|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Jul 7, 2009 1:46:19 GMT -5
Three Rhetorical Superlative strawman statements. One thing about ya bruh you stay consistent I can give you that..... See Jesus never stated he was any of the off base things you wrote except for The Bright and Morning Star. Nice attempt to murk the water but it is stated he was The Son Of Man, Son of David, Son of God and the Bright and Morning Star. Those are four facts that are in your next. Matthew1: 1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Rev 22:16 I JESUS have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I AM the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
The only thing consistent about your text is the contradictions. Ah chit the S in son is lower case B! Is that a sign? lol Lets move to your next statement here. How can Jesus be from the lineage of David when Joseph is NOT his father? He is of a virgin birth correct? Hell the book can't even get it right how his lineage was but it should be of no consequence if Jesus was truly of God right? Why have a genealogy. That junt should say Genealogy of Jesus God > Mary > Jesus the end. lol sigh... [/color][/quote] Matthew says Jesus is the son of David (lower case s)but your next move will be while spittin, shining and buck dancing : "Ha! this is before he went to GAWD and became the CRYIST!" NO! "Show me where it States.. " I sayeth unto ye when I calleth Ezekiel Son of man it is different from when I calleth..wait a minute I never calleth but when thee disciples of Jesus calleth him the Son of Man." lol yeah right sure sounds like someone the writers maybe were trying to sway the reader into thinking this guy is the fulfillment of the prophecies from prior events which I might add NEVER HAPPENED. Yeah okay now your baking cakes. I know this image is gonna hurt inside but that's Betty Crocker there my friend. Sorry  [/quote] For anyone that's reading VP's posts. Go to Matthew 1- and see the son of man he is talking about. Is it a title? No it's not. It is a description of Jesus' lineage. Every one who is a descendant of David is a son of David. Let me say that again - EVERYONE who is a descendant of David is a son of David, but only ONE person is the Son of David because only one person is the fulfillment of the prophecy in the Old Testament. Being the son of David establishes his authority for the earthly throne (Israel), being the Son of David, establishes his authority for the heavenly throne. But don't worry about all that for right now - just understand that Jesus is both.
That's precisely why you were asked if Jesus could be more than one thing at a time. Jesus is a son of David (a descendant) and the Son of David (the divine fulfillment of prophecy). He could not be the fulfillment of prophecy if He didn't come from the Davidic line. I'm still chuckling at the irony of you picking up the banner and continuing to fight the bad fight making an argument that Jesus settled a few thousand years ago. Do you seriously not see the irony in you pursuing the same line of thinking as the people who Jesus had to correct in the verse that YOU cited? Maybe you don't, but this I do know. You are arguing something you don't quite understand.
It's like someone who doesn't believe there's such a thing as atomic energy debating nuclear physicists on how it works, and yet he doesn't know what a mole is, doesn't understand atomic weight, electron shells, uncertainty principles. Bruh I'm not even trying to clown you or anything but you literally don't know the basics of what you're debating. Literally. Do you know where Jesus's genealogies are in the bible? By the way - there's your hint - I said genealogies (plural). His lineage traces to David on BOTH sides IN the bible. I'm sure you already knew that though. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Jul 7, 2009 6:36:22 GMT -5
An attempt to sway opinion your way is cool. Do understand it shows the strength(or lack thereof) of your argument. I stand alone. I need not a cosigner. Now before I begin I would implore to you whom ever has taught or is teaching you about the bible...get a new teacher quickly. lets begin. Here is what the text states: 1 Chronicles 3
1Now these were the sons of David, which were born unto him in Hebron; the firstborn Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; the second Daniel, of Abigail the Carmelitess; 2The third, Absalom the son of Maachah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur: the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith: 3The fifth, Shephatiah of Abital: the sixth, Ithream by Eglah his wife. 4These six were born unto him in Hebron; and there he reigned seven years and six months: and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years. 5And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four, of Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel: 6Ibhar also, and Elishama, and Eliphelet, 7And Nogah, and Nepheg, and Japhia, 8And Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphelet, nine. 9These were all the sons of David, beside the sons of the concubines, and Tamar their sister. Yeah... moving on to your next statement. Where is this written in the bible? Where does it specifically show the case denotation of a word in the TEXT denotes higher importance? The Son of David son of David isn't a title and from the christian standpoint and even Jewish it is blasphemous to state it is messianic in nature. If that is the case then that would mean David is the messiah or messiah like when the truth is Jesus took up the Son of David name merely because of the covenant between David and "God" of the old testament. The question you should ask yourself again why is this needed. You are the Son of God begotten from a Virgin Birth. Is not the covenant with the "father" more important and super cedes being from the loins of David? The irony is you cited Luke and said verbatim.. "Ironically, the verse you cited initially actually refutes the very point you're trying to make (Luke 20). Talk about God working in mysterious ways
Luke 20: 41-43 Then Jesus said to them, "How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? David himself declares in the Book of Psalms: " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." 'David calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?"
If you don't understand the title (like the people in Luke 20 who Jesus was having to re-educate) - you can't understand the verse." - DamieSooo what was Jesus having to re-educate them on? That he wasn't the Son of David. How could he be the son.... then contradicts himself in Rev stating that he is. Rhetorical Superlative and unfounded opinion here. sigh. I think above refutes your assessment of my acumen not that it really matters. Are you asking me do I know or are you assuming that I don't? Let me quote myself and then take you deep into places I know you're not aware of. Vudu Prince Quote: "How can Jesus be from the lineage of David when Joseph is NOT his father? He is of a virgin birth correct? Hell the book can't even get it right how his lineage was but it should be of no consequence if Jesus was truly of God right? Why have a genealogy. That junt should say Genealogy of Jesus God > Mary > Jesus the end. lol sigh..."You ask if I know? lol The above post alluded to what I lead you to within this discussion. Again are you speaking from your own thoughts or are going where I tell you to go even if you don't realize it? Lets go in then # 1 Matthew and Luke's accounts of the Genealogy of Jesus conflict badly. This is what I meant by they couldn't get it right. On Matthews account the lineage goes back to Abraham comes on down through David and then through Solomon and names Joseph's father as Jacob while Luke's accounts goes all the way back to Adam comes through David BUT goes through Nathan instead and when it gets to Joseph it states his father is Heli. I know you didn't know this because if you did then surely you wouldn't use this as the basis of your argument. #2 Adonijah exalts himself to the throne and David never objects UNTIL Nathan gets Bathsheba to coerce David into allowing Solomon to assume the throne instead. Lets see how Solomon assumes the throne 1 Kings 1:33The king also said unto them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, and bring him down to Gihon: 34And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel: and blow ye with the trumpet, and say, God save king Solomon.
35Then ye shall come up after him, that he may come and sit upon my throne; for he shall be king in my stead: and I have appointed him to be ruler over Israel and over Judah. Lets see how Jesus assumes the throne getting annointed by.......  ?... John 12: 12The next day the great crowd that had come for the Feast heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. 13They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting,
"Hosanna![c]"
"Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!"[d]
"Blessed is the King of Israel!" 14Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it, as it is written,
15"Do not be afraid, O Daughter of Zion;
see, your king is coming,
seated on a donkey's colt." Basics you say? I can take the text you adhere to and get you lost within it. Make ye a stranger in your own land. A visitor in your own house. Basics? Basics? |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Michelob Lite on Jul 7, 2009 12:00:02 GMT -5
yes, unfortunately, it matters...
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Jul 7, 2009 14:12:22 GMT -5
An attempt to sway opinion your way is cool. Do understand it shows the strength(or lack thereof) of your argument. I stand alone. I need not a cosigner. Now before I begin I would implore to you whom ever has taught or is teaching you about the bible...get a new teacher quickly. lets begin. Here is what the text states: 1 Chronicles 3
1Now these were the sons of David, which were born unto him in Hebron; the firstborn Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; the second Daniel, of Abigail the Carmelitess; 2The third, Absalom the son of Maachah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur: the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith: 3The fifth, Shephatiah of Abital: the sixth, Ithream by Eglah his wife. 4These six were born unto him in Hebron; and there he reigned seven years and six months: and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years. 5And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four, of Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel: 6Ibhar also, and Elishama, and Eliphelet, 7And Nogah, and Nepheg, and Japhia, 8And Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphelet, nine. 9These were all the sons of David, beside the sons of the concubines, and Tamar their sister. Yeah... moving on to your next statement. Where is this written in the bible? Where does it specifically show the case denotation of a word in the TEXT denotes higher importance? The Son of David son of David isn't a title and from the christian standpoint and even Jewish it is blasphemous to state it is messianic in nature. If that is the case then that would mean David is the messiah or messiah like when the truth is Jesus took up the Son of David name merely because of the covenant between David and "God" of the old testament. The question you should ask yourself again why is this needed. You are the Son of God begotten from a Virgin Birth. Is not the covenant with the "father" more important and super cedes being from the loins of David? The irony is you cited Luke and said verbatim.. "Ironically, the verse you cited initially actually refutes the very point you're trying to make (Luke 20). Talk about God working in mysterious ways
Luke 20: 41-43 Then Jesus said to them, "How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? David himself declares in the Book of Psalms: " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." 'David calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?"
If you don't understand the title (like the people in Luke 20 who Jesus was having to re-educate) - you can't understand the verse." - DamieSooo what was Jesus having to re-educate them on? That he wasn't the Son of David. How could he be the son.... then contradicts himself in Rev stating that he is. Rhetorical Superlative and unfounded opinion here. sigh. I think above refutes your assessment of my acumen not that it really matters. Are you asking me do I know or are you assuming that I don't? Let me quote myself and then take you deep into places I know you're not aware of. Vudu Prince Quote: "How can Jesus be from the lineage of David when Joseph is NOT his father? He is of a virgin birth correct? Hell the book can't even get it right how his lineage was but it should be of no consequence if Jesus was truly of God right? Why have a genealogy. That junt should say Genealogy of Jesus God > Mary > Jesus the end. lol sigh..."You ask if I know? lol The above post alluded to what I lead you to within this discussion. Again are you speaking from your own thoughts or are going where I tell you to go even if you don't realize it? Lets go in then # 1 Matthew and Luke's accounts of the Genealogy of Jesus conflict badly. This is what I meant by they couldn't get it right. On Matthews account the lineage goes back to Abraham comes on down through David and then through Solomon and names Joseph's father as Jacob while Luke's accounts goes all the way back to Adam comes through David BUT goes through Nathan instead and when it gets to Joseph it states his father is Heli. I know you didn't know this because if you did then surely you wouldn't use this as the basis of your argument. #2 Adonijah exalts himself to the throne and David never objects UNTIL Nathan gets Bathsheba to coerce David into allowing Solomon to assume the throne instead. Lets see how Solomon assumes the throne 1 Kings 1:33The king also said unto them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, and bring him down to Gihon: 34And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel: and blow ye with the trumpet, and say, God save king Solomon.
35Then ye shall come up after him, that he may come and sit upon my throne; for he shall be king in my stead: and I have appointed him to be ruler over Israel and over Judah. Lets see how Jesus assumes the throne getting annointed by....... ?... John 12: 12The next day the great crowd that had come for the Feast heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. 13They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting,
"Hosanna![c]"
"Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!"[d]
"Blessed is the King of Israel!" 14Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it, as it is written,
15"Do not be afraid, O Daughter of Zion;
see, your king is coming,
seated on a donkey's colt." Basics you say? I can take the text you adhere to and get you lost within it. Make ye a stranger in your own land. A visitor in your own house. Basics? Basics?
If it's not wanton or intentional misunderstanding, then it's no slight against you, there are self-professed Christians who (as you rightly point out) also don't understand alot of it. But the reasons they don't understand is different than you. For you, The Word is a language that you do not currently speak - trying to analyze and critique it is as fruitless a labor as you trying to analyze and critique any other verbal language you do not speak. I would not expect you to be able to contribute to a debate on Chinese if you didn't speak the language, didn't know the structure, and didn't know the symbols - I shouldn't expect you to be able to when it comes to the bible.
Again - that is not a slight against your intellect, you have proven to be smart in many other areas fraternal, socieo-economic, sociological - but here, concerning the bible, you are out of your depth.
The Son of Man, the Rose of Sharon, the Lily of the Valley, the Bright and Morning Star, the Prince of Peace, the Son of David - they are all titles that belong to ONE divine individual. Anyone else that has questions about this, feel free to PM me and I'll tell you whatever I can. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Jul 7, 2009 14:19:09 GMT -5
An attempt to sway opinion your way is cool. Do understand it shows the strength(or lack thereof) of your argument. I stand alone. I need not a cosigner. Now before I begin I would implore to you whom ever has taught or is teaching you about the bible...get a new teacher quickly. lets begin. Here is what the text states: 1 Chronicles 3
1Now these were the sons of David, which were born unto him in Hebron; the firstborn Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; the second Daniel, of Abigail the Carmelitess; 2The third, Absalom the son of Maachah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur: the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith: 3The fifth, Shephatiah of Abital: the sixth, Ithream by Eglah his wife. 4These six were born unto him in Hebron; and there he reigned seven years and six months: and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years. 5And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four, of Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel: 6Ibhar also, and Elishama, and Eliphelet, 7And Nogah, and Nepheg, and Japhia, 8And Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphelet, nine. 9These were all the sons of David, beside the sons of the concubines, and Tamar their sister. Yeah... moving on to your next statement. Where is this written in the bible? Where does it specifically show the case denotation of a word in the TEXT denotes higher importance? The Son of David son of David isn't a title and from the christian standpoint and even Jewish it is blasphemous to state it is messianic in nature. If that is the case then that would mean David is the messiah or messiah like when the truth is Jesus took up the Son of David name merely because of the covenant between David and "God" of the old testament. The question you should ask yourself again why is this needed. You are the Son of God begotten from a Virgin Birth. Is not the covenant with the "father" more important and super cedes being from the loins of David? The irony is you cited Luke and said verbatim.. "Ironically, the verse you cited initially actually refutes the very point you're trying to make (Luke 20). Talk about God working in mysterious ways
Luke 20: 41-43 Then Jesus said to them, "How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? David himself declares in the Book of Psalms: " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." 'David calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?"
If you don't understand the title (like the people in Luke 20 who Jesus was having to re-educate) - you can't understand the verse." - DamieSooo what was Jesus having to re-educate them on? That he wasn't the Son of David. How could he be the son.... then contradicts himself in Rev stating that he is. Rhetorical Superlative and unfounded opinion here. sigh. I think above refutes your assessment of my acumen not that it really matters. Are you asking me do I know or are you assuming that I don't? Let me quote myself and then take you deep into places I know you're not aware of. Vudu Prince Quote: "How can Jesus be from the lineage of David when Joseph is NOT his father? He is of a virgin birth correct? Hell the book can't even get it right how his lineage was but it should be of no consequence if Jesus was truly of God right? Why have a genealogy. That junt should say Genealogy of Jesus God > Mary > Jesus the end. lol sigh..."You ask if I know? lol The above post alluded to what I lead you to within this discussion. Again are you speaking from your own thoughts or are going where I tell you to go even if you don't realize it? Lets go in then # 1 Matthew and Luke's accounts of the Genealogy of Jesus conflict badly. This is what I meant by they couldn't get it right. On Matthews account the lineage goes back to Abraham comes on down through David and then through Solomon and names Joseph's father as Jacob while Luke's accounts goes all the way back to Adam comes through David BUT goes through Nathan instead and when it gets to Joseph it states his father is Heli. I know you didn't know this because if you did then surely you wouldn't use this as the basis of your argument. #2 Adonijah exalts himself to the throne and David never objects UNTIL Nathan gets Bathsheba to coerce David into allowing Solomon to assume the throne instead. Lets see how Solomon assumes the throne 1 Kings 1:33The king also said unto them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, and bring him down to Gihon: 34And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel: and blow ye with the trumpet, and say, God save king Solomon.
35Then ye shall come up after him, that he may come and sit upon my throne; for he shall be king in my stead: and I have appointed him to be ruler over Israel and over Judah. Lets see how Jesus assumes the throne getting annointed by....... ?... John 12: 12The next day the great crowd that had come for the Feast heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. 13They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting,
"Hosanna![c]"
"Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!"[d]
"Blessed is the King of Israel!" 14Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it, as it is written,
15"Do not be afraid, O Daughter of Zion;
see, your king is coming,
seated on a donkey's colt." Basics you say? I can take the text you adhere to and get you lost within it. Make ye a stranger in your own land. A visitor in your own house. Basics? Basics?
If it's not wanton or intentional misunderstanding, then it's no slight against you, there are self-professed Christians who (as you rightly point out) also don't understand alot of it. But the reasons they don't understand is different than you. For you, The Word is a language that you do not currently speak - trying to analyze and critique it is as fruitless a labor as you trying to analyze and critique any other verbal language you do not speak. I would not expect you to be able to contribute to a debate on Chinese if you didn't speak the language, didn't know the structure, and didn't know the symbols - I shouldn't expect you to be able to when it comes to the bible.
Again - that is not a slight against your intellect, you have proven to be smart in many other areas fraternal, socieo-economic, sociological - but here, concerning the bible, you are out of your depth.
The Son of Man, the Rose of Sharon, the Lily of the Valley, the Bright and Morning Star, the Prince of Peace, the Son of David - they are all titles that belong to ONE divine individual. Anyone else that has questions about this, feel free to PM me and I'll tell you whatever I can. Yeah okay... lol Different way to concede but I'll accept it nonetheless. :handshake: |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Jul 7, 2009 14:31:31 GMT -5
Just to add insult to injury show where anywhere anywhere Jesus is mentioned as the Rose of Sharon or the Lily of the Valley?
Song of Solomon 2:1I am the rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valleys. 2As the lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters.
Stop repeating what your preacher tells you. It makes you look foolish and uninformed.
We should be done here... Seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Jul 7, 2009 14:41:52 GMT -5
Just to add insult to injury show where anywhere anywhere Jesus is mentioned as the Rose of Sharon or the Lily of the Valley?
Song of Solomon 2:1I am the rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valleys. 2As the lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters.Stop repeating what your preacher tells you. It makes you look foolish and uninformed. We should be done here... Seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Jul 7, 2009 15:56:25 GMT -5
I have lost track of what ya'll are talking about...but not for nothing; the Lily of whom VP speaks WAS indeed Black! Check out Song of Solomon 1:5.
Now, Damie I understand that you only want to have biblical discourse with those who are somewhat versed within. I believe I qualify. But are you also saying that you only want to talk about it in PM? I want to talk more about the Lily of the Valley.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Jul 7, 2009 16:01:01 GMT -5
I have lost track of what ya'll are talking about...but not for nothing; the Lily of whom VP speaks WAS indeed Black! Check out Song of Solomon 1:5. Now, Damie I understand that you only want to have biblical discourse with those who are somewhat versed within. I believe I qualify. But are you also saying that you only want to talk about it in PM? I want to talk more about the Lily of the Valley. |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Jul 7, 2009 16:05:57 GMT -5
Ok, I'll start by asking you why you believe that "Lily of the Valley" is a name that refers to Jesus Christ?
(and because I know you suspicious with yours, I'll tell you now that when you're done, I'm going to explain why I think otherwise {in case I do} and then I'll leave it alone. Not trying to bait you here)
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Jul 7, 2009 16:54:59 GMT -5
Ok, I'll start by asking you why you believe that "Lily of the Valley" is a name that refers to Jesus Christ? (and because I know you suspicious with yours, I'll tell you now that when you're done, I'm going to explain why I think otherwise {in case I do} and then I'll leave it alone. Not trying to bait you here)
Ironically the reference in Songs of Solomon (that many people cite immediately) is Solomon speaking of himself to a bride. Accordingly neither lily nor rose is capitalized in this stanza. Now as Christians to refer to Jesus as THE Lily of the Valley or THE Rose of Sharon is to acknowledge His position and relationship to the church, the Bridegroom (Ephesians 5:22-32, Revelation 19:7-9, etc.).
As Solomon was a lily in the valley and a rose of sharon to his bride (the Shalumite sp? woman) Jesus is the Lily of the Valley and the Rose of Sharon to His Church.
Hopefully you follow me. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Jul 7, 2009 17:59:56 GMT -5
Yes the lily in the valley in S of S is black but is also a female. It is a call and response back and forth poem.. smdh
Also again stop listening to your preachers who state there is a denotation between lower case and upper case as it pertains to higher distinction. Hebrew though not a romance language was influenced over the years by the tenets of romance languages. In romance language when one denotes a person nationality, religion and or title... it is put in lower case. KJV is an English translation of Masoretic(sp) Hebrew influenced by Romance languages for the old testament and for the new testament the KJV used the Septuagint which was written in Greek. Greek denotes its nouns and names etc with Capital letters first regardless of where they fall. Again stop repeating what a preacher has told you it makes you look foolish and uninformed.
Carry On.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Jul 7, 2009 18:16:37 GMT -5
Where in the bybull does it state Jesus is the lily in the valley and the Rose of Sharon? Show us? Where in the bybull does it state Jesus is the Prince of Peace? again Show Us?
More insult to injury.
The Prince of Peace appears once in the entire bible
Isaiah 9:6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Jesus Prince of Peace? Lets see
Luke 12:49-51
49I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 50But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! 51Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division
.....................
|
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Jul 7, 2009 20:49:09 GMT -5
I have lost track of what ya'll are talking about...but not for nothing; the Lily of whom VP speaks WAS indeed Black! Check out Song of Solomon 1:5. Now, Damie I understand that you only want to have biblical discourse with those who are somewhat versed within. I believe I qualify. But are you also saying that you only want to talk about it in PM? I want to talk more about the Lily of the Valley. LOL @ underlined part! Understandable indeed, kinda like what I said yesterday about Man is all about confusion, etc. Waiting to see what is Leja's response to the answer Damie gave for this question. Should make for an interesting convo. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Jul 7, 2009 21:55:32 GMT -5
Where in the bybull does it state Jesus is the lily in the valley and the Rose of Sharon? Show us? Where in the bybull does it state Jesus is the Prince of Peace? again Show Us? More insult to injury. The Prince of Peace appears once in the entire bible Isaiah 9:6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Jesus Prince of Peace? Lets see Luke 12:49-51
49I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 50But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! 51Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division.....................
VP - you are an adherent to a "religion" that centers around Celestial Amphibious Fish people from Sirius. I think I'll let that speak for itself. Feel free to take the off-ramp out of this conversation any time. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Jul 8, 2009 0:02:01 GMT -5
So you coonin as in concern to ancestors? I can dig it. lol and for the record not my religion but Lets go in again SIRIUS the Dog Star blueish/white in color is the Eastern Star in the Evening. It is the brightest star of the evening. My ancestors followed Polaris the Northern Star for their freedom but if Polaris was obscured at night then the ancestors would use the Eastern Star or Sirius as their guide while going due North knowing as long as Sirius was watching from the East they were moving in the right direction. as they scurred for freedom of chattel slavery justified by Christianity. Lets go in further. Jesus in the bible was born in the evening and the Magi stated they saw his star in the East.. damn kinda fucked up isn't it? lol The very Star you attempted to joke about was the sign for your lawd and saveyah.
Matthew 2: 1Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. Does the old testament "God" like this Star in the east or as it is called the Sun in the East? Lets see Ezekiel 8:12Then said he unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the dark, every man in the chambers of his imagery? for they say, the LORD seeth us not; the LORD hath forsaken the earth. 13He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do. 14Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz. 15Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these. 16And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD's house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east. Shaking my damn head... I had to spell it out that time.. Oh I forgot the fish... dizam the Fish Dizam that Fish. Lets see what Early Christians used for Jesus... It was called in greek the Ichthys or Ichthus (sp). lol It had greek letters encircled by a fish and this was also used by The Shepherd of Hermes but then your lawd just became The Good Shepherd. Interesting to note that this Fish symbolism was introduced by the Greeks while in Kemet...... Wonder where they got it from.. Lets go in further
Matthew 14:16But Jesus said unto them, They need not depart; give ye them to eat. 17And they say unto him, We have here but five loaves, and two fishes. 18He said, Bring them hither to me. 19And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.
smirk.... damn he even looked up into the heavens as well...Pisces is signified by TWO FISH. Gen 1:14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:   Now can we be done here? I don't want to interrupt your class.. oh one more thing.. The preparation of the bride attempts to mimic the Songs of Solomon which itself was and is a plagiarized version of the Sumerian Song of Dumuz and Inanna whom names were later changed to Tammuz and Ashtoreth whom are BOTH in the bible painted as evil but at the same time the writers take their love story twist it around and put it in the Songs of Solomon. SMDH 2 Kings 23:13The king also desecrated the high places that were east of Jerusalem on the south of the Hill of Corruption—the ones Solomon king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the vile goddess of the Sidonians, for Chemosh the vile god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the people of Ammon.Dizam. Seriously what you speak is only relevant because of the ignorance of your audience who adhere to your thoughts. You don't have to read it but someone will and see the truth. Uplift is a beautiful thing. |
|
|
|
Post by No Screen Name on Jul 8, 2009 0:03:27 GMT -5
I just read this post in its entirety.
VP, I have a question: if the Bible is "bull" as you say it is, what texts are "legit" in your view? What should we really be reading, as you see it? If we Christians are on the wrong path, what SHOULD we believe in?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Jul 8, 2009 1:22:16 GMT -5
I just read this post in its entirety. VP, I have a question: if the Bible is "bull" as you say it is, what texts are "legit" in your view? What should we really be reading, as you see it? If we Christians are on the wrong path, what SHOULD we believe in? You shouldn't want to believe in anything you should want to know. See its simple we all universally regardless of "religious" affiliation submit to the Universal Laws of Existence. When a child is born and I did many of these while in the Military 11 years ago they are given an Apgar test which is an acronym that stands for Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity and Respiration. These things show a submission to the Universal Laws of Existence. Even a newborn will fight to exist. A newborn knows it has to eat to live, sleep to live, drink to live, breath to live BUT without the Queen Mother answering the call of the cry of the child...nobody NOBODY lives. Nobody survives. NOBODY The only absolute evidence that exist of God sistah....is You. So when you hear me speak of the Sacred Feminine I speak of the Black Woman who is African Centered Mentally Spiritually. You are the first teacher. You have men who don't want to see the Queen take her rightful place on the throne. You have men who don't want women to know who they are. Bust you down as a help meet. Regulate you to being whores, evil queens, vampires, etc etc etc . The Irony is they hide your essence within the bowels of their religious text. They give you an olive branch with one hand and have arrows with the other. Now to bring this to your speed though none of these things ever happened to make it believable the writers of the bible had to slide Queens in the equation. Solomon was supposed to be the Mightiest King.....but he submitted to the Queen of Sheba when she came to him and questioned him. Put him through a series of test. Now Solomon is the heir to the throne and in favor of God BUT he submits to the Queen of Sheba...?
1 Kings 10:1 When the queen of Sheba heard about the fame of Solomon and his relation to the name of the LORD, she came to test him with hard questions.Lets see what the writers did for Jesus so he could also be considered. Matthew 12: 42The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.Now one must wonder why would Jesus need the Queen of the South to justify his condemnation. Again the writers try to make Jesus and Solomon one... BUT the Queen of the South never comes to see Jesus. Now this just shows the writers know who is really running things and its the Woman..emphatically the Black Woman. The Queen Mother the epitome of the Sacred Feminine and the origin of the Square as before any building was built having squares or the Square itself was constructed the long Axis of the vaginal Canal and the Long axis of the Uterus forms that of a 90 Degree Angle meeting at the Cervix. YOU are the Square and your enemies seek to stand on or inside you. So when they mention the Holy of the Holies and where God sits... they are speaking of the inner sanctum and cavity body of the uterus. The Holy of the Holies is none other than the Uterus itself. The ritualistic nature how the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies is the very reason Jesus had to be born from within the Holy of Holies... Mary's womb. There is lots more but one has to first break the chains of ignorance before you can feast on the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Jul 8, 2009 8:18:23 GMT -5
Ok, I'll start by asking you why you believe that "Lily of the Valley" is a name that refers to Jesus Christ? (and because I know you suspicious with yours, I'll tell you now that when you're done, I'm going to explain why I think otherwise {in case I do} and then I'll leave it alone. Not trying to bait you here)
Ironically the reference in Songs of Solomon (that many people cite immediately) is Solomon speaking of himself to a bride. Accordingly neither lily nor rose is capitalized in this stanza. Now as Christians to refer to Jesus as THE Lily of the Valley or THE Rose of Sharon is to acknowledge His position and relationship to the church, the Bridegroom (Ephesians 5:22-32, Revelation 19:7-9, etc.).
As Solomon was a lily in the valley and a rose of sharon to his bride (the Shalumite sp? woman) Jesus is the Lily of the Valley and the Rose of Sharon to His Church.
Hopefully you follow me. Oh. Actually, we're on the very same page. This kinda surprises me. I'll be back. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Jul 8, 2009 9:05:19 GMT -5
No problem.
Ironically the reference in Songs of Solomon (that many people cite immediately) is Solomon speaking of himself to a bride. Accordingly neither lily nor rose is capitalized in this stanza. Now as Christians to refer to Jesus as THE Lily of the Valley or THE Rose of Sharon is to acknowledge His position and relationship to the church, the Bridegroom (Ephesians 5:22-32, Revelation 19:7-9, etc.).
As Solomon was a lily in the valley and a rose of sharon to his bride (the Shalumite sp? woman) Jesus is the Lily of the Valley and the Rose of Sharon to His Church.
Hopefully you follow me. Oh. Actually, we're on the very same page. This kinda surprises me. I'll be back. |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Jul 8, 2009 9:24:45 GMT -5
I'm surprised because most explanations I have heard about "el Lirio del Valle" don't acknowledge the Bride of Christ at all, but only discuss Jesus' own attributes. Further, people also often seek either to completely distinguish Solomon's Lilly from Christ's (as though the "lily" theme is not a theme at all, but merely a coincidental separate reference) or merge them too closely (as did VP, suggesting that they are one in the same). As Jesus is technically "the greater Solomon," one prefigured the other. (Matthew 12:42). Solomon's relationship with his kingdom (we'll talk about the Shulamite later) foreshadowed Jesus' relationship with his own. But like I had said, it only kinda surprises me. You be knowin stuff  |
|
|
|
Post by Mrs. Eyes on Jul 8, 2009 11:21:18 GMT -5
Like Damie said....................son of God, is different from Son of God. For someone who thinks the Bible is full of bull, you sure do miscontrue it a lot yourself. Who is confused? I'm not. Jesus is the Son of the Living God. That's proof enough for me. Ezekiel IS the Son of man. Quit taking it literally. Ezekiel is the son of a man. Jesus is the Son of God, two totally different people. Like Damie said...but what do you think sistah? Like the preacher said but again what do you think sistah? Matthew 1 1:1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. -Misconstrued here? Matthew 19: 28And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Maybe misconstrued here?
Revelations 22:16I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. Ah HA maybe you caught me misconstruing here!? NOPE So now again is Jesus the Son of Man or the Son Of God? Is he of a virgin birth or is Joseph his father who is the line of David which would then be passed on to Jesus and confirm him as heir to the throne? Why the need for David if God is your father? smdh See how can I misconstrue which is already misconstrued? How can I twist which is already twisted? How can I lie about which is already itself falsehood? One has to wonder how can everyone go into Serious Talk and speak on the ills of the world be it past or present and not look at the very text that Justifies all of it? How can one speak out against chattel slavery when it is justified in the text you adhere to? Once again read the siggy and digest. Once again, based off the scripture you poorly presented, Ezeikiel is the Son of man. Jesus was born of a virgin Mary, which makes him a son of a man. Of human flesh. That's where the son of man comes into play. He is related to all those listed above, David, and Abraham. Jesus is apart of that family tree, so once again, he IS the Son of man. Man in the flesh. It also states in scripture that Jesus is the Son of the Living God. Which makes God his father. So it's not miscontrued. Unless someone wants to make it that way. It's really not all that complicated. Like I stated before, quit taking it literally, that's when confusion steps in. Which is what it seems you fail at. Like slavery and this point you were trying to make, people miscontrue and twist the Bible to make it fit into their failing arguement. Seems like the only one who is confused is you. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Jul 8, 2009 11:24:01 GMT -5
I'm surprised because most explanations I have heard about "el Lirio del Valle" don't acknowledge the Bride of Christ at all, but only discuss Jesus' own attributes. Further, people also often seek either to completely distinguish Solomon's Lilly from Christ's (as though the "lily" theme is not a theme at all, but merely a coincidental separate reference) or merge them too closely (as did VP, suggesting that they are one in the same). As Jesus is technically "the greater Solomon," one prefigured the other. (Matthew 12:42). Solomon's relationship with his kingdom (we'll talk about the Shulamite later) foreshadowed Jesus' relationship with his own. But like I had said, it only kinda surprises me. You be knowin stuff |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Jul 8, 2009 11:40:50 GMT -5
Like Damie said...but what do you think sistah? Like the preacher said but again what do you think sistah? Matthew 1 1:1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. -Misconstrued here? Matthew 19: 28And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Maybe misconstrued here?
Revelations 22:16I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. Ah HA maybe you caught me misconstruing here!? NOPE So now again is Jesus the Son of Man or the Son Of God? Is he of a virgin birth or is Joseph his father who is the line of David which would then be passed on to Jesus and confirm him as heir to the throne? Why the need for David if God is your father? smdh See how can I misconstrue which is already misconstrued? How can I twist which is already twisted? How can I lie about which is already itself falsehood? One has to wonder how can everyone go into Serious Talk and speak on the ills of the world be it past or present and not look at the very text that Justifies all of it? How can one speak out against chattel slavery when it is justified in the text you adhere to? Once again read the siggy and digest. Once again, based off the scripture you poorly presented, Ezeikiel is the Son of man. Jesus was born of a virgin Mary, which makes him a son of a man. Of human flesh. That's where the son of man comes into play. He is related to all those listed above, David, and Abraham. Jesus is apart of that family tree, so once again, he IS the Son of man. Man in the flesh. It also states in scripture that Jesus is the Son of the Living God. Which makes God his father. So it's not miscontrued. Unless someone wants to make it that way. It's really not all that complicated. Like I stated before, quit taking it literally, that's when confusion steps in. Which is what it seems you fail at. Like slavery and this point you were trying to make, people miscontrue and twist the Bible to make it fit into their failing arguement. Seems like the only one who is confused is you. Jesus being born from the womb of Mary has nothing to do with the Son of Man symbolism. You truly don't have a clue of what you speak on. I like your courage though. Mary's womb is the Holy of Holies the inner sanctum of the temple. Read your bible more recognize who you are and become the true teacher of the child. The only person in the entire bible who is called the Son Of Man by "God" is Ezekiel. End of story. Nice try. |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Jul 8, 2009 12:16:50 GMT -5
Interesting take. When we say "Solomon's kingdom" what are we specifically talking about - like which characteristic? I ask because (as you recall) Solomon went sideways in there a couple of times and that resulted in the kingdom being torn in half when his son was on the throne. We're talking about the unprecedented peace that was abundant in Israel during his reign. (1 Kings 4:25--discussing how Judah and Israel dwelled in security all the days of Solomon). This foreshadows both the "spiritual paradise" that true Christians have right very now and the "peace and security" that will abound under Jesus Christs' rule when humans are "set free from enslavement to corruption" (Romans 8:21). Solomon did wild out a time or two, but that's what makes Jesus the "Greater Solomon." In all his wisdom, Solomon was imperfect, made bad decisions and could not free his subjects from the shackles of sin and death. Jesus will pick up where he left off. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Jul 8, 2009 12:28:13 GMT -5
Song of Solomon Chapter 2:1 is spoken from a woman not Solomon. The Woman says she is the lilly of the valley and the rose of sharon not solomon. Beloved
1 I am a rose of Sharon,
a lily of the valleys.
Lover
2 Like a lily among thorns
is my darling among the maidens.
Beloved
3 Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest
is my lover among the young men.
I delight to sit in his shade,
and his fruit is sweet to my taste. So if you think Solomon is the Lilly of the Valley then per the above passage he is a Homosexual. Beloved is the Black Woman the Lover is Solomon. Also coming into the Entrance to the Temple of Solomon you had two pillars one called Joachin and the other Boaz and a lilly was affixed atop of them both. The lilly is but a reference to the labia. So when it states Solomon is browsing amongst the lillies of the garden that is the labia's of the women. It even states he comes back with 60 queens 80 concubines and innumerable virgins but none is greater than the Lily that is his perfect one. Song Of Solomon 6:2-3
Beloved
2 My lover has gone down to his garden,
to the beds of spices,
to browse in the gardens
and to gather lilies.
3 I am my lover's and my lover is mine;
he browses among the lilies.Solomon returns and says 6:7 Your temples behind your veil
are like the halves of a pomegranate.
8 Sixty queens there may be,
and eighty concubines,
and virgins beyond number;
9 but my dove, my perfect one, is unique,
the only daughter of her mother,
the favorite of the one who bore her.
The maidens saw her and called her blessed;
the queens and concubines praised her.Lets look at this from a graphic standpoint referencing the lilly again.
Song of Solomon 5:4 My lover thrust his hand through the latch-opening; my heart began to pound for him. 5 I arose to open for my lover, and my hands dripped with myrrh,my fingers with flowing myrrh, on the handles of the lock. Basically she spreads her labia open for him to enter. Just for arguments sake.... Song of Solomon 5:14 His arms are rods of gold
set with chrysolite. His body is like polished ivory
decorated with sapphires.Solomon is indeed a PECKERWOOD. Desecrating the womb seeking to bestow upon himself the birthright of the black male the original child of the Queen Mother. Matthew 12:42 isn't talking about the Bride of the Lamb per the story it is talking about the Queen of Sheba from 1 Kings Chapter 10 1 Kings 10:1 When the queen of Sheba heard about the fame of Solomon and his relation to the name of the LORD, she came to test him with hard questions. 2 Arriving at Jerusalem with a very great caravan—with camels carrying spices, large quantities of gold, and precious stones—she came to Solomon and talked with him about all that she had on her mind. 3 Solomon answered all her questions; nothing was too hard for the king to explain to her. Jesus then says Matthew 12:42 The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.So the Queen of Sheba and the Queen of the South are one and the same woman. Queen of Sheba isn't Solomon's bride. smdh Queen of the South never manifest herself to Jesus as per the story. Sounds like a bad sermon up in here. I think it was said Solomon was speaking of himself in S of S Chapter 2 verse 1? Yeah.. lol |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Jul 8, 2009 12:58:31 GMT -5
The song of the Shulamite is one of my favorite pieces of literature (Biblical or otherwise). The more I study it, the more I see things I'd never seen before. In fact, that's why my name is Superlativa this week. It's from Song of Solomon 1:1.
|
|
|
|
Post by No Screen Name on Jul 8, 2009 14:14:13 GMT -5
You shouldn't want to believe in anything you should want to know. See its simple we all universally regardless of "religious" affiliation submit to the Universal Laws of Existence. When a child is born and I did many of these while in the Military 11 years ago they are given an Apgar test which is an acronym that stands for Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity and Respiration. These things show a submission to the Universal Laws of Existence. Even a newborn will fight to exist. A newborn knows it has to eat to live, sleep to live, drink to live, breath to live BUT without the Queen Mother answering the call of the cry of the child...nobody NOBODY lives. Nobody survives. NOBODY Oh, okay. So you would basically sum your beliefs up as "Universal Laws of Existance". What are these laws? Just the law of survival? The only absolute evidence that exist of God sistah....is You. So when you hear me speak of the Sacred Feminine I speak of the Black Woman who is African Centered Mentally Spiritually. You are the first teacher. You have men who don't want to see the Queen take her rightful place on the throne. ...The Queen Mother the epitome of the Sacred Feminine and the origin of the Square as before any building was built having squares or the Square itself was constructed the long Axis of the vaginal Canal and the Long axis of the Uterus forms that of a 90 Degree Angle meeting at the Cervix. YOU are the Square and your enemies seek to stand on or inside you. So when they mention the Holy of the Holies and where God sits... they are speaking of the inner sanctum and cavity body of the uterus. The Holy of the Holies is none other than the Uterus itself. The ritualistic nature how the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies is the very reason Jesus had to be born from within the Holy of Holies... Mary's womb. Hey...I like that! I'mma Queen. It's good to be queen.  So would you say you believe in the concept of a divine "Goddess"? Where do you get your information? I see you have the Bible quoted, but what other sources do you use to gather your information? |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Jul 8, 2009 22:35:15 GMT -5
Oh, okay. So you would basically sum your beliefs up as "Universal Laws of Existance". What are these laws? Just the law of survival? Again belief isn't absolute. If a person has usage of all 5 senses and is conscious of stimuli if there is a blockage innately they will attempt to remove it. Again using the child as reference. If a Child can see when you shine a light in their eyes they react to the light. They notice the stimuli. The fact that they react isn't belief the child innately knows what to do. When an infant is on its back usually based on how keen the senses are the childs legs are drawn up in a supine cradle position. If you grab the childs leg to straighten it when you let go the child will snatch its leg back up to the drawn position. It's comfort zone is in the womb and you to the child are a stranger. You are out of the comfort zone. That's not belief... that again is knowing. YOU. You are the source of the information. Again using the infant as reference as I said before When a Child is hungry it cries When a Child is thirsty it cries When a Child has Gas it cries When a Child is sleepy it cries When a Child can't breathe it cries If you strip all away if the mother doesn't push while in labor what happens? Now when you strip everything away who is the absolute that balances every above equation? The Mother. It is the mother that answers the call. It is the strength of the mother that brings forth the manifestation of life by pushing. No book can refute or confirm the absolute fact that exist every where. Instead of looking on the outside you need to look inside of yourself. Before a person had a desire to gaze at the stars, the trees, the animals, the sun he noticed you first. You'd learn more by timing the things that happen with you and recording them then correlating your measurements to your surroundings and go from there. Get on your Magic. |
|
|
|
Post by nsync on Jul 8, 2009 23:17:04 GMT -5
So Reign et al...I was thinking about something you said and you are on to something. It is suggested in evolutionary biology that white folks(caucasions) began to evolve much later than those of asian and african ancestry. The "proof" is that they have more body hair where as Africans(and descendants)...Asians(and decendants<which include many indigenous groups like Native Americans and the Inuits>) have virtually none...which seems to be some sort of human vestigal trait(body hair that is). I know this is slightly off topic and who cares about evolution yaddi yaddi yadda...but really you are on to something.....that may or may not be true. Of course there are some theories that state that white people are aliens  So mentioning that they were not around 2 thousand years ago aint that bad after all...better than them being aliens lol |
|
?... 
{=}http://s2.images.proboards.com/cool.gif{/=}
So mentioning that they were not around 2 thousand years ago aint that bad after all...better than them being aliens lol