Split Thread Signs of the End Times

[halleyscomet]

And we all know that white marriages never fail, right Paul?

And celebrity marriages are especially known for their rock-solid stability.

As a wise comic once observed:

In Hollywood, marriages are considered a success if they outlast milk.
- Rita Rudner

It's an often joked about trope, but the reality is living one's life under a magnifying glass adds a lot of stresses to a relationship that simply do not exist for most of us. Actors are often on site for months on end, working long, grueling hours. Tiger woods for example HAD to travel a LOT to play professional golf.

Taking a look at Divorce Rates by Profession is an enlightening look into how our jobs impact our personal lives. Even a long commute is a contributing factor in divorce.

Being an entertainer is a significant factor in your risk of divorce.

O.J. Simpson was a man whose star had faded, his earning power reduced and with deep seated anger management issues and (probably STILL) undiagnosed psychological issues. Hanging the blame for his apparent double homicide of his estranged wife and her apparent lover on his race is, to be blunt, absurd.

 

[GuitKitty]

Now of course we must put this in END time frame---first of all, it is stated that for a man to have sex with a man is detestable to Yahweh—(Lev_20:13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.)

So now we can evaluate—if a man rapes a man then it is obvious that that man who raped the other man must be put to death.

Let me clarify my question so that there's no question if/when you actually dodge it. You have said that if a woman is raped, her rapist must be killed, and if he is not killed then she cannot have another sexual relationship without it being adultery. Now, here's the question I would like you to actually answer:

If a man is raped, by either man or woman, is that man obligated to remain chaste until his rapist is executed?

 

[Paul Bethke]

Well that's a refreshing change of pace. I have always joked to the racists that I was trading up. Still, the fact that you consider yourself inferior to Jews is unexpected, especially given how you kept claiming whites were oh so important to God's plan.

I do have an admiration for a Jew who is true to his faith, because it is from them that we have the Scriptures preserved, but there are many who call themselves Jews and do not keep the demands of Torah—there are a lot of Jews who have divorced their wives, there are a lot of Jews that are corrupt. But there seems to be no perfect community. Even among the blacks I have met very good people. I am not oblivious to my surroundings.

Seriously? A handful of shattered celebrity marriages constitute proof in your mind that interracial marriages are doomed?

You are correct, but they are the one that are in the limelight.

I know a lot of people who are engaged in interracial relationships. For example, my wife has a friend she's known since she was six who is himself the product of an interracial marriage. He married a white woman. They have a lovely daughter who is now a teenager. They're together, happy, and look to be like they're going to be together till death do they part, hopefully decades upon decades from now.

That may be true—but here in Africa the difference in culture is so great, that a white person cannot adapt.

I will concede that interracial combinations have a higher divorce rate than comparable marriages where the races match, but that has more to do with social pressure and stigma than anything inherently mismatched about the people involved.
http://madamenoire.com/432922/swirl-interracial-couples-america-numbers/

Whichever way you put it there will always be racial discrimination, it is so prevalent in the world today—there is us and them.

As for your claim that Jesus could've been as white as modern Jews of European extraction, that's ridiculous. Jesus was not from a genetic pool that had lived in Europe for thousands of years. Jesus was not white. Deal with it.

I do not have to deal with it—Jesus was a Hebrew, not all Jews are Hebrews.

 

[halleyscomet]

You like the rest get it all wrong—I cannot be false when I declare the Scriptures in their context.

But you don't. We've established repeatedly that you are completely unaware of the historical and scholarly context of any of the verses you discuss.

But I do see myself in a way directing the wrath of God.

Ah, so you AREN'T gleefully anticipating a race war but a divine smack-down. You really should join the Ethiopian Orthodox church fast then, as we've established they're the closest fit for your interpretation of scripture.

I am not saying all whites are not guilty of atrocities—there is not a nation who has not conquered another nation and taken their land, what I am on about is the Africans in Africa, I do not want to mix with them and their culture, as it is in opposition to the injunctions of the Torah.

But that's the point we've been driving at, you CAN'T support your racial segregation with the Torah. Are your convictions truly so feeble that you need to prop them up with a peeling veneer of pseudo-Biblical arguments that even other racists are abandoning?

You remind me of "What is Faith?" by Kirk Hastings. It's a truly execrable apologetic book that relies heavily upon arguments that even other conservative Christians have abandoned. For example, the Creationist site "Answers in Genesis" has a list of Creationist arguments to avoid, yet Hasting's book uses most of them.

Your Biblical arguments for supporting racism are similarly abandoned even by the people who share your racism. You're regressive not only in your racial attitudes, but in how you justify them.

Well the Jews of today are of a lighter skin.

Not all Jews, only the ones whose ancestors spent a few thousand years in Europe. You seem to have a remedial comprehension that intermarriage will result in a mingling of racial attributes, yet you seem to have trouble with the idea that the descendants of Middle Eastern immigrants will end up with lighter skin after a few THOUSAND years of intermarriage with Europeans.

They the Egyptian were only called master until the Exodus—then they were called-The horse and its rider he has hurled into the sea." So the tables were turned.

That's a comically oversimplified description of the relationship between the Jewish people and Egypt in the Bible.

But then you do not believe these account, do you?

Which account? Which part(s) of that (those) account(s)?

Which Biblical interaction between Egypt and God's chosen people are you asking about?

 

[halleyscomet]

I do not have to deal with it—Jesus was a Hebrew, not all Jews are Hebrews.

So according to you, changing the term used for Jesus makes him white?

To paraphrase the Bard, "A Jesus by any other name will still be dark skinned."

Let's take a look at what more educated minds have to say about the physical appearance of Jesus:

What did Jesus look like?

Because the Bible says Jesus was a Jew we can infer that Jesus had a darker skin complexion, darker eyes and a dark hair color. Jesus was born to a Jewish family. Matthew 1:1-17 traces the lineage of Jesus from Adam and Abraham down to his parents Joseph and Mary. From the accounts in the New Testament, we gather that several times Jesus slipped away into the crowd and could not be found. (Luke 4:30) Why is this important? He looked similar to the other Jews living in Israel at the time and thus there was little to distinguish Him from the rest of the crowd. Another fact that sheds light upon what Jesus looked like was his profession. Carpenters worked long hours without the aid of modern power tools meaning Jesus probably had a muscular build with strong rough hands.

What did Jesus really look like?
This article goes into a lot of well-researched detail including the political climate of the time and how it might have influenced things like the way Jesus might have kept his beard and hair.

The bio of the author is:

Joan Taylor is professor of Christian Origins and Second Temple Judaism at King's College London and the author of The Essenes, the Scrolls and the Dead Sea.

As a result I'm inclined to take her more seriously than a white South African man with an overt and stated racial agenda on the topic of what Jesus looked like.

4. Features

And what about Jesus's facial features? They were Jewish. That Jesus was a Jew (or Judaean) is certain in that it is found repeated in diverse literature, including in the letters of Paul. And, as the Letter to the Hebrews states: "It is clear that our Lord was descended from Judah." So how do we imagine a Jew at this time, a man "about 30 years of age when he began," according to Luke chapter 3?

In 2001 forensic anthropologist Richard Neave created a model of a Galilean man for a BBC documentary, Son of God, working on the basis of an actual skull found in the region. He did not claim it was Jesus's face. It was simply meant to prompt people to consider Jesus as being a man of his time and place, since we are never told he looked distinctive.

Here is another article about the forensic research used to examine what first century Palestinian Jews looked like.

Advances in forensic science reveal the most famous face in history.

Your speculation about a white or light-skinned Jesus is comically divorced from reality with more of a basis in the artistic ideals of European painters than actual science.

 

[Border Reiver]

You like the rest get it all wrong—I cannot be false when I declare the Scriptures in their context.

What context? As in are the Scriptures overall a coherent story with a consistent message? As in the context of the story being told at that particular point? Within the historical context of the Levant?

Pick one and defend your position.

To date, when you "declare the Scriptures in their context" you make a quote from the Bible, go "see this is what was said, and this proves x that was said elsewhere in the Bible". That is not context.

But I do see myself in a way directing the wrath of God.

That would be a claim that none of the prophets or even Jesus made, as your statement comes across as telling Yahweh what to do.

I am not saying all whites are not guilty of atrocities—there is not a nation who has not conquered another nation and taken their land, what I am on about is the Africans in Africa, I do not want to mix with them and their culture, as it is in opposition to the injunctions of the Torah.

Living in Africa, you can understand that it may be rather challenging for you to not mix with Africans, or their culture.

Well the Jews of today are of a lighter skin.

Not all. I understand that there are Jews of negro ethnicity, in addition to those whose ancestors spent considerable time in north-west Europe.

They the Egyptian were only called master until the Exodus—then they were called-The horse and its rider he has hurled into the sea." So the tables were turned.

Care to show us the Bible verse substantiating this? Derogatory names for rival (or sometimes friendly nations) are nothing new - Germans are "squareheads", Brits (or at least the members of their army) are "s**teaters, and some people may even refer to Canadians in a derogatory fashion. Having a not so nice name for "the other" signifies nothing with respect to whether a group is in a dominant or submissive position, as I'm fairly sure that black South Africans had some interesting terms to describe white South Africans during apartheid....

But then you do not believe these account, do you?

I do not believe that there are sound historical bases for the stories found in Genesis, Exodus and that much of the rest of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments is best understood as national myths overlaying historical reality. The vast majority of the stories cannot be verified and in most cases are disproved by the archeological and historical records.

And in particular I do not believe that there is any evidence to support any part of the Exodus tale.

 

[Paul Bethke]

A quick piece of advice. When your prophecies are known for a 100% failure rate, threatening that the next one's going to be REALLY big doesn't carry any weight. Nobody takes it seriously.

That is not a problem when it occurs then all will be forgotten in the light of the current signs that will appear.

Why do you keep bringing up native African religions as if it proved your point? I'm talking about interracial marriage where both parties are Christian. You keep posting links about people who are NOT Christian. All of this just a few pages after we established that the group of Christians that most closely adhere to the way you believe Christianity should be practiced is the Ethiopian Orthodox, a predominantly black denomination that originated in Africa as a result of Middle Eastern missionaries.

The reason I want you to take note is that you will see that the majority of blacks still hold their traditions and customs in high regard, so there is no way that they can be joined to the faith.

You are denying your daughter the right to marry someone who practices Christianity the way you claim it should be practiced.

First of all one does not practice Christianity—one has faith in Christ, Christianity is a conglomeration of denominations that follow the traditions of men and do not have faith in Christ.

You appear to be assuming that there's no such thing as a black Christian. You appear to be assuming that everyone who's black and says they're Christian is REALLY worshiping their ancestors. Is this impression the one you want to convey or is it the result of a lack of clarity on your part about what you actually believe regarding the nature of black Christians?

The blacks who claim to be Christian are not in the faith that is why I showed you that 80% of blacks still believe that they can mediate through their dead ancestors.
What you must understand that Christianity does not comply with the terms of the faith—it is to have faith—not everyone has faith that is the Jew and the Christian, in many respects the Jew is closer to the faith than the Christian.

The Christians murdered the Jews, a person who has faith in Christ would not do that. The jails are full of Christians who committed crimes—a person who has faith will not break the law.

Do you believe blacks can be Christian in Africa?

A test will prove that there will be very few that can embrace the faith, as there are many whites who are outside the bounds of the faith—but when tested will prove to be outside the faith.

Now here is something to consider—A person who has faith will not vote for the ANC.
So the ANC is in power because they are supported by the blacks who believe in ancestral communication.
http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/zuma-calls-on-ancestors-1430377
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Zuma-brought-ancestors-wrath-clan-20121106
http://www.news24.com/Archives/City-Press/Zuma-Ancestors-desert-ANC-renegades-20150429

Now when the President uses the ancestors as a means to stay in power by frightening the people, it is obvious that there is still a strong rooted fear for the wrath of the ancestors.

When the President has 5 wives an twenty plus children, there can be no way that he is in the faith,and those who support him are not inthe faith.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

A new racist twist, Nicely done Paul, Wrong and entertaining as always.

 

[halleyscomet]

That is not a problem when it occurs then all will be forgotten in the light of the current signs that will appear.

I shiver with antici-

The reason I want you to take note is that you will see that the majority of blacks still hold their traditions and customs in high regard, so there is no way that they can be joined to the faith.

So? We're not talking about those who do not convert. We're talking about the ones who do.

The blacks who claim to be Christian are not in the faith

I see. This circles us back to the concept of genetic guilt and the justification you offered for committing genocide against black South Africans. You appear to believe there is no such thing as a black Christian in South Africa.

What I find confusing is why you're DENYING Christ's power to save. Your entire argument hinges on a belief that blacks in South Africa cannot become "true" Christians. In order to support your claim that there are no black Christians who are, as you say, "in the faith," you have to deny Christ's power to save.

What about a Black South African Christian who rejects the concept of ancestor worship? What is your Biblical argument against a white South African marrying her?

 

[Border Reiver]

The Christians murdered the Jews, a person who has faith in Christ would not do that. The jails are full of Christians who committed crimes—a person who has faith will not break the law.

This is an excellent example of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy

 

[Paul Bethke]

What context? As in are the Scriptures overall a coherent story with a consistent message? As in the context of the story being told at that particular point? Within the historical context of the Levant?
Pick one and defend your position.
To date, when you "declare the Scriptures in their context" you make a quote from the Bible, go "see this is what was said, and this proves x that was said elsewhere in the Bible". That is not context.

The Scripture as stated by the Hebrew scholars are an accurate account of what took place as recorded in that particular area.
In context does mean that there must be a constant referral to other sections of Scripture to prove that what is being referred to is not in opposition to any other part of Scripture, mainly they must harmonise.

That would be a claim that none of the prophets or even Jesus made, as your statement comes across as telling Yahweh what to do.

Again when you study the Scriptures there is an enormous amount to take in, but gradually over the years of study, the mystery clears up and the revelation is understood.
Now there is the account of Joshua who suggested that God do something strange, so that he Joshua could finish the work God gave him---( Jos 10:13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.
Jos 10:14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!

There is of course that which Jesus clarified—( Mat_17:20 He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

In context there are numerious other sections of Scripture where men directed the power of God to effect what God had decreed.—There was Moses who directed the punishment of Korah and the Israelites who rebelled---
Num 16:29 If these men die a natural death and experience only what usually happens to men, then the LORD has not sent me.
Num 16:30 But if the LORD brings about something totally new, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them, with everything that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the grave, then you will know that these men have treated the LORD with contempt."
Num 16:31 As soon as he finished saying all this, the ground under them split apart
Num 16:32 and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, with their households and all Korah's men and all their possessions.

Then there was Peter who orchestrated the death of Ananias and his wife-----( Act 5:9 Peter said to her, "How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also."
Act 5:10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband.


So from these few events it can be seen that the man of faith can direct the activity of God.

Living in Africa, you can understand that it may be rather challenging for you to not mix with Africans, or their culture.

Not so my work as a technician brought me into the company of many black people, I even taught many of them the principal of the generation of electricity.
I worked side by side with the in the reticulation of electricity, I earned their respect, because I treated them fair, but at the same time with strict rules as the work was dangerious

Not all. I understand that there are Jews of negro ethnicity, in addition to those whose ancestors spent considerable time in north-west Europe.

Any person of any colour can become a Jew, as with the case of Christianity. But the Apostle Paul states—( Rom 2:29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God. }

Care to show us the Bible verse substantiating this? Derogatory names for rival (or sometimes friendly nations) are nothing new - Germans are "squareheads", Brits (or at least the members of their army) are "s**teaters, and some people may even refer to Canadians in a derogatory fashion. Having a not so nice name for "the other" signifies nothing with respect to whether a group is in a dominant or submissive position, as I'm fairly sure that black South Africans had some interesting terms to describe white South Africans during apartheid....

Yes they did have names for us as they still do today. But the term I used was from the defeat of the Egyptians at the Red sea.---( Exo 15:21 Miriam sang to them: "Sing to the LORD, for he is highly exalted. The horse and its rider he has hurled into the sea." )

I do not believe that there are sound historical bases for the stories found in Genesis, Exodus and that much of the rest of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments is best understood as national myths overlaying historical reality. The vast majority of the stories cannot be verified and in most cases are disproved by the archeological and historical records.
And in particular I do not believe that there is any evidence to support any part of the Exodus tale.

But now the Apologists claim there is ample proof to validate the Scriptures.

 

[halleyscomet]

Yes they did have names for us as they still do today. But the term I used was from the defeat of the Egyptians at the Red sea.---( Exo 15:21 Miriam sang to them: "Sing to the LORD, for he is highly exalted. The horse and its rider he has hurled into the sea." )

That's a description of the Red Sea closing over the perusing soldiers, not giving a nick-name to Egyptians.

How do you go from a victory song to "Well, that's what the Hebrews called them?"

But now the Apologists claim there is ample proof to validate the Scriptures.

Citation needed.

Regardless, who cares what "evidence" an apologist offers? It's archeologists who would be finding actual evidence.

 

[Paul Bethke]

Citation needed.

Regardless, who cares what "evidence" an apologist offers? It's archeologists who would be finding actual evidence.

There are so many aspects that are dealt with, so where does one begin---there is a presentation, the a counter presentation, and it goes on and on, and nobody seems to convince the other or the audience.

The Red sea event, and the Exodus, and the flood---the Apolagist have all the answers.

But I am not reliant on this as I have my own evidence.

 

[GuitKitty]

Let me clarify my question so that there's no question if/when you actually dodge it. You have said that if a woman is raped, her rapist must be killed, and if he is not killed then she cannot have another sexual relationship without it being adultery. Now, here's the question I would like you to actually answer:

If a man is raped, by either man or woman, is that man obligated to remain chaste until his rapist is executed?

Paul?

 

[Craig B]

There are so many aspects that are dealt with, so where does one begin---there is a presentation, the a counter presentation, and it goes on and on, and nobody seems to convince the other or the audience.

The Red sea event, and the Exodus, and the flood---the Apolagist have all the answers.

But I am not reliant on this as I have my own evidence.

I'd love to see your evidence, because the Apologists usually come up with stuff like this:

This one includes pictures of what are said to be chariot wheels that were discovered on the floor of the Red Sea, confirmation of the Biblical account of Pharaoh’s army being drowned while pursuing the Hebrews. The Biblical account says that God parted the waters to allow an escape for the Hebrews then the waters came back together when the Egyptian army tried to follow. The eRumor also says that chariots, human bones, and horse bones have been found in an area in the Gulf of Aqaba.

The Truth:

Much of this eRumor is based on the findings of Ron Wyatt, a colorful and controversial amateur archeologist who claimed to have found Noah’s ark, the Biblical Ark of the Covenant, the location of Sodom And Gomorrah, the Tower of Babel, the true site of Mt. Sinai, the true site of the crucifixion of Jesus, and the original stones of the Ten Commandments. He was a passionate and sincere man, according to his supporters, but his critics abound and scientists and archeologists regarded him as an untrained maverick at best and there are some who regarded his as a fraud. Wyatt died from cancer in 1999.​

 

[kmortis]

There are so many aspects that are dealt with, so where does one begin---there is a presentation, the a counter presentation, and it goes on and on, and nobody seems to convince the other or the audience.
The Red sea event, and the Exodus, and the flood---the Apolagist have all the answers.

But I am not reliant on this as I have my own evidence.

Oh no, people are convinced. Most likely not in a manner that would please you however.

So, you state that you have new prophesies. What are they? No fair saying after a random event that you cause it to happen, that's not prophesy, that's gainsaying.

 

[halleyscomet]

There are so many aspects that are dealt with, so where does one begin---there is a presentation, the a counter presentation, and it goes on and on, and nobody seems to convince the other or the audience.

You claimed to have evidence. I asked for some examples and THAT equivocating wash is the best response you can come up with?

You're slipping. Your defenses of your racist attitudes were much more thought out and researched. They were still absurdly wrong and ignored the actual questions put to you, but at least you put some effort into it.

The Red sea event, and the Exodus, and the flood---the Apolagist have all the answers.

Such as...?

But I am not reliant on this as I have my own evidence.

And that would be...?

 

[Paul Bethke]

Paul?

Is your question relevant for today or is based on what can be derived at from the Scriptures?

If a man is raped, by either man or woman, is that man obligated to remain chaste until his rapist is executed?

The question is a bit out of the ordinary, as it is not exactly the same as a woman being raped. Sex between men does not constitute marriage as it does with that between a man and a woman. Sex between men is described as detestable.
Lev 18:22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Because a detestable thing has been done to the man, the penalty prescribed for such a detestable act is death, this penalty is prescribe for two consenting men performing what is termed detestable. So it would be in order to carry out the same sentence on the man who raped another man.

But if the man or boy is forced to have sex with a woman, it is still rape because it was an act of violence, against an unwilling person who did not have the means to resist.

As with the man he does not need to remain chaste, as it cannot be considered as marriage.

 

[Crossbow]

A black must marry a black and a white must marry a white, otherwise all whites will become extinct and everybody will become coloured.
Besides there will always be a tendency to force whites to comply with the black customs. You see, it is very dangerous for a black to deny their heritage, there is always fear of repercussion.
But most of all the plan of Satan, is to eliminate the whites as they are a threat to his plan to prevent God from setting up the Kingdom which will mean his defeat. Now if you took the time to view those articles about Zuma—then you should be able to see how deep rooted the traditions are.
Apartheid failed in implementing their policy—so there is a partial set back, which will be rectified :soon:

I have noticed that racists all too often forget that modern humans originated in Africa and that the variation in skin color is simply the result of the enviromental factors incurred where the humans who left Africa eventually settled.

Even a racist interpetation from a fairy book does not change that fact.

 

[halleyscomet]

But if the man or boy is forced to have sex with a woman, it is still rape because it was an act of violence, against an unwilling person who did not have the means to resist.

As with the man he does not need to remain chaste, as it cannot be considered as marriage.

So, in your interpretation of scripture, if a virgin man is raped by a virgin woman, are they "married" and the man required to remain chaste if the female rapist is never executed or forced to marry him?

Would a female rapist be allowed to pay the same silver price to her victim's father as if the genders were reversed?