Did Ancient Indian Science Employ Genetic Engineering?
An ancient temple called Vijayalaya Choleeswaram lays hidden on a hilltop, and everything about it, its origin, its builders, and even its name is largely unknown. Archeologists agree that this was the starting point of the great Chola temples, but are completely baffled by it.
Was it the site of the first genetic modification? Why were extinct animals carved throughout the temple? From its peculiar architecture to its even stranger design, scientists are only now beginning to unravel its secrets.
Built during the 9th century, the temple originally had eight subsidiary shrines around the temple, of which six still remain. Each is identical, with a semi-spherical top and a four-pillared Mandapa in the front. It is in these shrines where more mysteries gather.
The Vimana, the shrine over the sanctum, has sculptures of Uma, Shiva, Dakshinamurthy, and Saptamatrikas. The temple is the foremost structure of the Chola kings, who would later on go on to make Great Living Chola Temples for the next 300 years.
There are also two rock-cut caves, one of which houses twelve life-size sculptures of Vishnu. The temple is considered one of the oldest stone temples in South India, dedicated to the Hindu god Shiva.
via YouTube
Trackback from your site.
Howdy
| #
The title is odd since the question it asks is not addressed in the text as far as I can see. it is more of a Hinduism lesson.
The video, while thought provoking, doesn’t convince me of genetic modification.
New name to me.
Uma, looks like the Goddess Tara, who is also the all-Mother. Uma is apparently another name for Goddess Parvati, the Goddess of a thousand names, so It does figure. Parvati is the nurturing Mother facet, or aspect, of the All-Mother. The Feminine principle. It is not just another name, it has a purpose.
Shiva, should be Lord Shiva. The destroyer, or Masculine principle. He and Shakti form the yin/yang.
New name to me.
Dakshinamurthy is another aspect of Lord Shiva. They are one and the same.
New name to me.
Saptamatrikas literally means seven mothers. They are often seen together on a panel in temples, usually carved on a single stone. Sometimes Ganesh and Kartikeyan accompany them.
https://www.inditales.com/saptamatrikas-legends-history-iconography-temples/
Ganesh and Kartikeya are offspring of Lord Shiva and Goddess Skakti. Ganesh is the elephant headed God who is connected to the Divine spark, while Kartikeya is six-faced and a protector, if memory serves.
Seven is a number with much meaning.
Lord Vishnu is one of the Hindu Godhead of three. Where Lord Shiva is the destroyer (He only destroys the old and outdated, so new can be built in it’s place) Lord Vishnu restores. A fish is one of the avatars used by Vishnu to visit Earth.
Reply
Howdy
| #
My apologies. “Goddess Skakti” should read Goddess Shakti
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Howdy, did you not know that the ancient Hindus are the inventor of evolutionary theory, rather than Darwin (or his Masonic grand father)? The Hindu’s prophesied “new kinds” long before “Origins of the Species.” Rather than poking around for non existent transitional animals they already knew that Goddess Shakti could reincarnate a good jack ass into a baboon. If Boo Boo was a good baboon he could then reincarnate into a member of the untouchable class. So not only were the Hinu’s the precursor to Darwinian evolutionary theory but even pioneered Darwin’s concept of Natural Selection “Or The Preservation of Favoured Races In The Struggle For Life.”
Reply
Howdy
| #
“Goddess Shakti could reincarnate a good jack ass into a baboon.”
I’m afraid not Mark. You don’t understand It. Wherever you got that from, it is absolute nonsense, either that, or you are toying with me, which I do not appreciate.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Mark, tell me about Kundalini. Tell me about Baphomet.
Mark Tapley
| #
Hi Howdy:
Obviously I was being somewhat facetious. I know northing about Hindu gods. However it is true that the ancient Hindus were the Origin of the theory of evolution through the belief in reincarnation. And after all, it really does make about as much sense as Darwin’s theory. The last part is of course an analogy between the baboon who reincarnates into a member of the lowest class and Darwin’s firm belief in “favored Races.” it is even likely that on his voyage on the Beagle, that he participated in the killing of South American natives that was being conducted while he was there.
Howdy
| #
“However it is true that the ancient Hindus were the Origin of the theory of evolution through the belief in reincarnation.”
Reincarnation has nothing to do with evolution. It is a matter of the soul.
Howdy
| #
“Mark, tell me about Kundalini. Tell me about Baphomet.”
Doesn’t matter, leave it.
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Howdy:
The ancient Hudus believed in reincarnation. They believed that animals could transition into new “kinds” all the way to humans. This is a type of evolution. Darwinian evolutionists believe that through natural selection of random mutations over millions (give me enough time) and the same thing would occur. So both theories make about the same amount of sense. I did not realize this was going to be a serious discussion, so was just joking about those Hindu deities.
Howdy
| #
“The ancient Hindu believed in reincarnation”
Mark, the followers of Hindu tradition still do, and so do I. Anything less makes no sense in this life.
It is not a transition, it is a new learning cycle. Nothing to do with evolution on the ‘living matter’ scale.
In order to fully understand, one must become. Tell me that doesn’t make complete sense.
Howdy
| #
I never joke about religion, or Spirit, regardless of my understanding, or not.
jessica ayni
| #
I make 85 dollars each hour for working an online job at home. dso I never thought I can do it but my best friend makes 10000 bucks every month working this job and she recommended me to learn more about it.
The potential with this is endless…>>>>>>https://t.ly/eGAt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
This article begins: “An ancient temple called Vijayalaya Choleeswaram lays hidden on a hilltop”. Which immediately prompts my question: How can a temple on a hilltop be hidden?
I like to learn about who has written what I am reading because their biography (resume) makes a difference to me. So I read: “Praveen Mohan is known for his groundbreaking research on ancient history, archeology and extraterrestial theory.” (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8461354/bio). Extraterrestial theory is a red flag to me. And PSI Editor is singular and I know there are two. Because John O’Sullivan, the founding PSI editor and I have a long history, which includes private emails, I strongly suspect this PSI editor isn’t he.
I have read most every book written about Stonehenge and what it seems that most archeologists over look as they study its observable features.
So to share some of my history, I call attention to one of my long, rambling, essays about the 56 original holes of Stonehenge. (https://principia-scientific.com/history-erratic-boulders-and-science/)
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Howdy
| #
Hi Jerry,
The man appears quite accomplished and has a large following, plus he has some nice credits to his name.
https://starsunfolded.com/praveen-mohan/
Why would his alien theories deter you? As far as I can see, whether he makes any kind of sense, or causes one to get involved in the subject of the article is what matters, isn’t it?
I’ll have a look at your article.
Reply
Howdy
| #
First off, the good quote: “All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.”
From your linked article:
“My answer to the question—Why 56 pits?—is: Usually there are observed 56 semidiurnal tidal oscillations each lunar phase cycle. Sometimes there are 58. So, another question is: Could have these prehistoric people who began digging 56 holes observed tidal oscillations?”
Don’t know, but I would guess the Sun is key. I found references to twice the moon orbit period of 28 days, and twice the ovulation cycle 28 days.
I think this might interest you:
“The number 56 is apparently a fairly magical number for the study of the Sun and Moon being as it is three times the eclipse Saros cycle of 18 2/3 years, twice the Moon’s period of 28 days and close to the number of weeks for the Sun cycle, the year.”
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-there-56-Aubrey-holes-at-Stonehenge?share=1
There’s that hidden magic again.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Howdy:
Stone Hinge has been almost entirely reconstructed from the original. I think that all of it has been reset in foundations and moved around. It is a tourist attraction, thats about all. I did not read the above article but if this guy believes in space aliens then that casts serious doubt on his other research since there is no evidence for them. Besides if there were aliens the Bible would mention them. If space aliens existed they would be outside the brotherhood of Christ as was established by his earthly mission. That is another reason they do not exist.
All truths are apparently not easy for many people to grasp, since the fraudulent germ theory is still widely believed as is the belief in viruses. This nonsense was further predicated by the Jew medical hucksters Salk and Sabin who both relied on the fraudulent tissue sample garbage of Enders as they argued over the fictional ”live” and “attenuated” viruses. All of this medical propaganda just like the phony climate change is widely believed as is the completely baseless Darwinian theory of evolution. It is not so much a matter of finding the truth but rather controlling what the “truth” is. Thats what the Jew MSM is for.
Reply
Howdy
| #
“Stone Hinge has been almost entirely reconstructed from the original. I think that all of it has been reset in foundations and moved around.”
Hi Mark,
How do you know that?
Some say UFOs are in the Bible:
Ezekiel 1:16 The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel.
“but if this guy believes in space aliens then that casts serious doubt on his other research”
The article author? He has theories, not beliefs. Even if he did, that association has no bearing on other research he does. Why should it, everybody is entitled to a little eccentricity.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
Yes, I consider that Galileo’s quote–“All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.”–is good. My quote, which as written, I claim to be my quote is: “The most obvious is most difficult to see (discover).” So it helps me to see by constantly asking myself: What am I not seeing?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
Very, very good. Now, I have several questions because you are so good. I expect you know of the Heel Stone. I have to take back my crediting you with your knowledge because I finally read your linked article. But at least you made the effort to see if anyone knew something more than you did.
Do you agree that it is probably an erratic boulder? How would you regularly space 56 holes in a near circle?
I reread what you wrote and conclude you maybe do not know there is a lunar cycle of about 18 2/3 years which actually has little to nothing to do with the sun.
You concluded: “There’s that hidden magic again.” No magic at all. All one had to be was shepherd who grazed his sheep on the knoll on which the 28 holes are located and watch where the sun rose over the eastern horizon during each lunar cycle for more than 18 2/3 years, say 20 years.
Of course, we should not ignore that semidiurnal high tides, with a range of 40ft between high and low, occur at Bristol Bay, during some lunar phase cycles. which is within a couple of days hike of Stonehenge.
So, I will wait for you to read the link and this comment and respond with your comments. Have no idea when your information was published but you have trust me that I have only read what had been published in the books I have read. And I do not remember how many decades ago I finally read and saw that which I wrote shortly after I had discovered PSI.
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hi Howdy:
I thought the reconstructed rebar fabricated artifice of Stonehenge was common knowledge. I link one article that gives some information but does not explain that the whole thing was basically re jiggered from the ground up.
Ezekiel deals with the Israelites behavior and reverence in worship. The passage you reference is describing the majestic entrance of Cherubs (angel like beings) before the presence of God.
Whomever we are discussing certainly has the right to believe whatever he chooses. However it seems to me that any research should be based on some real evidence. I see none for space aliens. This is another fake story used to divert attention away from real issues such as the fact that Boris is preparing a place for you. And not for Howdy alone but for all the prodigal children of Britishstan who have turned away from the chosen path of the 4th industrial revolution.
https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/inspire-me/blog/blog-posts/excavation-restoration-stonehenge-1950s-60s/
Reply
Howdy
| #
Hi Mark,
The reconstruction and restoration? Does that make something fake? The Bible in languages other than the original is also fake in that case because it is not original, and more so because translation is not completely understood.
“Ezekiel deals with the Israelites behavior and reverence in worship” “entrance of Cherubs”
I referenced four wheels.
Jesus stated the Truth is known only to the apostles, that everybody else gets riddles, which means the Bible is not taken literally and that the meanings are in the eye of the beholder according to his/her deduction, thus a set interpretation is not a given. Nobody knows the truth.
“any research should be based on some real evidence. I see none for space aliens”
The Bible is full of writings that have no evidence. It is still read, and accepted, as a truth.
Boris has no place for me at all. As for the rest of ‘Britishstan’ as you call it, those lives are not mine to direct.
I really expected more from you. Where is your trust in God?
Reply
Howdy
| #
” I have to take back my crediting you with your knowledge because I finally read your linked article.”
1, I’m not interested in being credited for anything
2, What linked article?
“maybe do not know there is a lunar cycle of about 18 2/3 years which actually has little to nothing to do with the sun.”
I said stonehenge is about the Sun. The quora link told of the lunar cycle. I posted it because you pointed me to an article of yours that asked a question I know nothing about, and apparently neither did you, thus your question.
“No magic at all.”
No magic? The magic is in the numbers. Check this link out and all the numerical magic it contains including reference to stonehenge:
https://www.ridingthebeast.com/numbers/nu56.php
Numerology and how it pertains to the self is very usefull time spent. The Bible and it’s teachings revolve around numbers. Number 7 relates to the body
“So, I will wait for you to read the link”
What link?
“you have trust me that I have only read what had been published in the books I have read.”
You are just stating you only know what you know, same as the rest of us.
If I post a link to a website, It either means I don’t have the answer myself, or somebody has allready written what I wanted to say, and done it better, so why reinvent the wheel by writing it all again myself. The links I post do not have my seal of approval, indeed, if somebody gives me a link, I will check it against other sources to verify it.
Reply
Howdy
| #
“It is generally agreed that at Stonehenge the Sun God’s phallus was represented by the Heel Stone(s). The Stonehenge trilithons represented the Earth Mother’s legs and vulva. A shaft of sunlight coming along the Avenue and penetrating between the uprights of the Great Central Trilithon therefore indicated fertilization of the whole Earth Mother at midsummer.”
https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-europe/stonehenge-calendar-0016231
Sounds right to me, though scientists will scoff. Their loss.
Sounds similar to the Shiva lingum of the Hindu tradition. It too represents the phallus and uterus.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Given what Howdy just wrote, it seems obvious he is not a scientist as demonstrated by Galileo. And I must admit that for a short while I was confused by what he wrote. Now, will not forget where and when what he just wrote.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Howdy
| #
You really have to go back to that routine don’t you? I see the truce was premature.
“it seems obvious he is not a scientist as demonstrated by Galileo.”
Told you more than once allready. I’m not a scientist, and galileo is in the distant past. Change the music for Heaven’s sake
What I wrote about is ancient knowledge, including the ancient Egyptians, Hindus, the Celts, and others. Try reading it again and connect the dots this time. Hint, it’s symbolic.
The joys of the right brain hemisphere allow one to see, appreciate, and open up to far more than simple figures, rocks, measurements and structures suggest. You have no idea what you are missing Jerry.
That’s the trouble with science.. It’s far too left brained.
Your loss Jerry, not mine.
I’m happy you won’t forget my words, though you have a forgetfullness problem don’t you….. Toodle pip!
Reply
Howdy
| #
Just a couple of things then it’s done..
1, Remember you wrote this:
“So before one begins to make comments about what reads, I urge one be cautious. Not that having earned a PhD degree in any field of study makes what one writes, or states, any more valid.”
I thought you were starting to realise when you made that statement. Now I see a statement of invalidation of oneself instead. Meaning anything you said from that point on is no more trustworthy, relevant, or valid than that of the average joe.
2, Should I refer to you as Galileo from now on? Reason I ask, You do not live a life of your own choosing. Everything you do and say is governed by a galileo filter. You see and act through the mind of galileo and your other influences. Everything, and everyone, is measured by them. You are a slave to people long gone.
With the best intentions. Wake up Jerry!! Before it’s too late.
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Howdy:
I never said Stonehenge was fake. It is a real place but every stone has been removed, altered, realigned with the entire edifice set in a rebar enforced foundation, Not exactly the way those ancient denizens of the bog left it. If Monticello burned down and was rebuilt to a reasonable facsimile using some of the original material, it is a representation and should not be passed off as genuine.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that “the truth is known only to the apostles.” There are many errors taught as to the apostles, such as in the case of miracles. This ”laying on of hands” falsely taught was a gift possessed only by the apostles or a few individuals they had personal contact with. No one else could pass it on. It died with them. There are some things in the Bible, particularly in Revelation that we are not sure of. However none of it is anything dealing with salvation or effects the gospel or the focal message of the coming of Christ which runs seamlessly through all 66 books. Unlike all other religions, the Bible, although written by different inspired men in different languages has a great many copies existing from way back. None of them are in conflict but rather cross reference each other. This is not the case for instance with Islam, which linguistic experts know was an oral dialog borrowing heavily from Catholicism about a central character that in all probability never existed written well over a hundred years after his alleged life. Of the three oldest “original” manuscripts in Islam, they are all in wide discrepancy and one of them was even written by someone who had in fact a poor grasp of Arabic. Islam had few translations out of Arabic until the CIA commissioned a university (I Believe Nebraska) to make translations so that this nonsense book that does not even have one complete story line, could be dispersed in order to help with fomenting the radical Islamic movement required in order to assist the Yinnon Plan (need radical Islamists) for Greater Israel.
The Bible teaches that all that live Godly will suffer persecution (2Timothy 3:12). Lucifer “Bringer of Light” (depicted in Rockefeller Center) roams the earth seeking whom he may devour 1 Peter 58. The earth is only a temporary abode. Christians look to the hereafter, not for any resolution or consolation in the here and now. I see you have encountered another case of Krauss-ism. What did you expect? I use Boris in a joking manner but he is like all the puppet actor politicians just an operative for the Zionist syndicate as made even more blatantly transparent by the unilateral imposition of the fake virus medical control fraud.
Reply
Andy
| #
What evidence do you have for the alterations to Stonehenge you mentioned? I happen to know Mike Parker-Pearson, who is one of the archaeologists who has done work at Stonehenge, and he told me some years ago that during the 50s and 60s, the fallen stones that had not broken were re-erected and set in concrete to keep them upright. He made no mention of rebar or any other form of reinforcing. Broken stones were left recumbent. Those stones that were still upright were left untouched.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Andy:
When I originally saw Howdy’s comment on this it jogged my memory from a more extensive article years ago. I did find some information which I link but it does not contain all the photos as before. The article does indicate extensive rebuilding since the 20’s.
https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/inspire-me/blog/blog-posts/excavation-restoration-stonehenge-1950s-60s/
Reply
Andy
| #
Yes some rebuilding was done, to re-erect fallen stones. I’ve seen an old B&W photo showing one stone which had concreete put under one side to support it after a piece broke off during re-erection, and I believe it is visible above ground.
Howdy
| #
But it makes no difference.
If one restores a motor vehicle, rusted parts can not be converted back to the original, and replacement patches/pressings are the only answer. The only thing that matters is whether the vehicle is recognizably and functionally as near original as possible that is mainly authentic.
As I said earlier, the Bible is a translation that doesn’t exist in English in it’s original form. It is an outright copy, and the language barrier shows in all the different versions, thus none can be described as complete. If the English Bible is true, then stonehenge is near as can be, authentic.
Howdy
| #
Hi Mark,
“Not exactly the way those ancient denizens of the bog left it. If Monticello burned down and was rebuilt to a reasonable facsimile using some of the original material, it is a representation and should not be passed off as genuine.”
The two are not comparable. Stonehenge is still majorly the same materials as it was created with, and to leave it to ruin is not acceptable. Were all the stones replaced by new because the originals vanished would make it hollow. A burned building cannot be restored using reasonably complete and authentic materials, in that case I agree it is basically a facsimile.
“Nowhere in the Bible does it say that “the truth is known only to the apostles.”
Mt 13:10-14 “[The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” 11 He replied, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: ” ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Howdy:
We have numerous ancient translations from independent sources that all collaborate as to the text of the Bible. My point as to Stonehenge is that there has been since the 1920’s quite a bit of tampering with this artifact that most people (including you) were not aware of. The article I linked shows some fairly extensive work and that was just a part of it. Kind of like slapping a bucket of Bondo all over that “restored” vehicle.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Mark, the translations do not agree, and my point stands about the language barrier. The original works cannot be properly translated word for word. It is best guess, or best match as reasoned by the translator As such, It is not original word of God. That is irrefutable. Perhaps you might like to read this article?
https://brewminate.com/why-the-bible-cannot-and-should-not-be-taken-literally/
“Kind of like slapping a bucket of Bondo all over that “restored” vehicle.”
Such is not an authentic restoration as I allready explained, nor even a copy, it is not applicable.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Howdy:
The article was written not only by someone who does not know how to rightly divide the old and New Testament but also mixes in the Talmud of the Middle Ages and Catholic doctrine. All of the stories brought out are either taken out of context or just reported differently from different sources. Although we are saved by the grace of God, faith (belief) is not enough but faith must be accompanied by works. When all the translations and copies (and there are lots of these ancient manuscripts) there are no true contradictions but only nit picking for any possible alternatives. There are differences in language syntax so that there are slight variations in certain narratives. None of this is a contradiction and more importantly has no effect on the primary message of the Bible, the good news of the Gospel for eternal salvation.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Mark, I was waiting for something like this.
The article is full of truth, and then some. I knew you wouldn’t agree, but you have cherry-picked, and taken the whole article’s different points out of context yourself, even when just an example was being shown, (as I expected you would) and bundled them together as one point to make it appear non-valid. You have missed the entire point of it.
Never mind.
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Howdy:
I went at random and looked at an example given as to discrepancy. Example 1 Cor 7:12-14 and 1 Cor 6:14-17. The first case is an example of marriage as sanctioned in the New Testament where the believer is united with an unbeliever. The 2nd case is of a believer that defiles himself by committing adultery. These are two completely different situations and whoever wrote this article knows it. Many of the examples given are comparisons between the Law of Moses (which applied only to the Biblical Jews) and the New Testament Law of Christ. This only shows the author’s desperate attempt to mislead since we are not under the Law of Moses. The Jews had over 600 laws they had to keep under the old law. I did not delve into this part of the article since it is not relevant.
Howdy
| #
Hi Mark,
“There are differences in language syntax so that there are slight variations in certain narratives. None of this is a contradiction and more importantly has no effect on the primary message of the Bible, the good news of the Gospel for eternal salvation.”
Not applicable.
“The 2nd case is of a believer that defiles himself by committing adultery.”
The passage states unmarried and widows, not adultery.
This is what the article is all about.
As stated, you have missed the entire point of it.
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Howdy and here are the two passages from the article: 1st Corinthians 7:12-14 :
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
Here is the comparison verse used by the articles author: 1 Corinthians 6:14-17:
By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[a] 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
The two verses are discussing an entirely different subject.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Hi Mark,
For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”
This is reference to taking a prostitute as a wife, not adultery with a prostitute while having an existing wife. As in:
Genesis 2:24
“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”
Mark Tapley
| #
Howdy I have quoted the two verses and shown that they are referring to two different subjects. In your last statement you are purposely conflating the holy union of husband and wife with the iniquity of uniting with a prostitute. The first verse refers to one that is married to someone that is not a Christian. It is that simple. In the second verse Paul says “should I take members of the body of Christ and unite them with a prostitute, NEVER. Do you not know that one that unites with a prostitute becomes one with her body.” Here Apostle Paul is comparing those who are in the body of Christ with those who defile themselves with a prostitute. You are again being as ridiculous as you were yesterday about the parable of the rich man.
Reply
Howdy
| #
I gave you my own example of the inconsistency of the Bible using the words of God himself, yet of course I’m wrong, as is any other person on Earth who disagrees with your particular view of what the text means, which is what I’ve been going on about. Where is the humility you claim you must have as part of your belief?
Ephesians 4:2
With all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love
Proverbs 11:2
When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom
I’m ridiculous am I? Then I leave you with the following:
James 1:3
For you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.
James 1:2
Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds
How do you think you did….
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Howdy:
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Howdy:
I did not express “my particular view” but merely linked the verses in question. All of them are self evident and there were no contradictions. Not yesterday with the parable and neither today with Paul’s teachings to the Church at Corinth.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Howdy:
You misunderstand the scripture. In Matt 13:10 Jesus here is referring to those who because of their arrogance refuse to accept his gospel, a judgment for unbelief. The verse is really self explanatory and has nothing to do with undisclosed information to the Apostles. This passage is a reference back to Isaiah 6:9-10 in which the prophet Isaiah addresses the Jews immorality and also references the the coming Messiah and the remnant of Jews who would join Gentiles in the kingdom.
Stonehenge even though using original stones has been repositioned and rebuilt to simulate what was originally found at the site. It has undergone extensive adaptations. As in your case, most people are not aware of how extensive has been the reconstruction of these stones.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Hi Mark,
“You misunderstand the scripture.”
Nobody understands scripture. That’s why it is riddles.
Nothing to do with jews, It explains the reason the Bible is interpreted text:
“Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.”
It’s that simple. In the eye of the beholder, as I said earlier. Neither of us knows what it really means, nor will we until we are ‘worthy’. It is a statement from Christ of our lowliness. In my view of course.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hi Howdy:
As I stated, the verse in question is really self explanatory, as Jesus even refers back to the prophet Isaiah, which gives additional verification. Although the syntax of Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek results in different writing styles, most of scripture is clearly discernible. Particularly as to what God’s plan is and what we are required to do as to the Gospel. The book of Acts is a good example. I am partial to the King James Version because I think it gives the most eloquent reading.
All of the Old Testament deals with what eventually we refer to as the Jews. The first five Books (Tora) being written by Moses. The rest of the Old Testament deals with the Law of Moses (which only applied to the Jews) and to their history up until Roman times. The Earthly lineage of Christ was brought though this group and they were God’s chosen people during the Old Testament days of the Law of Moses. This has all been done away with (read Hebrews) as was prophesied all the way back to Genesis and now all mankind are under the New Law of Christ as the old law was nailed to the cross. As a side note, the present day Jews (over 90% Khazars, Turkic-Asiatic) have no connection to the Biblical Jews and are not even semitic as they have no connection to the scion Abraham.
Reply
Howdy
| #
“As in your case, most people are not aware of how extensive has been the reconstruction of these stones.”
I read the article again you posted about the stonehenge works. I see nothing done there other than standard restoration, and measures to prevent collapse onto the public using concrete support. This does not detract from the value, but rather adds to it since further ruin is abated.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Howdy is trying to divert your and my attention away from the scholarly activity which is termed SCIENCE and its achievements.
However, I believe that most of you, without much experience directly with science, come to PSI to learn about this controversial thing we (humans) term SCIENCE. Galileo knew, when he pointed to his observations which proved that the Earth could not Standstill, what would happen. As did Copernicus nearly a century earlier. But Copernicus did not have the courage to make his ideas publicly known until he was convinced he would Naturally Die soon. But Galileo, we know, had the courage to not only tell the Italian community how the earth could not standstill and those of other nations who could read Italian, but then to write another book which he had been forbidden to write.
Now Howdy is trying to silence me and make you and I forget Galileo’s achievements. But I am not going to allow him to have the last word because I know this history.
He just wrote: “Told you more than once all\ready. I’m not a scientist, and galileo is in the distant past. Change the music for Heaven’s sake.”
Relative to this ‘quote’, I quote Newton: “A man may imagine thing that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the thing is false, the apprehension of them is not understanding.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Andy and PSI Readers,
Andy, May 23, 2022 at 4:29 pm I don’ like short lines.
You wrote about your friend Mike Parker-Pearson and here is a link (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/science/stonehenge-archaeology-wales-parker-pearson.html) about what I guess might be about his latest research and ideas for PSI Readers to consider in more detail. And if one has any interest in learning about Stonehenge I recommend one begins with the 1956 book, STONEHENGE, by R. J. C. Atkinson.
I refer to this article about your friend and his ideas so you and readers can read how any SCIENTIFIC purpose for the 58 holes, ditch, and bank are being generally ignored. And there is no mention of the Hell Stone and the Slaughter Stem (21ft long,7 ft wide, 3ft thick) which I consider could have been too heavy to a move an inch at that earlier time. To say nothing about standing it upright.
I consider that the Heel Stone and the Slaughter stones were erratic boulders moved to their present positions by a historical glacier.
I write this comment because I believe one should always start at the beginning of a HISTORY and not forget IN THE BEGINNING.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply