Dtruthspeaker:


SIRTee15 has already answered you that Isreal was ONE not two before the one got the torso carrying her 2 legs amputated off, the rest of her body.

As i have told you, you have nothing.

You and your friend SIRTee15 are horribly wrong. He clearly addressed them as seperate individuals, not as a siamese twins who got seperated later. Ezekiel puts it better.

Ezekiel 23 from the Good News Bible it says: ''1.The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,

2. Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother:''

In vs 4 it says: ''The older one was named Oholah[a] (she represents Samaria), and the younger one was named Oholibah[b] (she represents Jerusalem). I married BOTH of them, and they bore me children.''

To further prove that he meant two seperate people here, He said ''THE OLDER ONE... represents Samaria.'' Samaria is the capital of Israel, the northern kingdom which is larger because it is made up of 10 of the 12 tribes hence was called the ''OLDER ONE'', while Judah whose capital is Jerusalem is the smaller part since it consists of only two tribes: Judah and Benjamin.

So, you can see very clearly in Ezekiel, that he is talking a out two separate individuals and he said He MARRIED THEM BOTH!

I do not expect you to mae a U-turn over night as you have been believing what you believe for a long time. But go and do your research and ask your pastors and priests. Whatever they tell you, comopare it to what I have said here and you can also lock up yourself in your room and pray to the holyspirit to guide you. Whatever illumination you recieve, if at all you will recieve anything, share it with me and lets evaluate it to see if it is a superior position.

MiddleDimension:

You and your friend SIRTee15 are horribly wrong. He clearly addressed them as seperate individuals, not as a siamese twins who got seperated later. Ezekiel puts it better.

Ezekiel 23 from the Good News Bible it says: ''1.The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,

2. Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother:''

In vs 4 it says: ''The older one was named Oholah[a] (she represents Samaria), and the younger one was named Oholibah[b] (she represents Jerusalem). I married BOTH of them, and they bore me children.''

To further prove that he meant two seperate people here, He said ''THE OLDER ONE... represents Samaria.'' Samaria is the capital of Israel, the northern kingdom which is larger because it is made up of 10 of the 12 tribes hence was called the ''OLDER ONE'', while Judah whose capital is Jerusalem is the smaller part since it consists of only two tribes: Judah and Benjamin.

So, you can see very clearly in Ezekiel, that he is talking a out two separate individuals and he said He MARRIED THEM BOTH!

I do not expect you to mae a U-turn over night as you have been believing what you believe for a long time. But go and do your research and ask your pastors and priests. Whatever they tell you, comopare it to what I have said here and you can also lock up yourself in your room and pray to the holyspirit to guide you. Whatever illumination you recieve, if at all you will recieve anything, share it with me and lets evaluate it to see if it is a superior position.

I just waffling my friend. When did God establish his relationship with Israel, when did he announce the union.
WHEN DID GOD TELL THE ISRAELITES 'I AM A JEALOUS GOD'
That's my question, not when he reiterated or emphasised the union.

Was the covenant of union of blood established when Israelites was ONE or when they were two.

Exodus 24:7-8
Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the LORD has said we will do, and be obedient.” And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, “This is the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you according to all these words.”

This is what we trying to make u see and u doing whataboutism up and down.

Mercisharelove:

The scripture comfirm one male and one female relationship!
Not one male, more females as wives, no, not so from the beginning. How do you know?
Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

As a female they will never agree with you because to them you're saying this due to your being a female and you want the man alone to yourself. So instead of presenting the matter this way why not ask them what is wrong with polyandry?
Of course they will all rush to quote the Bible yet God created one man for one woman as for anyone that has married more than one wife or husband Jesus expressly said that is not God's plan from the beginning God's plan is for a man to belong to a woman and vise versa! Matthew 19:4

SIRTee15:


I just waffling my friend. When did God establish his relationship with Israel, when did he announce the union.
WHEN DID GOD TELL THE ISRAELITES 'I AM A JEALOUS GOD'
That's my question, not when he reiterated or emphasised the union.

Was the covenant of union of blood established when Israelites were ONE or when they were two.

Exodus 24:7-8
Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the LORD has said we will do, and be obedient.” And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, “This is the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you according to all these words.”

This is what we trying to make u see and u doing whataboutism up and down.

Even today, when the church now replaces biblical Israel, and the christian believer has a marriage relationship with God, God is still 'taking more wives' every single time you go and convert a soul. Paul said:

''I am jealous for you, just as God is; you are like a pure virgin whom I have promised in marriage to one man only, Christ himself.'' 2 Cor 11 vs 2.

I understand you both: na churchianity dey do una!

Mercisharelove:
The scripture comfirm one male and one female relationship!

Not one male, more females as wives, no, not so from the beginning. How do you know?


Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

The man is the specie, the male and female! The spirit being, the creature of ELOHIM, THE CREATOR!

A man isn't a boy, no, it's the combination of male and female.


2:24 Therefore shall *(a) not two or more)* man leave his, not their) father and his mother, not their mothers), and shall cleave unto his *(wife) not wives* : and they shall be *one flesh, not many flesh, but one.* Pure spiritual! Follow the truth!

His rib, his wife and they shall be one flesh. Now if you want to relate physically, I am talking about marriage, romantic relationship, living together.

So, stop hurting yourself, be free, pray you meet the man you can meet their needs.

You know the female is like God, like THE HOLY SPIRIT, she has and is built to display all the attributes of GOD ALMIGHTIEST, the help meet for him, the man is greatly help, the same way Isaac was comforted, when Rebekah arrived, that's what THE CREATOR , GOD ALMIGHTIEST SAID before unveiling the most beautiful of HIS creations, while Adam was deep asleep, yet Adam was aware, through revelation that she was taken from the bones of his bones and flesh of his flesh, he said "she shall be called a woman", because she was taken from a man that THE LORD HAD CREATED AND MADE!

Ladies fly...Proverbs 31:29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.

God did not confirm one man one woman relationship. He was not even talking about whether or not polygamy is wrong. And no, he was not giving any ideal kind of marriage. If you insist on one man one woman interpretation as being the only ones god created, how then do you explain the existence of the ''other people'' Cain and God spoke of in Gen 4 vs 13-15?

And just for your information: ''man shall cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh'' does not negate polygyny. The reason being that in Polygyny, the man's relationship with each of his wives is very personal. It is a one on one basis. See how God spoke about Judah and Samaria in Ezekiel 23. He already said ''he married them both'' (vs4). He addressed them one after the other in perculiar mannar, the same way he deals with each and everyone of you christians today personally even though he is the husband of you all. Paul said in 2Cor 11vs 2: ''I am jealous for you, just as God is; you are like a pure virgin whom I have promised in marriage to one man only, Christ himself.''

MiddleDimension:


Even today, when the church now replaces biblical Israel, and the christian believer has a marriage relationship with God, God is still 'taking more wives' every single time you go and convert a soul. Paul said:

''I am jealous for you, just as God is; you are like a pure virgin whom I have promised in marriage to one man only, Christ himself.'' 2 Cor 11 vs 2.

I understand you both: na religion dey do you.

Did u read what u wrote all. Paul is writing to the people of Corinth yet used singular verb to buttress their union with Christ.
Why didn't he write ' you are like pure virgins' instead of he wrote 'you are like a pure virgin.

Christ is married to only one church not churches.

U are just being unnecessarily obstinate due to ego. Mr Man , accept defeat and move on.

It's your business if u want to spend your inheritance money marrying more wives. But u won't find that leg to stand on in the bible.

MiddleDimension:
...So, you can see very clearly in Ezekiel, that he is talking a out two separate individuals and he said He MARRIED THEM BOTH!..

When did the marriage take place? Answer, when they were one wife, Named Israel.

So, it is like a case of a wife who had her torso separated in 2 because of a ghastly accident from the waist up.

The husband of the waist up is still the husband of the legs down even if the wife's torso has been cut in 2. Thus, it's still One husband and One wife with her torso severed in 2. It's as simple as that.

SIRTee15:


Did u read what u wrote all. Paul is writing to the people of Corinth yet used singular verb to buttress their union with Christ.
Why didn't he write ' you are like pure virgins' instead of he wrote 'you are like a pure virgin.

Christ is married to only one church not churches.

U are just being unnecessarily obstinate due to ego. Mr Man , accept defeat and move on.

It's your business if u want to spend your inheritance money marrying more wives. But u won't find that leg to stand on in the bible.

Clear beyond dispute

SIRTee15:

....When did God establish his relationship with Israel, when did he announce the union.
he reiterated or emphasised the union.

Was the covenant of union of blood established when Israelites were ONE or when they were two...

Xactly what I told him.

SIRTee15:


Did u read what u wrote all. Paul is writing to the people of Corinth yet used singular verb to buttress their union with Christ.
Why didn't he write ' you are like pure virgins' instead of he wrote 'you are like a pure virgin.

Christ is married to only one church not churches.

U are just being unnecessarily obstinate due to ego. Mr Man , accept defeat and move on.

It's your business if u want to spend your inheritance money marrying more wives. But u won't find that leg to stand on in the bible.

You fell just as I was expecting.

In vs 3 of the same passage, Paul clarified who he was refering to. It is the individual members of the church in Corinth. He says in vs 3: ''I am afraid that your minds will be corrupted and that you will abandon your full and pure devotion to Christ—in the same way that Eve was deceived by the snake's clever lies.''

You can see that he was speaking of individual christians IN THAT CHURCH!

If he used the singular ''virgin'', then it is because he was emphasizing that he is planning to give each individual member of that church, to christ in marriage.

Speaking of the same people he was refering to in vs 2, he said in vs 3: I am afraid that YOUR MINDS... That's a plural term! Which means the individual christians that made up that church is who he was refering to! And he said he wants to them as them as to Jesus as his wife.

I understand what's up with you... it is Churchianity! See you behaving like a muslim fundamentalist! If I were close to you, you would have picked up something to hit me over the head.

MiddleDimension:


You fell just as I was expecting.

In vs 3 of the same passage, Paul clarified who he was refering to. It is the individual members of the church in Corinth. He says in vs 3: ''I am afraid that your minds will be corrupted and that you will abandon your full and pure devotion to Christ—in the same way that Eve was deceived by the snake's clever lies.''

You can see that he was speaking of individual christians IN THAT CHURCH!

If he used the singular ''virgin'', then it is because he was emphasizing that he is planning to give each individual member of that church, to christ in marriage.

Speaking of the same people he was refering to in vs 2, he said in vs 3: I am afraid that YOUR MINDS... That's a plural term! Which means the individual christians that made up that church is who he was refering to! And he said he wants to them as them as to Jesus as his wife.

I understand what's up with you... it is Churchianity! See you behaving like a muslim fundamentalist! If I were close to you, you would have picked up something to hit me over the head.

Throughout that chapter Paul used plural verb in his letter but got virgin changed to singular.
That tells u all u need to know. The church is presented as a virgin bride to Jesus.

Dtruthspeaker:


When did the marriage take place? Answer, when they were one wife, Named Israel.

So, it is like a case of a wife who had her torso separated in 2 because of a ghastly accident from the waist up.

The husband of the waist up is still the husband of the legs down even if the wife's torso has been cut in 2. Thus, it's still One husband and One wife with her torso severed in 2. It's as simple as that.

except that it is not ''like a wife whose torso had been separated in two!


My dear, you and your brother are just repeating the same thing that has been refuted again and again.

Whether or not he had a covenant with them before they ever got separated, is completely irrelevant here.

The fact of that passage shows that he was addressing them as seperate individuals he called them by seperate names, for crying out loud. Yet, you say he is refering to them as a single entity!

If you want to insist that is the case, what then can you say about the fact that each indicidual christian is god's 'wife'? What can you say about 2Cor 11 vs 2? When he said you are like pure virgin whom I have promised in marriage to Jesus himself, he was not speaking about the church; he was talking about THE INDIVIDUAL CHRISTIAN in that church. He clarified this in vs 3. He says: ''I am afraid that your MINDS...''. If he were talking about the church as a single body, he would not have used the plural ''MINDS''. But because he was talking about individual christians in that church, is the reason he used the plural ''minds''. The thought he was expressing in vs 1 through vs 2, extended into vs 3 and beyond and in vs 3, he clarified what he was saying is the individual christian, not the church as a aingle entity.

MiddleDimension:
...Whether or not he had a covenant with them before they ever got separated, is completely irrelevant here.

Now even you must know that you have spoken most unreasonably for if your wife whom you had married is cut into 2 by a falling chain saw, you would call your father in law a stupid mad thief" if he should say that you should come and pay bride prices to remarry the 2 severed parts of your wife "since she had been separated. That your former marriage is irrelevant.

So, right now, you are the stupid mad theiving F.I.L and you don't have any reasonable thing to say.

SIRTee15:


Throughout that chapter Paul used plural verb in his letter but got virgin changed to singular.
That tells u all u need to know. The church is presented as a virgin bride to Jesus.

Your main point is that: the individual christian IS NOT jesus' 'wife' even though, the evidence says so.

Anyway, there are other scriptures that says so as well, and I would like to present them to you just incase you the reason you reject the ones I have provided so far, is because you are genuinely not satisfied with them. But if you reject the overwhelming piece of evidence I put before you not because you genuinely are not satisfied with them, but because you just feel uncomfortable with the greater light I speak, then you may choose not to read on.

1 Cor 6 vs 17 ''But he who joins himself to the Lord becomes spiritually one with him.''

by the way, the ''he'' the bible is refering to here is the individual christian and not the church as an organization, or are you going to deny that too?

Having cleared that up, can we now go to the next point and ask: what kind of ''joining was the bible talking about in the verse above when he said ''but he who joins himself...''?

I would say he was talking about the kind of joining marriage affords a couple.

The second part of verse 16 of the same chapter, says it all: ''The scripture says quite plainly, “The two will become one body.”

Like he said, you can see he was quoting from the scripture, Genesis. It was that same Genesis scripture Jesus quoted in matthew when he described what happens when a man MARRIES a woman, that the two will become one!

So, when he said in vs 17 that when you join yourself to God, you become one with him, he was saying that when you accept jesus as your lord and saviour, you become married to the lord, which is what happens when you become ''joined'' to the lord, and that is why you ''become one with him'' in the same way a woman becomes one with a man AFTER THEY GET MARRIED!

There you have it, another scripture to tell you that your God is 'polygynous' which is why a man, who is his image in the marriage between a man and a woman, can have more than one wife. God knows this, and he lets you know this through many places in the bible, and that is why he had no problems giving David ''his master's wives unto his bossom''.

But it is ok, you are free to reject this light for whatever reason you may deem fit; afterall, we all cannot agree on the same thing. Its just that, I like putting ideas forward for people to consider.

SIRTee15:


Did u read what u wrote all. Paul is writing to the people of Corinth yet used singular verb to buttress their union with Christ.
Why didn't he write ' you are like pure virgins' instead of he wrote 'you are like a pure virgin.

Christ is married to only one church not churches.

U are just being unnecessarily obstinate due to ego. Mr Man , accept defeat and move on.

It's your business if u want to spend your inheritance money marrying more wives. But u won't find that leg to stand on in the bible.

Oh, so, by the bolded, you are encouraging people not to get married at all, since by that, they will be making maximum savings! I have learned a new thing today, thank you.

SIRTee15:


Hahaha...
Ignorant mind. One would even think someone like him would have done some research b4 coming online to form intelligent.
There was no western civilization prior to christianity. The western civilization was practically built around Christianity and the church.
Prior to that, the europeans were known as barbarians and cavemen who were routinely enslaved by the Romans. They didn't even have written language until they met the Romans. That's why all European language writing system is Latinised.

Read about bill of rights which form the basis of all human rights and civil freedom we enjoy today. The first one called magna carta was drafted by archbishop of Canterbury.
Even the age of enlightenment that ushered in independent thinking, intellectual reason, philosophical movement, separation of states and church was ushered by Christians who were tired of the extraordinary powers of the monarch and church.

Read my friend.

My dear, I think you are the one who should do your findings more properly.

Before Jesus was born, there was already a Western civilization. Greece is to the western world as China is the far east Asia hence Greece is called the cradle of western civilization, not christianity. Don't take my word for it, find out for yourself.

https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/cradle-western-civilization

https://www.memphistours.co.uk/greece/greece-travel-guide/greece-wikis/wiki/athens-travel-guide-cradle-of-western-civilization

Also, not all the languages in Europe are derived or have their writing script derived from Latin. Russian is cyrilic, and German does not have all its letters resembling those from Latin. Greek, which is where that civilization started, even predates that of Rome with Rome copying alot of things from Greece. https://www.architecturemaker.com/how-did-the-greeks-influence-roman-architecture/?expand_article=1

The age of enlightenment was ushered in by christians? I wonder where christians get this over bloated sense of self importance from.

So, lets look at some of the formost figures of the enlightenment.

1. Voltaire: according the Encyclopeadia Britanica, Voltaire ''professed aggressive DEISM'' a thing that ''scandalized the devout (chriatian)'' This means he was not a christian and infact, hated chriatianity. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Voltaire

He was also a Mason.

https://www.thesquaremagazine.com/mag/article/202308voltaire-freethinker-and-freemason/

It is a common belief in mainstream christianity that being a mason is incompatible with being a chriatian a such that association with one means exclusion from the other. (Pope Leo XIII, 1730s)

https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18840420_humanum-genus.html

2. Adams Smith's religious beliefs is still a topic of hot debate and the truth remains that even if he was a christian, it would only be by name and not by practice and world view. It is very much like how some people today would tell you they believe in god even though not a single thing in their life screams christianity.

https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/adam-smith-ob-religion

3. John Lock: It is generally believed that John locke was a chrisrian but I woukd say the same thing I said about Adams Smith goes for hom too. The reason it is believed he is a christian by the likes of you who only want to claim anything sublime the human being have achieved to have christianity, is because of some of the work he did in theology. But gues what else? It is often said by born agains that One cannot know god by theology just because one is a theologian, does not mean he is saved. Furthermore, John Locke was a well-known mason! And like you and the catholic believes, Freemasonry and Chriatianity are irreconciliable.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciNkEPBGc-o&t=41s&pp=ygUEdWdsZQ%3D%3D 1hr 19mins - 1hr 22min.

4. David Hume: This one was so atheistic, he only fell short of verbally confirming it to his contemporaries because it would have cost him alot.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/mar/27/philosophy-religion-hume

So, my dear @sirtee15, it is not true that Europe had no civilization before christianity. To say that is to be absolutely unaware of European history and culture.

secondly, What we know the west to be today in terms of its steong culture of scientific and philosophical enquiry, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY.

Of course, I can understand why christians and christianity want to claim science and all philosophy: it is because they do not want to look stupid. You want to tell me christianity influenced Darwin in his work on the origin of species?

Yes Georges Lemaitre was a catholic priest but that does not mean christianity inspired his big bang theory. Anyone who wants to insist that, should go on ahead and explain to us why a supposedly all knowing god, who is not the ''author of confusion'', lead one of his priests to come uo with a theory that contradicts the one given in the 'holy' scriptures? Why would christianity inspire a work that would bring into question the authority of his 'word'? Unfortunately, Lemaitre is not here today for us to confirm if he was a christian in the conventional meaning of the word.

@SIRTee15, the truth remains that non of those men of the enlightenment was a tongue-speaking, vision-seeing or a fire-brand christian.

MiddleDimension:
@SIRTee15, the truth remains that non of those men of the enlightenment was a tongue-speaking, vision-seeing or a fire-brand christian.

Did the ancient greek and Romans consider themselves europeans. Did they ever called themselves europeans or that was a later geographical interpolation.
The ancient greece and Roman empire were part of the advanced Mediterranean civilization that included Carthage in Africa, Egypt, Phoenician, the levantine culture and Archimedes empire.
How come the so called European Greeks and Romans always expand eastward and not westward when expanding their empires.
Below is the empire of Alexander the great, why did he ignore the west? Bocs there was nothing there, just a wasteland with bunch of primitive cavemen. He wasn't going to waste his time on such.

U mentioned writing, were Germans writing anything at all b4 they met Romans. Show me what they wrote in terms of structured writing b4 the Roman empire decided to expand westward. When was the russian writing system developed, from where?

U mentioned the Cyrillic scripts, who developed It?
FYI, the cyrilic writing system was developed by the Byzantine brothers Saints Cyril and Methodius, who were missionaries and scholars of the eastern orthodox church. They created the script to help translate the bible into the Slavic languages.

Even the Romans got their Latinised writing system from where? From Europeans or other Mediterranean cultures?

U mentioned age of enlightenment. Let me ask u, who developed the Printing press and what was his motivation for doing so?

U came here and mentioned Christians who pushed for reforms, and separation of church and states. Then u started arguing with yourself whether they were Christians or not.
Let me confuse u more...let me.know if Isaac Newton and Galileo were Christians?

Finally u claimed only Pentecostals are true Christians. This is the most absurd thing I've ever heard regarding Christianity.
So catholic aren't Christians. Orthodox, reforms, protestants, Unitarians are not Christians.
When did speaking in tongues become mainstream in Christianity. When did pentecostal movement emerge?

Some of u don't even think things thru b4 rushing to form an opinion. Laziness has weakened the intellectual mindset of an average Nigerians. Once they think they have an idea about something, next thing they form an opinion.

This is the same guy who kept arguing polygamy is God's divine law but kept fumbling back and forth to defend the weak claim. Now he's into ancient civilization when it's quite obvious he has zero knowledge about it.

I will now group you amongst the pests here on nairaland. Henceforth, ignore mode activated unless I noticed what u brought forward is worth my attention. Something that shows u actually sweat and shed blood b4 pasting it here.

MiddleDimension:

There you have it, another scripture to tell you that your God is 'polygynous' which is why a man, who is his image in the marriage between a man and a woman, can have more than one wife...

And I clearly told you that The Law on monogamous marriage applies to man only and not God exactly as you command that your children and subjects be in the house by 10pm but you can come home at 1am.

But it is ok, you are free to reject this light and Judgment Day will soon be here so, carry all your wives to God and we shall all see how God judged it on that Day.

SIRTee15:


Did the ancient greek and Romans consider themselves europeans. Did they ever called themselves europeans or that was a later geographical interpolation.
The ancient greece and Roman empire were part of the advanced Mediterranean civilization that included Carthage in Africa, Egypt, Phoenician, the levantine culture and Archimedes empire.
How come the so called European Greeks and Romans always expand eastward and not westward when expanding their empires.

The Romans were in London. Britania, from which we get the word Britain, is actually latin. https://www.britannica.com/place/Roman-Britain

When the subway was being built in London, it was said by the engineers and all the blue collar workers at the site that everywhere, you could find coins dating back to the period of ancient Roman domination. They were so many, it could fill a decent musuem.
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryMagazine/DestinationsUK/RomanSites/

https://www.idler.co.uk/article/visit-londons-greatest-roman-temple/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/unlocking-roman-london-s-underground-secrets-roman-skulls-unearthed-at-ps14-8bn-crossrail-project-site-8853140.html

They were also in France. In the reference below, it is stated that the Romans EXTENDED THEIR TERRITORY BEYOND THE ALPS TO THE SOUTH OF FRANCE. https://www.britannica.com/place/Gaul-ancient-region-Europe

As a matter of fact, below is a map of the Roman empire when it was largest. Notice that it includes most, if not all, of England. It also includes France, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany etc. Paul said to the church in Rome that he would come to pay them a visit on his way to SPAIN (Rom 15: 23-24). If there was nothing in the western fringes of the Roman empire, what then was Paul going there to do?

Below is the empire of Alexander the great, why did he ignore the west? Bocs there was nothing there, just a wasteland with bunch of primitive cavemen. He wasn't going to waste his time on such.

the map below shows that you are incorrect. It shows that the Greeks ACTUALLY EXPANDED westward, Maybe not like they expanded east ward, but they INDEED expanded westward. By the way, this map is coming from Encyclopeadia Britanica. You have issues with the credibility of Encyclopeadia Britanica? So, the Greeks did not think of the area west of the adriatic sea as a waste land.

The Greeks actually founded the city of Marseille. They called it Massalia from which the word Marseille came.

https://snippetsofparis.com/marseille-history/

U mentioned writing, were Germans writing anything at all b4 they met Romans. Show me what they wrote in terms of structured writing b4 the Roman empire decided to expand westward. When was the russian writing system developed, from where? U mentioned the Cyrillic scripts, who developed It? FYI, the cyrilic writing system was developed by the Byzantine brothers Saints Cyril and Methodius, who were missionaries and scholars of the eastern orthodox church. They created the script to help translate the bible into the Slavic languages.

The Cyrilic is based on the Greek alphabet. https://www.britannica.com/question/Is-the-Greek-alphabet-the-same-as-the-Cyrillic-alphabet

https://homework.study.com/explanation/is-greek-different-than-the-cyrillic-alphabet.html

Remember the reason I said this originally is because I was countering your idea that ''before christianity, there was no such thing as western civilization''. With the references I provided you above, you can see that Christianity has no role in the shapes of the various cyrilic letters since the writing script is based on Greek, and the Greeks predate christianity!

Even the Romans got their Latinised writing system from where? From Europeans or other Mediterranean cultures?

You think what is called western civilization is just western Europe, and I am saying No. All histotians worthy of the title, agree that Greece is the origin and the Cradle of western civilization. As for the Roman alphabet, it was not developed by the christians. I say this because you are trying to appropriate western civilization and claim christianity gave birth to it. If the church, in trying to carry out proselytism, used an existing alphabet to write the indegenous language of the people they are trying to proselytize, how come you interpreted that fact to mean that western civilization was born out of christianity? You can only attribute it to christianity if the shape of the letters themselves was inspired by anything unique to christianity.

U came here and mentioned Christians who pushed for reforms, and separation of church and states. Then u started arguing with yourself whether they were Christians or not.
Let me confuse u more...let me. know if Isaac Newton and Galileo were Christians?

I mentioned heroes of the enlightenment and showed that they were at best deists and at the extreme, atheists.

As for Newton, yes, he was a christian since he occupied a key position in the church of England. But guess what else he was? He was an alchemist!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2YZN2L700Q&pp=ygUTaXNhYWMgbmV3dG9uIG9jY3VsdA%3D%3D

He rejected the trinity doctrine. https://rsc.byu.edu/converging-paths-truth/brief-survey-sir-isaac-newtons-views-religion

So, going by the teachings of a major christian denominations, the one who dabbles in thr occult, or does alchemy is definitely NOT a christian! Just like Voltaire, Micheal Faraday, Da vinci, et al.
Non of the major christian denominations from the catholic to the protestant to the pentecostal or other christian organizations like the Watchtower and the Mormon all feel a christian who dabbles in the occult, is not a christian in the first place!

Newton was a Rosicrucian, what you would probably know as AMORC, the same people you say (ignoranly, by the way) are demonic! Look at the link I am providing here and see that almost all the heroes of the enlightenment were mentioned as members of the Rosicrucian order, including your Isaac Newton et al. They were all in the occult! That is the origin of their radical thoughts and contribution to society, not christianity!

https://www.rosicrucian.org/history

This is the same guy who kept arguing polygamy is God's divine law but kept fumbling back and forth to defend the weak claim. Now he's into ancient civilization when it's quite obvious he has zero knowledge about it.

It is still on record that you have chosen to ignore the fact that God gave David his wives. and that he did that because he knew it had not violated anything spiritual or divine, for HE HIMSELF IS 'POLYGAMOUS', a fact proved by the fact he mentioned it many times in the bible that He married more than one wife. If you say he was only reiterating the marriage he had with Israel when Israel was one, what about the fact that that He is also the husband of each individual christian and hence have as many wives as there are the many number of christians, a fact proven beyond reasonable doubt by the words of 1 cor 6:17. ''But he who joins himself with the lord becomes spiritually one with him''.

What kind of joining? the joining that happens in marriage in which you both become one! he is your husband whole and entire, just as he is simultaneously someone else' husband whoke and entire. This is why he had no issue giving David more wives! I cannot believe I am stressing this simple thing very many times. A thing mentioned plainly in the bible!

Dtruthspeaker:


And I clearly told you that The Law on monogamous marriage applies to man only and not God exactly as you command that your children and subjects be in the house by 10pm but you can come home at 1am.

But it is ok, you are free to reject this light and Judgment Day will soon be here so, carry all your wives to God and we shall all are how God judged it on that Day.

And I pointed it out to you that no, just as it is in the celestial, so it is in the terrestial. As above, so below; as within, so without; as on earth, so in heaven, The law of correspondence.

IF YOU ARE CORRECT, AND I AM WRONG, WHY THEN DID HE GIVE DAVID MORE WIVES? CAN YOU PLEASE ANSWER THAT IN AN HONEST WAY, NOT IN THE WAY YOU DID THE OTHER TIME WHEN YOU WENT AROUND SAYING WHAT YOU YOURSELF DO NOT AGREE WITH!

It is because he knows that as it is with him, so it is with you! As in heaven, so on earth; as above, so below; as within, so without; again, this is what is known as the law of correspondence. You may want to look it up.

By the way, have you accepted now that your is 'polygamous'?

MiddleDimension:


And I pointed it out to you that no, just as it is in the celestial, so it is in the terrestial. As above, so below; as within, so without; as on earth, so in heaven, The law of correspondence.

IF YOU ARE CORRECT, AND I AM WRONG, WHY THEN DID HE GIVE DAVID MORE WIVES? CAN YOU PLEASE ANSWER THAT IN AN HONEST WAY, NOT IN THE WAY YOU DID THE OTHER TIME WHEN YOU WENT AROUND SAYING WHAT YOU YOURSELF DO NOT AGREE WITH!

It is because he knows that as it is with him, so it is with you! As in heaven, so on earth; as above, so below; as within, so without; again, this is what is known as the law of correspondence. You may want to look it up.

By the way, have you accepted now that your is 'polygamous'?

And I told you that you have moved post. And thar heaven and earth affects only man (same Law of 10pm/1am.

Secondly, I corrected you that it was 2 things David got (Master's house and his master's wives) which clearly and reasonably means that David beat and conquered his Master up to controlling his house exactly how Isteal is beating Gaza and controlling all the wives and husbands in it. It's as simple as that!

And another proof is that he did not have any children from any of Saul's wife as proven by Bath-sheba and Abigail. So, clearly he did not go near them nor touch them.

So let's see if you can respond without you changing post and direction again.