The Son is co-eternal with the Father, according to mainstream Chistianity. He is the Word of God (i.e. the instrument of God). In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, as John supposedly wrote.
Well, yes. But the reason we know that Jesus is the son -- according to Christians -- is that he was incarnated in a stable in Bethlehem, then said some things and died for our sins on the cross. If there are a bunch of other people who somehow managed to work out that he existed long before he did this, one wonders what the whole thing was about.
The Khazar theory is not necessarily anti-Jewish. It is a fact that a number of kingdoms did convert to Judaism in Yemen, Ethiopia, and North Africa, so it is not impossible that the Khazars converted too.
Surely a large group converting to Judaism might call into question these various covenants made between God (Yahweh) and Israel? Over particular land.
Which seems to be Arthur Koestler's point (though I have not read his book).
So the theory is not anti Jewish - rather anti-Zionist.
The Khazar theory is not necessarily anti-Jewish. It is a fact that a number of kingdoms did convert to Judaism in Yemen, Ethiopia, and North Africa, so it is not impossible that the Khazars converted too.
Regardless of what may or may not have happened in Central Asia 1,200 years ago, there is very limited and contested linguistic or genetic evidence to show that Ashkenazi Jews have significant Central Asian ancestry
Those claiming that they are are clearly pushing an antiSemitic trope. David Miller, Lowkey and Chris Williamson, the three stooges of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, are employed push this lie amongst many others in the UK and presumably beyond
It really isn't the zinger antisemites think it is anyway, since Judaism (and its cultural derivative jewishness) is really about observance not bloodline. Then again the whole idea of a bloodline, whoever that belongs to and whatever group it's meant to define, is toxic AF in every respect.
It really isn't the zinger antisemites think it is anyway, since Judaism (and its cultural derivative jewishness) is really about observance not bloodline. Then again the whole idea of a bloodline, whoever that belongs to and whatever group it's meant to define, is toxic AF in every respect.
Judeophobes who use this argument are in effect agreeing with Zionism. For they are saying that if there IS a "bloodline", then those whose ancestors centuries ago lived in one place are entitled to go to that place and create a state that excludes the native population.
From the sources I've looked at previously, it appears that the Y chromosomes in Ashkenazi Jews tend to be of a middle eastern origin, but the X chromosomes are from varying groups. I suspect this shows that the group has migrated over time and intermarried over generations. When two separate and distinct groups meet, they either fight or fuck. But, mostly a combination of both.
Are these the people who have been on Oxford street at times handing out leaflets / pamphlets? When I say at times I mean some point in the last 15 years I suppose
PTK said John's Gospel "supposedly" (c 100 AD or later and written in Greek) now you are on about legendary exploits 1300 BC. Confused? You will be....
Well, yes. But the reason we know that Jesus is the son -- according to Christians -- is that he was incarnated in a stable in Bethlehem, then said some things and died for our sins on the cross. If there are a bunch of other people who somehow managed to work out that he existed long before he did this, one wonders what the whole thing was about.
There was a big argument about this in about the 4th century CE, and the mainstream Christian view is the the Son is co-eternal with the Father. He was there at the beginning, for he is the Word, the instrument of the will of the Father, or something like that.
The British Museum faces an investigation from the information watchdog, claiming it is hiding information about sacred Ethiopian altar texts.
www.cityam.com
This concerns 11 sacred wooden plaques of the Ark of the Covenant and the Ten Commandments - called Tabots.
A tabot verifies the holiness of an orthodox church in Ethiopia.
These British Museum looted tabots are so holy they cannot be viewed by the public, or scholars, or even British Museum staff.
Neither can the British Museum answer freedom of information requests about them.
Hebrew Israelite cult member, Christina Robinson, will be sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of her child and four related child cruelty offences by Mr Justice Garnham at Newcastle Crown Court on 24 May 2024.
Hopefully, Hebrew Israelite cult members will share their views on the murder of The Late Dwelaniyah Robinson and the sentence passed on his murderer ...
There was a big argument about this in about the 4th century CE, and the mainstream Christian view is the the Son is co-eternal with the Father. He was there at the beginning, for he is the Word, the instrument of the will of the Father, or something like that.
The Son and the Holy Spirit are co-eternal with the Father.
For over sixty years I have been enquiring what exactly the Holy Spirit is, no satisfactory answer yet. I got the belt for asking my P5 teacher what the Holy Sprit was, and as she was unable to answer properly, I asked if it did indeed exist, as she could not explain what it was. Religious studies were taken very seriously in the Islands in the 50s. Effectively I was belted for heresy. I feel I may be unique on these boards in that respect.
I assumed that it was the power of god acting through humans. So the following makes a bit of sense - that saying that god can't work through people is the worst sin:
And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. - Matthew 12:31
I assumed that it was the power of god acting through humans. So the following makes a bit of sense - that saying that god can't work through people is the worst sin:
And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. - Matthew 12:31
I assumed that it was the power of god acting through humans. So the following makes a bit of sense - that saying that god can't work through people is the worst sin:
And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. - Matthew 12:31
There is no agreement on what the sin against the Holy Spirit actually is. For obvious reasons. If you can be forgiven for mass murder, what could it be?
Personally, I'm torn between putting dead matches back in the box, and putting pineapple on pizza.
There is no agreement on what the sin against the Holy Spirit actually is. For obvious reasons. If you can be forgiven for mass murder, what could it be?
Personally, I'm torn between putting dead matches back in the box, and putting pineapple on pizza.
You are indeed a weirdo. Putting pineapple on pizza's a great idea and the people who most moan about it have never tried pizza with pineapple and jalapeños, the dinner of champions.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.