₦airaland Forum

@menxer,

Great post!!! What non-believers are doing here is simply enforcing the teachings of the "Liber Azerate", which says and I quote:..............."Do what you must to silence liars and the lies they preach!!!"

A very good post indeed. It is a question of “whose God, whose land” As you know Melchizedek was Chief Priest of the “Most High”, the “Most High” being the Canaanite deity “EL Elyon” or simply "EL". Abraham came from the land of Ur which was further to the north of Mesopotamia in modern day Iraq, there’s a distinct possibility he came from even further north a place called Ura and that biblical compilers simply mixed up the names, he was in fact itinerant. He would have no knowledge of Yahweh prior to arriving in the land of Canaan.

If you know your ancient Canaanite history you will know that originally Yahweh was considered one of the seventy sons of “EL” the most high. It is therefore entirely appropriate that Abraham, the progenitor of the Israelites to whom Yahweh had been apportioned would pay obeisance to Melchizedek, King of Salim and High Priest of EL.

As always, Christianity does the right thing for the wrong reasons or should that be the wrong things for the right reasons?

menxer:
And where is your wisdom in doing that?

I think It's best to address points in a discourse as raised, not refute claims that are way out of context of the subject matter.

i am not out of the contest. the post aim to convince reader atheism are neccesity in an an atmospheree of change among beliver. i may not directly respond to the,question but i did not also fail to break the concept behind it which is atheism are not logical。 ithat is my wisdom my dear.

A88C:
i am not out of the contest. the post aim to convince reader atheism are neccesity in an an atmospheree of change among beliver. i may not directly respond to the,question but i did not also fail to break the concept behind it which is atheism are not logical。 ithat is my wisdom my dear.

And that is how students fail, when instead of answering the exam questions as set, you elect to set yours and answer for the examiner to mark.

This post is defined by its content and the context it discusses it, digressing to refute the concept of atheism is an unnecessary distraction in this instance.

Sarassin:
A very good post indeed. It is a question of “whose God, whose land” As you know Melchizedek was Chief Priest of the “Most High”, the “Most High” being the Canaanite deity “EL Elyon” or simply "EL". Abraham came from the land of Ur which was further to the north of Mesopotamia in modern day Iraq, there’s a distinct possibility he came from even further north a place called Ura and that biblical compilers simply mixed up the names, he was in fact itinerant. He would have no knowledge of Yahweh prior to arriving in the land of Canaan.

If you know your ancient Canaanite history you will know that originally Yahweh was considered one of the seventy sons of “EL” the most high. It is therefore entirely appropriate that Abraham, the progenitor of the Israelites to whom Yahweh had been apportioned would pay obeisance to Melchizedek, King of Salim and High Priest of EL.

As always, Christianity does the right thing for the wrong reasons or should that be the wrong things for the right reasons?

I didn't question why Abraham paid obeisance to Melchizedek, but why we believe others didn't do same and by extension know the true God.

If Yahweh was one of seventy, why then are we told he is the only true God?

Such are the questions I want to draw our Christian attention to.

menxer:
I didn't question why Abraham paid obeisance to Melchizedek, but why we believe others didn't do same and by extension know the true God.

If Yahweh was one of seventy, why then are we told he is the only true God?

Such are the questions I want to draw our Christian attention to.

I am sure that Christians will come along and and give their views but it will be mainly self-serving.

Christianity did not exist at the period you refer to, and no concept of the "only true God" as you put it existed. Abraham arrived from foreign lands to settle in Canaan, as was ancient custom he would never have been allowed to worship the gods of his fathers in a foreign land. The tithe he paid Melchizedek got him the right to an apportionment of "one of the sons of EL" to worship as his God, i.e Yahweh. We know from Ugaritic writings that others did the same.

It is this Yahweh that has evolved into the Jewish concept of the "One true God".

Sarassin:
I am sure that Christians will come along and and give their views but it will be mainly self-serving.

Christianity did not exist at the period you refer to, and no concept of the "only true God" as you put it existed. Abraham arrived from foreign lands to settle in Canaan, as was ancient custom he would never have been allowed to worship the gods of his fathers in a foreign land. The tithe he paid Melchizedek got him the right to an apportionment of "one of the sons of EL" to worship as his God, i.e Yahweh. We know from Ugaritic writings that others did the same.

It is this Yahweh that has evolved into the Jewish concept of the "One true God".

@sarassin
Where did you get all these revelations and knowledge from.?

menxer:
And that is how students fail, when instead of answering the exam questions as set, you elect to set yours and answer for the examiner to mark.

This post is defined by its content and the context it discusses it, digressing to refute the concept of atheism is an unnecessary distraction in this instance.

dear mr fowl mouth， i have not step out of the post. i just give a broader answer for a slimmer question. an when student do that it simply means he he is nailing the point on the head

A88C:
dear mr fowl mouth， i have not step out of the post. i just give a broader answer for a slimmer question. an when student do that it simply means he he is nailing the point on the head

Mr broadminded, you said, " i may not directly respond to the,question but i did not also fail to break the concept behind it which is atheism are not logical"

I guess the bolded means "nailing the point on the head" not "beating about the bush." abi?

Giving a broader answer that fails to answer a slimmer question, in the context asked, is beating about the bush.

menxer:
Mr broadminded, you said, " i may not directly respond to the,question but i did not also fail to break the concept behind it which is atheism are not logical"

I guess the bolded means "nailing the point on the head" not "beating about the bush." abi?

Giving a broader answer that fails to answer a slimmer question, in the context asked, is beating about the bush.

wait.what do you want to achieved here. i agree i did not respond to the topic has it is stated but am also not far from it . at least my post invalidate what atheist claim it is rational belive. if i may ask what is the aim of this thread？am sure your anseer will validate my post

A88C:
wait.what do you want to achieved here. i agree i did not respond to the topic has it is stated but am also not far from it . at least my post invalidate what atheist claim it is rational belive. if i may ask what is the aim of this thread？ am sure your anseer will validate my post

Oooooh!
So you are looking for validation?
You looked up the wrong tree.

@ bolded, If you read the thread you will know.

menxer:
Oooooh!
So you are looking for validation?
You looked up the wrong tree.

@ bolded, If you read the thread you will know.

gabbage. i read it and i understand it.

A88C:
gabbage. i read it and i understand it.

If you did understood it, why ask irrelevant questions?

menxer:
If you did understood it, why ask irrelevant questions?

if i ask irrelevant question here. pls quote . if it is irrelivant to what atheist belive is rational. the question i ask is not about the post. it is just to destroy the main fudamantal of athieism. pls spare me of this nonsense

A88C:
if i ask irrelevant question here. pls quote . if it is irrelivant to what atheist belive is rational. the question i ask is not about the post. it is just to destroy the main fudamantal of athieism. pls spare me of this nonsense

Point of order:

1) I created this thread to ask, get answers and create awareness about the content, context, and questions raised thereto.

2) I created this thread to discuss 1) above, I reserve the right to the content, context and questions thereupon, so if you want to "refute the concept of atheism," please,
create your "own" thread on that.

3) Questions raised in 2) above must be in context of 1) above.

Thank you.

menxer:
Point of order:

1) I created this thread to ask, get answers and create awareness about the content, context, and questions raised thereto.

2) I created this thread to discuss 1) above, I reserve the right to the content, context and questions thereupon, so if you want to "refute the concept of atheism," please,
create your "own" thread on that.

3) Questions raised in 2) above must be in context of 1) above.

Thank you.

spare me the crap. arrant nonsense. i still reapeat what aim do you wish to achived by this post？ you have not tell me anything you have just tell me how you feel. what you want achived in the post is simply to debunk the rational teaching of the church which still boil than to proof atheism make more sense than christanity. my post even by this standard is not out of the track . i am not a christain but i will still,entertain christanity instead of atheism.

menxer:
I didn't question why Abraham paid obeisance to Melchizedek, but why we believe others didn't do same and by extension know the true God.

If Yahweh was one of seventy, why then are we told he is the only true God?

Such are the questions I want to draw our Christian attention to.

wooow.... this is interesting... how could i have missed this??... I've read of the theory that the Judeochristian God was one of seventy... but then... it depends on which translation you're using... some septugiant translations tend to portray him as one of the sons of a god... some others portray him as the supreme God referring to his council..... a council of 70... they made reference to a verse in psalm where he was addressing the same council... i asked Otem... the alleged bringer of truth... he was clueless and beating around the bush... i tried researching it... the “EL family" ... phanuEL raphaEL uriEL GabriEL... those are the arch angels... personally i think before we can clear this saga, we need an understanding of the naming of angels... plus knowledge of any godly council.. the dead sea scrolls have way more references to this topic... but then... i think I'm not saying I know all..... i would love to see how this turns out.... if you know anything about the issue, I'd love to hear... thanks

modified

A88C:
spare me the crap. arrant nonsense. i still reapeat what aim do you wish to achived by this post？ you have not tell me anything you have just tell me how you feel. what you want achived in the post is simply to debunk the rational teaching of the church which still boil than to proof atheism make more sense than christanity. my post even by this standard is not out of the track . i am not a christain but i will still,entertain christanity instead of atheism.

It's obvious you can't see the cyclical nature of your argument, which you are striving to proof does not exist, that is your choice anyway.

I choose to ask questions (as evidenced in this thread) not to (dis)proof atheism or Christianity but to strengthen my resolve to "Spiritual evolution" and belief (albeit non-conforming to yours).

Christianity is back to where Judaism was when Jesus came, questioning the belief system and practices the pharisees and sadducees were defending - crystallized spirituality (religion).

Choosing to defend the Christian view does not make one better than another that chooses to defend the atheist view, don't just let it crystallize.

menxer:
It's obvious you can't see the cyclical nature of your argument, which you are striving to proof does not exist, that is your choice anyway.

I choose to ask questions (as evidenced in this thread) not to (dis)proof atheism or Christianity but to strengthen my resolve to "Spiritual evolution" and belief (albeit non-conforming to yours).

Christianity is back to where Judaism was when Jesus came, questioning the belief system and practices the pharisees and sadducees were defending - crystallized spirituality (religion).

Choosing to defend the Christian view does not make one better than another that chooses to defend the atheist view, don't just let it crystallize.

it is obvious you can not diffrentiate between argument and giving out personal veiw. my post is not arguing anything from ur write-up. what am only doing is giving out my pratical veiw about the rational belive of the atheist. tthe church argument you want to engage me belong to the christain not me. i have giving out my own veiw about the fundamental belief of the atheist and that is all.

A88C:
it is obvious you can not diffrentiate between argument and giving out personal veiw. my post is not arguing anything from ur write-up. what am only doing is giving out my pratical veiw about the rational belive of the atheist. tthe church argument you want to engage me belong to the christain not me. i have giving out my own veiw about the fundamental belief of the atheist and that is all.

OK, I replace the "church view" with "your personal or practical view."
Are you happy now?

Wilgrea7:
wooow.... this is interesting... how could i have missed this??... I've read of the theory that the Judeochristian God was one of seventy... but then... it depends on which translation you're using... some septugiant translations tend to portray him as one of the sons of a god... some others portray him as the supreme God referring to his council..... a council of 70... they made reference to a verse in psalm where he was addressing the same council... i asked Otem... the alleged bringer of truth... he was clueless and beating around the bush... i tried researching it... the “EL family" ... phanuEL raphaEL uriEL GabriEL... those are the arch angels... personally i think before we can clear this saga, we need an understanding of the naming of angels... plus knowledge of any godly council.. the dead sea scrolls have way more references to this topic... but then... i think I'm not saying I know all..... i would love to see how this turns out.... if you know anything about the issue, I'd love to hear... thanks

modified

What did you ask me and when? Pls re-ask me, because I don't know of any question you have ever asked me and I Reacted like this to it.

Wilgrea7:
wooow.... this is interesting... how could i have missed this??... I've read of the theory that the Judeochristian God was one of seventy... but then... it depends on which translation you're using... some septugiant translations tend to portray him as one of the sons of a god... some others portray him as the supreme God referring to his council..... a council of 70... they made reference to a verse in psalm where he was addressing the same council... i asked Otem... the alleged bringer of truth... he was clueless and beating around the bush... i tried researching it... the “EL family" ... phanuEL raphaEL uriEL GabriEL... those are the arch angels... personally i think before we can clear this saga, we need an understanding of the naming of angels... plus knowledge of any godly council.. the dead sea scrolls have way more references to this topic... but then... i think I'm not saying I know all..... i would love to see how this turns out.... if you know anything about the issue, I'd love to hear... thanks

modified

What did you ask me and when? Pls re-ask me, because I don't know of any question you have ever asked me and I Reacted like this to it. Is it about El? El is a god, just like yahweh. When he conquered many lands, the name of the gods in the lands he conquered were changed to El... just like we have Olorun, Chuku, Abassi, Ogene, Nyame, Nzame etc interchanged with yahweh at the moment, yet they are separate entities.

Mind you, I know of the theory which says that the Elohim are the gods, but no. Beyond every research you think you have made, El is the name of a god before becoming the names of many gods. Yahweh is the name of a god before becoming the names of many gods.

otemanuduno:
What did you ask me and when? Pls re-ask me, because I don't know of any question you have ever asked me and I Reacted like this to it. Is it about El? El is a god, just like yahweh. When he conquered many lands, the name of the gods in the lands he conquered were changed to El... just like we have Olorun, Chuku, Abassi, Ogene, Nyame, Nzame etc interchanged with yahweh at the moment, yet they are separate entities.

Mind you, I know of the theory which says that the Elohim are the gods, but no. Beyond every research you think you have made, El is the name of a god before becoming the names of many gods. Yahweh is the name of a god before becoming the names of many gods.

this is why i said you were clueless and beating around the Bush on the issue.... cuz you lacked deep information on the El family... and days later you opened a thread listing few gods of which el was among... I'm sure i know more about the el family than you do... i went deep into research but i needed deep occult knowledge to get what i needed.... so i abandoned it... if el is just the name of a god the Jews plagiarized to you, then you have too little information on the subject

Wilgrea7:
this is why i said you were clueless and beating around the Bush on the issue.... cuz you lacked deep information on the El family... and days later you opened a thread listing few gods of which el was among... I'm sure i know more about the el family than you do... i went deep into research but i needed deep occult knowledge to get what i needed.... so i abandoned it... if el is just the name of a god the Jews plagiarized to you, then you have too little information on the subject

Mr researcher... Kikiki...
Well... since I don't write the DOCTUFOS based on the things I see on Internet but based on the revelations I receive directly from Atum, we should expect differences. Everyone to his own opinion.

menxer:
Does that make sense to you?

What is incoherent in that? That we can't create a perfect god or that we just believe god is perfect?

Man would always do to the extent of his because we are not him. But we can just express the most high with the wonders and awesomeness of 'is world. What more mightier sacrifice 'an Jesus shedding his life on the cross for our sins. Bible is the epitome of what god can be. We need to recognize that. But are the stories true, I don't know.

Zico0:
Man would always do to the extent of his because we are not him. But we can just express the most high with the wonders and awesomeness of 'is world. What more mightier sacrifice 'an Jesus shedding his life on the cross for our sins. Bible is the epitome of what god can be. We need to recognize that. But are the stories true, I don't know.

Naaaa

Bible is the epitome of what man can conceive God to be from the Hebrew perspective.