery were never commanded in the >> Old Testament, only controlled and condoned. >> >> Jesus Christ came to complete the Old Covenant, the real Old Covenant >> with God the Father, not the corrupted Judaism that it has become by the >> time he entered the scene. >> >> One famous scholar once said. "The Old Testament is in the New Testament >> revealed, while the New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed." >> >> There is no conflict between the Old and New Testaments. The New is the >> completion of the Old. But we must make a distinction between what is >> really the Old Testament from the corrupt Talmudic Judasim that came from >> Pagan Babylon. >> >> Acceptance of the Bible as literal turth in NOT a violation of Christ's >> teachings. Far from it. Christ himself extensively quoted from the Old >> Testament and said it was true. You will not find Christ or any of the New >> Testatment writers denying anything in the Old Testament. They took it as >> literal truth. >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:19 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA >> >> With the question of the divinity of Christ set aside, the major thrust >> of his ministry was directed at correcting the abuses and faults >> promulgated in the Old Testament. >> >> From an early age, Christ knew that the bible was flawed and he strove to >> rewrite it through the inspiration and agency of his disciples to correct >> those flaws. >> >> The old covenant was replaced by the new covenant. >> >> In this context, acceptance of the bible as literal true in its entirety >> violates the essence of Christ’s teachings. Christ himself replaced the old >> covenant as not applicable to the new Christian age. >> >> >> >> Cheers: axil >> >> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> ** >>> Fair enough. >>> >>> Yes, the Bible does condone many retrograde acts, though not require >>> it. There are as you say, corrupt and sinful men. However, many of the >>> retrograde acts like polygamy and slavery have been stopped by Jesus >>> Christ. That is the mark of a real teacher. >>> >>> The Bible does not single out woman as a different class of property >>> other than the general concept of slavery due to heavy indebtedness. I >>> think you are confusing this with how islam treats women. >>> >>> You will never find the Bible commanding a retrograde act except in >>> special circumstances, like the testing of Abraham. And as Christians, we >>> call these retrograde acts as sins and disavow it. Unlike some people who >>> justify it. >>> >>> Yes, I believe that the Bible is the literal truth. In my decades of >>> studying the Bible and having read it thru over 29 times, there are a lot >>> of things I still do not understand. These are the things that I take by >>> faith for now. Yet, despite all that, I have not encountered a Biblical >>> statement that I have found to contradict what we categorically know as >>> fact in science. The Bible contradicts pseudoscience like >>> Darwinian Evolution, but not true scientific facts like the Earth is >>> round. One only needs to study it with objectivity to see it. >>> >>> The Bible is not the work of mere men. The Bible is written by men as >>> they were moved by the Holy Spirit. That is how the Bible could proclaim >>> that the Earth was round thousands of year before science discovered such >>> facts. The Bible proclaims this fact 3 times in 3 different books written >>> over a span of over a thousand years, but all before man discovered the >>> Earth was round. >>> >>> The Bible predicted the emerging of Global Live TV and the global >>> Internet. In my opinion, it also predicts the emergence of a global >>> surveillance system using autonomous UAV powered by cold fusion. Time will >>> tell that the Bible is correct again and again. >>> >>> >>> >>> Jojo >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> >>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:02 AM >>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA >>> >>> As I see it, your problem is based on the belief that the bible is the >>> error free inspired word of God; and that every one of its words is >>> factually true and must be believed as written. >>> >>> You are forced to defend every holy word as literal truth. >>> >>> This is a road to far for me. For example, I find error in the bible in >>> its proclamation of laws condoning slavery and the ownership of woman as >>> property. >>> >>> Truth in the bible must be universal for all times and applied to all >>> human cultures that have developed, or could possibly develop in the future. >>> >>> Being the work of fallible human authors and editors, if one such error >>> exists contrary to my conscience, then in my view it is reasonable to >>> assume that other parts of the entire content of the holy book is subject >>> to like errors. Because of this, literal interpretation of the bible is not >>> for me. >>> >>> >>> Cheers: Axil >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> ** >>>> Yes, Axil, as a matter of fact, God did set up "evolution" to preserve >>>> and protect life. It's called microevolution. God has put on the genone >>>> all the necessary tools that an organism needs to rapidly change and adapt >>>> to stressess. The organism merely expresses a dormant trait already >>>> encoded in its DNA and this new trait enables him to adapt to a new >>>> environment. And how wonderfully that has worked to preserve and protect >>>> life. >>>> >>>> My issue is not that evolution happens, it does, it's called >>>> microevolution. My issue is with the crackpot swiss cheese Darwinian >>>> Evolution theory that speculates that changes are due to random mutation >>>> and that a species can "evolve" into another species. It's this whole >>>> nonsense of "Tree of life" that says we all came from single celled >>>> organisms; that I have a problem with. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jojo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> >>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >>>> *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:56 AM >>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA >>>> >>>> Albert Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not >>>> interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that >>>> element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.” >>>> >>>> Who is arrogant enough to say what is in the mind of God. Who can say >>>> what God’s plan of creation is? >>>> >>>> Yes, there is Devine wisdom in God’s plan. If I were God, I would setup >>>> evolution as a master plan for the creation of life to preserve and protect >>>> life from the whims of the universe. >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers: Axil >>>> >>>> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk>wrote: >>>> >>>>> My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers of hours >>>>> each day looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the DNA >>>>> sequences of different species, from single celled bacteria through to >>>>> homo >>>>> sapiens. >>>>> This shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the species 'evolved' from >>>>> one through to the next in a way that is normally described in short hand >>>>> as 'Darwinian Evolution'. I am nevertheless always more than happy to >>>>> discuss the details as to the mechanisms by which the DNA changed during >>>>> that process, and the relationship between DNA sequence and form, as there >>>>> are many unanswered, and extremely interesting, questions to be asked. >>>>> The basic tenet of Darwian Evolution still holds. It is possible that >>>>> Darwinian Evolution is to the final evolutionary theory as Newtonian >>>>> Physics is to the final physics theory incorporating quantum theory and >>>>> relativity. Newtonian physics is not wrong, just not the complete >>>>> picture. >>>>> Ditto Darwinian evolution. >>>>> >>>>> Nigel >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 29/12/2012 10:06, Jojo Jaro wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Axil, I think you mentioned this before. >>>>>> >>>>>> The question is, is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur? Or >>>>>> is it simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant. >>>>>> >>>>>> For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there are. >>>>>> It is irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs. We >>>>>> don't know that. It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken >>>>>> itself. >>>>>> >>>>>> People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first >>>>>> assume that chickens evolved from dinosaurs. But that is just a theory >>>>>> springing up from our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct. We >>>>>> can not assume Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits >>>>>> in >>>>>> chickens belong to dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is >>>>>> proof >>>>>> of Darwinian Evolution. That is circular reasoning. >>>>>> >>>>>> The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called "Junk >>>>>> DNA" are actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant. >>>>>> During >>>>>> microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken >>>>>> changes. >>>>>> The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA. >>>>>> Microevolution, >>>>>> not Darwinian Evolution. Big difference and people always confuse the >>>>>> issue. They think that just because we see changes, that that >>>>>> automatically imply Darwinian Evolution is occuring. Yes, evolution is >>>>>> occuring, but not Darwinian Evolution. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jojo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
