Daheshville Forums  

Go Back   Daheshville Forums > Daheshville U.S.A. > Library > Separating Myth from Reality

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-23-2008, 07:06 PM
Mario's Avatar
Mario Mario est déconnecté
Board of Directors Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WingedPaladin View Post
I appreciate your comments, explanations and openness - even if it is to a point. .
You are welcome, now, I will ask you to never again post anything by Michel and I will expect you to honor my request.
__________________
"Fail, to succeed."
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-23-2008, 07:08 PM
WingedPaladin WingedPaladin est déconnecté
Auditing (Read Only) Member as of 09/06/09
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 241
Default

http://www.christiananswers.net/dict...erofjesus.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary,_mother_of_Jesus

“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].

Apparently both Mary and Joseph were of the house of David and in the royal line.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-23-2008, 07:24 PM
Mario's Avatar
Mario Mario est déconnecté
Board of Directors Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WingedPaladin View Post
http://www.christiananswers.net/dict...erofjesus.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary,_mother_of_Jesus

“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].

Apparently both Mary and Joseph were of the house of David and in the royal line.
Thank you. That's the way I like to see our precious bandwidth used. And I say "precious" not because the measly dollars it costs to own and run... I am referring to what it took to bring and maintain Daheshville... I will say no more, and as I said regarding the prior issue, I trust we have a mutual understanding.
__________________
"Fail, to succeed."
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-23-2008, 07:29 PM
WingedPaladin WingedPaladin est déconnecté
Auditing (Read Only) Member as of 09/06/09
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post
And with all due respect to those who claim only they know the truth, I don't buy it. I don't need to graduate from M.I.T. in order to appreciate what this simple, clear, and concise sentence means.
Mormonism has claimed that and continues to claim it to a degree as far as being the "only true church". Personally, I believe it is because of the Priesthood power and organization and because of the calling of prophet which the President of the church holds, not because Mormons know all there is to know about the universe. There seems to me to be, over the years, a simplification of the message to the general public in order to enhance basic understanding and temper prejudice.

Michel never makes this claim. Does Daheshism?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario
You are welcome, now, I will ask you to never again post anything by Michel and I will expect you to honor my request.
I feel I have said my peace, so I will honor your request.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-23-2008, 07:52 PM
Mario's Avatar
Mario Mario est déconnecté
Board of Directors Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WingedPaladin View Post
There seems to me to be, over the years, a simplification of the message to the general public in order to enhance basic understanding and temper prejudice.
Well, that may be in your faith or Church. In Daheshism, and this is what this thread is (really) about, it is the contrary.

In other words, I am seeing people taking what Doctor Dahesh wrote and needlessly complicating it, and splitting hairs where there is none.

I have my own theories about the matter. And anyone who takes the time and studies all that I have published since (around) October 2006, will eventually come to see the bigger picture.

In all, Brother Ali gave me the spiritual directive (as in "ordered me" ) to be a "sharp sword" and "defend" Daheshism and thus I feel that by setting the record straight as far as this matter is concerned, I am responding as expected of me.
__________________
"Fail, to succeed."
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-23-2008, 08:15 PM
WingedPaladin WingedPaladin est déconnecté
Auditing (Read Only) Member as of 09/06/09
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post
Well, that may be in your faith or Church. In Daheshism, and this is what this thread is (really) about, it is the contrary.

In other words, I am seeing people taking what Doctor Dahesh wrote and needlessly complicating it, and splitting hairs where there is none.

I have my own theories about the matter. And anyone who takes the time and studies all that I have published since (around) October 2006, will eventually come to see the bigger picture.

In all, Brother Ali gave me the spiritual directive (as in "ordered me" ) to be a "sharp sword" and "defend" Daheshism and thus I feel that by setting the record straight as far as this matter is concerned, I am responding as expected of me.
Thank you for your response. I am beginning to understand your desire to purify the message of the Dr. Dahesh and keep the message unfuddled with other outside information. It is honorable for you to defend Daheshism. Just as you are expected to defend Daheshism, it is expected of me, by covenant and commandment, to defend Mormonism.

Understand that I am not here to say Dr. Dahesh is wrong in any shape or form. On the contrary, I have been trying to bolster his message by finding outside sources that agree with him, and perhaps even clarify points where he has been vague.

What I saw was a quick judgment based on limited information. I certainly would not want to be judged that way, and I don't believe the Lord judges that way. It is human nature to do so because we are limited in time, senses, priorities, and perspectives. You have been much more respectful and tolerant of me and my postings than those of most other religions would be.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-23-2008, 08:55 PM
Mario's Avatar
Mario Mario est déconnecté
Board of Directors Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WingedPaladin View Post
Thank you for your response. I am beginning to understand your desire to purify the message of the Dr. Dahesh and keep the message unfuddled with other outside information.
Thank you. Although... (and speaking from bitter experience) certain people may jump to certain unwanted conclusions. That is why I must add that I am not purifying his — original — message.

Again, I have to say this just in case anyone out there is just dying to use "anything" against me and out of context.

You know... "Great, now Mario wants to purify Doctor Dahesh's message! " and that sort of thing.

See, not everyone can fill in the blanks... and read what you might have meant to say, which could have been: "To bring it back to its former, purer state before others polluted with their pedantic and pretentious interpretations"

Again, I said "might have meant" ...

So, how about we say that I am merely pointing out, and dealing with, what I deem to be misinterpretations of his writings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WingedPaladin View Post
You have been much more respectful and tolerant of me and my postings than those of most other religions would be.
Thank you. That is very kind of you to say. In our way, we are doing our best to emulate Doctor Dahesh's example.
__________________
"Fail, to succeed."
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-24-2008, 05:17 AM
WingedPaladin WingedPaladin est déconnecté
Auditing (Read Only) Member as of 09/06/09
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 241
Default

Yes, that is what I meant to say - to keep pure, not "purify". Thank you for clarifying.

I think I should clarify a point I made as well:

Quote:
Originally Posted by WingedPaladin
Just as you are expected to defend Daheshism, it is expected of me, by covenant and commandment, to defend Mormonism.
The actual covenant is to "sustain and defend the Kingdom of God". Of course, to LDS, that is interpreted to mean the church itself and its leaders, past and present. However, if Dr. Dahesh is indeed sent by God as he claims to be, is he not then of God's Kingdom? If he be of the Kingdom of God, then wouldn't it also be my duty to defend and sustain him?

The matter resides then in the identification of who and what God does indeed recognize as His own.


Interpretation is a whole nother ball of wax. (<-This sentence could be interpreted either literally or figuratively. It is, by the way, figurative.)
The founders of all religions have come, taught, and gone. Once they are gone, their followers can no longer ask questions directly, but must rely on their own ideas of what the founder had meant by what they said. So, continuous and clear revelation and continuous true succession is important to keeping children of God from falling into error. Because we are humans with thoughts, emotions, opinions, and various but limited experiences and learning opportunities, everything we observe, read, think about, study, etc. is subject to individual bias and interpretation. Since we are in this dense world in limited physical bodies, it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to consciously understand with perfect clarity all that God desires to teach us.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9)

It is, however, for us to do our best with what we have been given.

Last edited by WingedPaladin; 12-24-2008 at 06:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-24-2008, 04:07 PM
Loup Solitaire's Avatar
Loup Solitaire Loup Solitaire est déconnecté
Board of Directors Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Ellicott City, MD USA
Posts: 766
Default Thanks both!

I stumbled across the following which I can't contradict.

"As Matthew continues to follow the line from David to Christ, Matthew traces the lineage through Jesus' earthly father, Joseph. This, too, indicates that Matthew is writing to the Jewish people. During first century times, if a Jewish man adopted a son, that son receives the father's lineage. Therefore, according to Jewish tradition, Jesus would be given the genealogy of his adopted father."

Quoted from: http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org.../genealogy.htm
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-25-2008, 08:12 AM
Mario's Avatar
Mario Mario est déconnecté
Board of Directors Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,560
Default I'll give you a Riddle!

All I know is that we were this close to getting rid of "DTE" once and for all... which is why (in the first place) I decided to reveal what The Doctor said. And if you closely analyze my first post on August 24, 2006, I never said "Sexual Contact." I merely said that in order to enter this "dimension" (we call Earth) we must be "created" via the joining of sperm and egg.

For all we know, it might well have been some sort of "artificial insemination" — and this would have been in keeping with what the Doctor had also said to my brother and I on that eventful day circa 1983: that science had not yet discovered the hidden physical power that women possessed — that a woman didn't need a man to make a baby.

But a year later, I read (or re-read) page 86 and saw that passage I translated for you.

" And what beckons deep thought are these fairy tales in which all the people of Earth were carried away, and especially the Christians who are connected to me, is in that they say that I was born from the Virgin Mary, meaning that I sprang from the Holy Spirit, for what merit would I have — if only they realize — if I was born by a spiritual power and by a Heavenly Miracle, for then I would be enjoying a Godly Power that would protect me from committing lowly acts, and places me over humans, and eliminate from me the aspect of being human, and then there wouldn't be any merit in my being correct and honest [...] and for calling towards... righteousness and to be steadfast in religion and fearing the last day.

"And merit, all the merit would be mine if I was born from two parents and upon me was applied what would apply to every human being, only then would I have all the merit ... that is if I was able to overcome my earthly temptations... and called for righteousness... after I was able to practice (it) myself and made it bow to my will
, without negligence overwhelming me or weakness that makes me fall on my face before the temptations of Earth. And that is what makes me wonder about the weak-mindedness of the millions who the truth missed, so they believed the hoax and abandoned the true fact which they were obligated not to forsake."

I don't know about you, but when the Doctor associates the notion of being born from a Virgin as a fairy tale (among many) and clearly puts the notion of being born by the Holy Spirit and a heavenly Miracle in the same category as a hoax... what is he saying?

A Daheshist has to be in a really deep state of denial to miss the obvious here...

I am sorry to keep flashing this portion. But if my esteemed Daheshists brothers and sisters would not mind paying attention to the last part, they will clearly see that we (the Daheshists) are "OBLIGATED" to not forsake this "true fact."

And, incidentally, the only place where the phrase "Virgin Mary" appears anywhere in the original "Memoirs of Jesus the Nazarene" is on the back cover.

That book was published before "Strange Tales and Wondrous Legends, Part III"

Years later, the English translation of "Memoirs of Jesus the Nazarene" (erroneously called "Jesus of Nazareth") the back cover no longer referred to the mother of Jesus as "the Virgin Mary."

This time, it was merely "Mary."

And what really beckons deep thought here, is knowing that the same people who are seemingly going to great lengths to show that they are protecting the Image of Jesus Christ, had no problem publishing right in the open the real reason (as per Daheshist belief) why (the real, the human) Jesus Christ was not crucified.

In other words, the same people who sent me the message that I was crazy, and that Daheshville was evil, and that anyone (especially the Christians) who enter Daheshville would have their spiritual fluids degenerate, would have no problem publishing indiscriminately one of Daheshism's most sacred secret. A secret that is arguably designed to test the faith of every Christian on Earth!

Now, that is one riddle none of us will ever solve...
__________________
"Fail, to succeed."

Last edited by Mario; 12-25-2008 at 08:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2006 - 2017 by StudioView Interactive, LLC.