Are dragon legends evidence that dinosaurs lived with man, or?

Are dragon legends evidence that man found dinosaur bones and told legends about them?

Which is more reasonable?

(And the Bible book of Job does not describe dinosaurs, so please do not use that reasoning.)

Dino and man footprints found together? Creationists say no:
"In 1986 a number of leading creationist researchers decided that the evidence of supposedly human and dinosaur footprints, found together at the Paluxy River in Texas, had serious problems. They decided that, pending further research to establish the correct interpretation of the prints, they could no longer be safely used as evidence ... that man and dinosaur lived at the same time." (emphasis added) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v25/n2/magic-bullet

About Behemoth in Job, please read in 40:21 that it lies under the lotus tree, is concealed by reeds, and lies in swamps. Verse 23 adds that it lives in a raging river. Both are physically impossible for a sauropod dinosaur. The actions of its tail in verse 17 are compared to a cedar, not that it looked like a cedar, otherwise its neck would look like a tree too, but no mention is made of that.

LINK

See also:

• Identifying Behemoth www.jimspace.000space.com/YEC/EB.htm

Credits:

• Picture from the young-earth creationist book Dinosaurs of Eden.

Trinitarians: what exactly did Jesus sacrifice?

Trinitarians have told me that Jesus took back the same body that was crucified and that Jesus didn't die because he is the immortal second person of the Trinitarian Godhead and that he also has an immortal soul.

So, the person of Jesus didn't die, it was his human nature that died, but he got that back when that was resurrected and rejoined with his immortal soul and divine nature which obviously never died.

So since Jesus AS A PERSON never died (as he was conscious as a divine person and an immortal soul while his human nature was dead) and since he got his same body back, then what exactly did Jesus sacrifice?

References:

“Jesus died physically, but remained alive spiritually,” and that Jesus’ “essence did not die, nor could it” and “His physical body died, but His inner being is eternal and could not die.” (Houdmann, S. Michael. “Did God die? If Jesus was God, and Jesus died on the cross, does that mean God died?” www.gotquestions.org/did-God-die.html) This position was also presented by one of the brightest minds of Trinitarianism, Dr. William Lane Craig, in this video: “Was God Dead for Three Days?” youtu.be/g4uhWvEpAvk [1]

Also, blood is liquid flesh so when the resurrected Jesus said he was "flesh and bones" blood was clearly included as he was not a zombie.

To review:
What did Jesus sacrifice that he did not still have or get back per the Trinitarian paradigm?

[The Trinitarian responses were that Jesus sacrificed his blood and that he was separated from the Father. But they also openly and publicly declare (wittingly or unwittingly) that Jesus still had blood and that he was NEVER separated from the Father as he was the second person of the impersonal Trinitarian Godhead the entire time. Thus, my question remains open.]

Footnote:
[1] Specifically from 0:55 to the end. Here he stated:

“So when Jesus died on the cross, his human nature died, not his divine nature, he died as a man. Human death is the separation of the soul from the body, and that's what happened when Jesus expired on the cross. His soul was separated from his body, which then became a lifeless corpse and was laid in the tomb, and then later we Christians believe was raised from the dead. So you can see that the divine nature, the divine person of Christ, is not in any way, um, extinguished in the death of the human nature of Christ on the cross.”

Thus he confirms the Trinitarian position that the person of Jesus never died, it was just his human nature on earth that expired. See also “Do You Reject Trinitarianism? (Point 1).” jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/11/normal-0-false-false-false.html

Link

JW's, Can you explain to me why the Holy Spirit is an Active Force instead of a 3rd person in a trinity?

i would like as much info as i can about the holy spirit, thanks.

Answer:

Consider the virgin birth of Christ. If the holy spirit is a person, the third person of the Trinitarian Godhead, then a person is responsible for Mary's pregnancy. Period. (Or in Mary's case, no period.)

Thus, it sure sounds like Trinitarianism unwittingly teaches that God had sex with Mary. It looks like a sexual union of an alien person with a human female, giving the holy spirit the role of an incubus.

If Trinitarianism responds saying that the Holy Spirit Person of God (God the Holy Spirit) used power to make Mary pregnant, then how is that any different from the holy spirit being a spiritual energy, an active force from God fulfilling God's purposes?

But there is something else to ponder. If the third person of the Godhead, the holy spirit, begot Jesus, then why is the first person of the Godhead, the Father, the father? Should it not logically be the holy spirit person? That it's not Jesus' father is another devastating yet ignored dilemma for Trinitarianism.

============
Edit:
2 Corinthians 3:17 "Now Jehovah is the Spirit." Since Jehovah is the Father, who per Trinitarianism is the First Person of the Trinitarian Godhead, this does nothing to address the Holy Spirit person. It is clearly teaching that the Father Jehovah has spirit nature. So Trinitarianism must desist from misusing this scripture like it does address the Holy Spirit person when it most clearly does not.

In conclusion, the preponderance of scriptures makes the holy spirit impersonal. Other scriptures that have the holy spirit speaking are anthropomorphisms. Remember, if the holy spirit is a person, then:

1. The holy spirit filled the role of an incubus
2. Mary was not a virgin mother of Jesus
3. The holy spirit is Jesus' father, not the Father person

All three of these are anathema. Thus, we can be most thankful that the holy spirit is an 'active force.'

@ [name removed]. Thanks for asking. Trinitarianism teaches that a person got Mary pregnant. That it was a divine spirit person is irrelevant. The Trinitarian Holy Spirit acted like an incubus demon and simulated sexual intercourse with Mary, getting her pregnant. Thus, she could hardly be an honest virgin. Jesus replaces Adam as our father, and it is significant that Jesus never called the Holy Spirit his father, like he surely would have if Trinitarianism were true. Mary is only an honest virgin if the holy spirit is an impersonal utilitarian divine energy.

@ [name removed]: Trinitarianism teaches that the Holy Spirit person got Mary pregnant. What you're uncomfortable with are the unrealized implications of that doctrine. Mind you, I'm being objective as opposed to warped.

Source:
Holy Spirit and the Virgin Birth http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/11/do-you-reject-trinitarianism-part-ii.html

LINK

Note: The iconographic depiction of the Trinidad trificela (three-faced Trinity) seen above fell into disuse after being outlawed as heterodox in the wake of the Reformation.

When Jesus said he would return did he stipulate it would be in the flesh ?

Best Answer

No, Jesus did not stipulate what body he would return in, much less in the flesh. He did indicate though that it would NOT be flesh at John 8:21-3 where he said that he came from a higher realm where people could not enter on their own.

Annsan_In_Him compared Acts 1:11 with 1 Corinthians 15, that we “do a mental replay in reverse” with Acts 1:11. Based on that, Jesus ascended with a physical body and was obscured by a cloud (Acts 1:9) and then he returns with a different body, a “'heavenly body'”. This is correct. But notice also that the apostles were not literally watching Christ’s journey all the way to heaven. Thus he must have entered the spirit heavens as a spirit being, as 1 Corinthians 15:45 says that Jesus “became a life-giving spirit,” invisible to human eyes. (1 Corinthians 15:50) So, at most, the apostles saw only the beginning of Jesus’ journey; they could not watch its ending, his return to the heavenly presence of his Father. (John 20:17) This they could only discern with their eyes of faith.

In fact, in harmony with John 8:21-3, Jesus said shortly before his death: “A little longer and the world will behold me no more.” (John 14:19) He also said that “the kingdom of God is not coming with striking observableness.” (Luke 17:20) So he indicated his return would not be in the flesh.

However, Annsan_In_Him also said: “beware any translation that tries to use 1 Peter 3:18 to say Jesus was resurrected as a spirit.” Yet, the NET Bible, NASB, NRSV (main text and interlinear), NJB, and the ASV read “in the spirit,” and the Apostolic Bible Polyglot has the similar translation of “to the spirit.” So it is not just the NWT that has “in the spirit.” Thus that concern about the NWT has been deflated.

Additionally, the account at Luke 24:36-43 that she referred to actually proves that Jesus is a spirit as he appeared in the midst of people inside a locked room: thus he was materializing a human body from his spiritual existence.


Source:
Jesus’ Resurrection Body http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/10/jesus-resurrection-body-this-blog-entry.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130620014508AA6nWjp

LINK

Jehovah's Witnesses, Does St. Paul agree with Christ' Physical Ressurection?

In 1 Timothy 1:20, the apostle Paul said he had handed Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme. The two blasphemers had been excluded from the church. Out in the world, away from the church, they would be open to the full force of the god of that worldly system. In 2 Timothy 2:17–18, we discover what these men did to warrant expulsion from the church: they had denounced the physical resurrection and were dividing the church by teaching an early form of the heresy of Gnosticism


2 Timothy 2:17–18 (ESV)
17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some.

Answer:

The expression “saying that the resurrection has already happened” is vague and firm definitions of what Hymenaeus and Philetus taught is frankly impossible as we do not have their versions of what they taught. Saying it was Gnostic is difficult to prove as Gnostics believed in a divine spark that was entombed in human flesh.[1] Thus when the flesh died the divine spark was liberated, not resurrected.

Evidently this was their teaching: that the resurrection was merely a spiritual one in the sense of being a **symbolic kind,** and that the dedicated Christians had **already had their resurrection,** that this was all there was to the matter and there was no further resurrection in the future under God’s Messianic Kingdom. Perhaps they were quoting out of context Paul’s statement that Christians had been dead in their sins but were made alive through God’s spirit. (Ephesians 2:1-6) Indeed, twisting Paul’s words to promote errant teaching was a problem in the first century as Peter testified at 2 Peter 3:15-16.

That Jesus was resurrected as a spirit is shown in 1 Corinthians 15:45, that plainly declares that Jesus was resurrected as a “life-giving spirit.” (NET Bible)

Concerning 1 Peter 3:15: If the NWT “has been deliberately altered” to say “in the spirit,” translating the Greek word DE as “in,” then to be consistent the Trinitarian NET Bible, NASB, NRSV (main text and interlinear), NJB, and the ASV have also been deliberately altered as it reads the same! (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot has the similar translation of "to the spirit".) Thus that accusation has gone up in a puff of smoke. The NET Bible in its footnote says in part that this verse is about “modes of existence: the realm of unregenerate earthly life versus eternal heavenly life.” Thus, the translation of “in the spirit” is both valid and harmonious with other scriptures, like 1 Corinthians 15:45 and Jesus' appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus at Acts 26:13. There, Jesus Christ radiated light "beyond the brilliance of the sun" at midday. Clearly then he was a transcendent spirit being and not a resurrected human in outer space micromanaging his flesh![2] Another scripture harmonious with “in the spirit” is Hebrews 5:7 as it places Jesus' being in the flesh in the past! Therefore when the resurrected Jesus said at Luke 24:39 that “a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you behold that I have” he was speaking with a materialized body. It must be remembered that he appeared in their midst in a locked room, thus proving he was a spirit being materializing before them.

Thus the unanimous voice of Scripture clearly shows that Jesus is thankfully no longer in the flesh.

In conclusion, the heresy of Hymenaeus and Philetus is not the same as the Bible teaching of Jesus’ resurrection as a spirit being. Their teaching was more of a symbolic abstraction that denied the full force and reality of the resurrection.

Source:
[1] This is actually akin to the Trinitarian Jesus who was a divine person encased in his human nature flesh. Thus, Trinitarianism is clearly akin to the Gnostic heresy.

[2] According to Trinitarian Chalcedonian Dyophysitism, Jesus is now “truly man” “soul and body” in outer space lacking an astronaut suit and thus Jesus must eternally micromanage his flesh so it can survive! How absurd and insulting to Jesus Christ!

Additional reading:
Jesus’ Resurrection Body http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/10/jesus-resurrection-body-this-blog-entry.html

Hebrews 5:7 and Trinitarianism: A Compatibility Crisis http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/09/hebrews-57-and-trinitarianism_11.html

LINK

Are Jehovah's Witnesses outlawed from witnessing online?

Does the Our Kingdom Ministry flier of November 1997 p. 3 "Good News on the Internet" article outlaw Jehovah's Witnesses from witnessing online?

It says:
Our Internet Web site has the address http://www.watchtower.org and contains a selection of tracts, brochures, and Watchtower and Awake! articles in English, Chinese (Simplified), German, Russian, and Spanish, as well as in other languages. The publications on this Web site are already available through the congregations and are in use in the ministry. The purpose of our Web site is, not to release new publications, but to make information available to the public in electronic format. There is no need for any individual to prepare Internet pages about Jehovah’s Witnesses, our activities, or our beliefs. Our official site presents accurate information for any who want it. (end quote)

Someone claimed on this question http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Am84oIrzoFkCDfEupHOrIjnsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20120120080726AAj3HgF that this outlaws Witnesses from witnessing online.

Does it do that, OR does it mean that there is no vacuum to fill as there is an official website?


Additional Details
Edit: XXXXX said: "It keeps hammering in how you should not associate online, even with fellow witnesses." Actually, it does no such thing. Discussing dangers is not the same as outlawing. The article also said: "Jehovah wants you to exercise discernment. Why? Because he knows that it will safeguard you from various dangers." That's the whole point of that article. Thanks for your encouragement!

Hi -----! You said: "This does not say anything about witnessing". Well, having a witnessing website is an act of witnessing. Additionally, you said "we are not to create sites about our beliefs because the site www.watchtower.org does a much better job than we can do." That's what my question is about. Are we outlawed from making websites or blogs of a witnessing nature OR is it just that there is no rush to fill a vacuum as there is an official website? (Whether or not the official website does a better job is outside the scope of this question.)

Let me illustrate: If the US government in 1961 said: "Since we have NASA and its Apollo program, there is no need for any individual or corporation in the US to try to beat the Soviets to the moon," would that be the same as outlawing the construction of a rocket to go to the moon? Or say the government issued a brochure discussing the dangers of cell-phone use. Would this be the same as a ban on all cell-phones? :-)

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
The specific part of the quote in question is as follows:

"The purpose of our Web site (the Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses) is, not to release new publications, but to make information available to the public in electronic format. THERE IS NO NEED for any individual to prepare Internet pages about Jehovah’s Witnesses, our activities, or our beliefs."

The Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses have made "information available to the public in electronic format." But it would be a stretch to say that the wording "there is no need" is a *direct prohibition* on anyone who would also desire to make "information available to the public in electronic format." The wording "there is no need" means exactly what it says - that additional information posted on-line concerning Jehovah's Witnesses is *NOT NECESSARY* when one can simply refer an interested one toward the relevant article already available at the Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses pertaining to the topic at hand. What better place to refer interested ones than to the Official or Authorized Websites of Jehovah's Witnesses themselves?

One thing about the internet is the problem of anonymity. I have seen many websites that claim to be favorable toward Jehovah's Witnesses but were actually set up by apostates looking to fool unsuspecting ones. If one wishes to not fall for this trap, then they should by all means always stick to what they know they can depend on - the *Official* Website of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Because the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society does not have any control over the content of other websites on the internet, it is very understandable that the WBTS does not want to be associated in any way with unauthorized websites, favorable or unfavorable. With this in mind, the managers of several pro-Witness websites have posted the following disclaimer (or wording like it):

"This website is NOT an official website of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

This is a personal website that is not officially supported nor endorsed by the WBTS. The Watchtower Society cannot be held responsible or liable for the content found on this blog/website.

"Links are offered here for additional reading, however the manager of this site does not necessarily support every comment on all of these sites. You are invited to conduct your own research.

"To those who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, please remember that if you are looking for the authoritative information on beliefs, practices and news releases you should look to the source at http://www.watchtower.org." [Now jw.org]

ME:
"But it would be a stretch to say that the wording "there is no need" is a *direct prohibition*." Thank you! We have a "fire shut up on our bones" as Jeremiah said. So of course some will want to express themselves online!

(Names have been replaced.)
Link

Mormon Questions Ask Here!!?

Ok so I watched the BBC Programme on Mormonism and it is COMPLTED CRUPTED.. I as where many others shocked when it came out with so much lies... So I have had a lot of questioned about it all... So this page is for me and other LDS to answer as many question as we can to put the facts right... SO ASK AWAY!!! :D

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Hi,
(1) If Heavenly Father took back the plates for their own protection, then why did he not do the same for all other Bible manuscripts like the biblical documents in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Why did he not preserve them instead of letting them rot in caves?

(2) Mormonism makes salvation impossible for this reason: It has a 'no blood before Adam's Fall' doctrine, including no children or death in the pre-Fall Animal Kingdom.[1] Additionally, the Fall is described as a blessing in the Book of Mormon at 2 Nephi 2:22-5. The problem is that it presents blood as a product of Adam's transgression, yet Jesus had blood,[2] but he was free of the affects of Adam's transgression. (Luke 1:35; Hebrews 4:15) Therefore, what we have here may be called a soteriological contradiction, for Jesus was holy and sinless—he did not have any products of Adam's transgression, but Mormonism gives him just that, blood from Adam's transgression.

Edit:
@ phrog: Hi there!
(1) Hiding them is both inconsistent and illogical for a loving God. A loving God would have the "gold" plates (or gold-plated tumbaga plates if you will) on public display for scientific examination. Thus, the fatal problem remains.

(2) It's from the official LDS website, as well as from your leaders such as Joseph Fielding Smith and Russell M. Nelson who published these views in the The Ensign of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So yes, serious Mormons have to believe the above about blood. Thus, the fatal contradiction remains.

@ Marco/phrog: Hi there!
If you are having trouble following my thinking, then how do you know I'm "making a pretty big assumption on this"? :-) Looks like this is something you need to take more seriously. In the meantime, the fatal problems remain.

[This Mormon claimed circuitously that Adam received blood, not due to transgressing, but due to becoming human.]

To this, I replied:

The LDS Adam became human because of his transgression. I'm afraid you're clearly arguing in circles, dancing around this fatal soteriological contradiction.

Source(s):

[1] "Fall of Adam." http://lds.org/scriptures/bd/fall-of-ada… This is taught elsewhere too.

[2] "Christ." http://lds.org/scriptures/bd/christ?lang… In order for Jesus to be the "last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45), he would have to be what Adam lost and voluntarily sacrifice that to be the ransom. Mormonism makes that impossible.

Link