Drug Dealing and the Bible
- Thread starter Nazaroo
- Start date
Selaphiel
Well-known member
I'm sure that is why both those diseases are extinct in the rich parts of the world where we vaccinate, while they are still alive and well in the third world where the same vaccinations do not exist or are in scarce supply. It must be a coincidence!
You do not impress me by linking fanatical websites with no scientific integrity or reputation. Probably a faulty vaccine in that Polio case, something like 99.999% of people vaccinated for Polio do not get the disease, so basically you want to argue that the 0.001% is the important number here. But by all means, abstain from the vaccines all you want, that just leaves more for people who appreciate the luxury of modern day medicine.
Not to mention the insanity of comparing modern day medicine to the word "pharmakeia" as it is used by NT writers. For Paul and John, pharmakeia is the means of using "magic" or "sorcery" as a way of coping with diseases or to use it as stimulants. Medicine is hardly sorcery or ritual based, it is based on the physical reality and observation. To argue that alcohol is evil is also incorrect. Abuse of alcohol most certainly is, but to say that drinking wine is a sin is not biblical. Jesus almost certainly drank wine, simply because that is what they used to drink.
Nazaroo
New member
The whole point of Malthus and modern ethnic murder is to kill non-whites. Of course that means that "medicine" shipped to the third world is worthless, and actually kills people.
Its no coincidence.
Malthus and the European Elite plan to kill Blacks and Asians:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12276a.htm <--- On Malthus
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/malthus.html <--- Malthus' influence on Darwin
Actually most of the links were to online medical journals. Don't be an ***.
Your elitism raises its ugly head. Didn't have to scratch very far below the surface on your motives did we?
Wrong again.
As early as the 2nd century, early Christian writers were using "pharmakeia" in the normal sense, referring to DRUG PEDDLING. They were mainly concerned with the use of drugs to deliberately cause spontaneous abortions, as the Didaskalia and the Apostolic Constitutions make abundantly clear.
The fathers understood "pharmakeia" to mean drug dealing, and specifically condemned (big surprise) crude contraceptives.
It was only in the later Middle Ages that monks confused (or wilfully obscured) the meaning of "pharmakeia", as 'sorcery'.
Actually, modern medicine is a cult, or rather two cults: 90% of modern doctors believe in either (a) drugs, or (b) the knife. Both are false gods, and amount to modern idolatry and denial of the God of the Bible.
Jesus was a Nazarite, like his predecessor John the Baptist. The Nazarite Vow is found in Numbers chapter 6, and DEFINES holiness for all Jews. The later Gentile Christians (Romans) obscured the plain references, because they sold out and the Church became the largest drug dealer in Europe, manufacturing and distributing Roman wine.
Alcohol is an industrial solvent, and a poison. It is not a food at all, but takes energy to remove from the body and consumes resources and kills healthy cells.
Drinking alcohol is an unhealthy, twisted practice that plainly causes more damage and misery in Western society than any other drug.
Ask any chemist, doctor, or policeman. Only an idiot would think otherwise.
peace
Nazaroo
Last edited:
Selaphiel
Well-known member
Your first point does nothing to question the effect of the "real medicine", all you are doing are pulling in some conspiracy plots. If they are trying to kill people in Africa with vaccines, they are doing an awfully poor job.
This report about vaccines against pneumococcal diseases seems to report that lives were saved:
"Results of the trial indicated that in the group of children who received pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, there were:
37% fewer cases of pneumonia (as confirmed by chest X-ray);
15% fewer hospital admissions
16% reduction in overall mortality; and
half the rate of laboratory-confirmed pneumococcal pneumonia, meningitis and septicaemia.
Moreover, the vaccine was 77% effective in preventing infections caused by nine serotypes (strains) of pneumococcal bacteria whose sugar capsules make up the vaccine.
In sum, in this rural African setting, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine was shown in this trial to be highly effective against pneumonia and invasive pneumococcal disease and it can substantially reduce admissions and improve child survival." (Source: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2005/s03/en/index.html)
Your comment on some 2nd century meaning of the word pharmakeia is meaningless. Paul and John wrote their books in around 55-95AD, that is not 2nd century. The words of the writings must be understood in their own historical context. When Paul uses the word pharmakeia, he means sorcery or magic based rituals which invokes spiritual power to cure diseases or other pathologies.
You claim that medicine is a cult who believes in the false gods of surgery and medicine. There is no substance to this argument, there is no religious character in either surgery or modern drug treatment (unlike the days of Paul writings). Modern medicine is a handiwork. To claim they worship false gods makes about as much as sense as saying that car repair men worship the false gods of the wrench and oil.
Modern drug treatment (drugs tested in scientific trials of the highest standard) and surgery are used for one simple reason, they work.
First of all, alcohol is a natural occuring phenomena and no one claims that it is food. The question is, is it a sin according to the Bible? And the answer is no:
Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart (Ecclesiastes 9:7).
He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and vegetation for the service of man, that he may bring forth food from the earth. And wine that makes glad the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread which strengthens man's heart (Psalm 104:14, 15).
And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household (Deuteronomy 14:26).
I will bring back the captives of My people Israel; they shall build the waste cities and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them; they shall also make gardens and eat fruit from them" (Amos 9:14).
Ho! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price (Isaiah 55:1).
How fair is your love, my sister, my spouse! How much better than wine is your love, and the scent of your perfumes (Song of Solomon 4:10).
Not to mention the use of wine imagery in the parables of Jesus Christ. According to the Bible, wine is the gift of God.
Abuse of alcohol on the other hand is a sin, and it is abuse of alcohol that causes problems, not normal consumption.
Tyrathca
New member
No I'm just someone who has studied medicine and been taught about immunology and autoimmune diseases.
A companies press release talking about Gulf War syndrome where they have a direct financial incentive to promote the link due ot tests they could make for the government. Not only that it is refering to contaminated vaccines only.
A news article that doesn't well describe the ACTUAL findings rather merely the interpretations of data. No way to tell if the interpretation of the data is justified or the method it used to gathert his data was accurate.
Doesn't even mention vaccines..... Brilliant research there.
"The available evidence derived from several negative epidemiological studies is reassuring and at least indicates that vaccines are not a major cause of autoimmune diseases." and that vaccines do not result in an "overall increase in the disease incidence". At best it says that vaccines very rarely causing autoimmune disease in a very small at risk population can not be definitively ruled out.
Exact same research abstract as the one above.... did you even READ these?
Well I only said vaccines but anyway....
[/QUOTE] Interesting article but speculative only (I may read it in more depth later due to interests sake), definitely not useful evidence though.
Makes links between psychiatric conditions and autoimmune disease (unreferenced and tenuous at best) and then makes a further (unreferenced and tenuous) link between autoimmunity and drugs (amoung other things).
One researcher says there is a possible link between narcolepsy and autoimmunity, and that more research is needed. Did not see any reference to drug use causing this in my skim read.
Sooooo.... You only directly referenced one journal article and that did not support your case. All the others were news articles about research or non-peer reviewed commentaries on research in the field. Great work there.........
Nazaroo
New member
Since the whole issue rests on the question of TRANSLATION, both of "pharmakeia" and also "oinos", parroting the very English translations that are under suspicion proves absolutely zilch and is acting like a moron.
Stop being a dunce.
And thanks for admitting that in fact the links I posted WERE reputable medical and scientific journals, contrary to your previous post in which you hadn't even looked at them but decided to mislead others anyway:
I guess that makes you a repentant liar, as well as an unscientific buffoon. I hope you never graduate in your medical studies. The last thing we need is another dishonest doctor.
peace
Nazaroo
Nazaroo
New member
Your concern is to defend "modern medicine".
My concern is to condemn both illegal and legal drug dealing, and show that the Bible is aware of this abominable crime, and condemns it thoroughly.
The fact that within a hundred years of Jesus' and Paul's time, Christian writers and bishops used and understood "pharmakeia" to mean DRUG DEALING is apparently not enough evidence for you as to the obvious meaning of the Greek word.
But you have NO counter-references to show the word ever meant anything else in Jesus' time or in the 400 years following.
And second, you'll have to present a history of the CHANGE in meaning of the word, and explain just how the entire early Church was misled on its meaning for about 800 years, only to have the meaning changed back to "sorcery" in the Middle Ages and Reformation times.
The problem is, THERE IS NO SUCH HISTORY OF THE CHANGE IN MEANING OF THE WORD.
The Greek word "pharmakeia" has always meant drug dealing, even from Homeric times.
Good luck pedalling your imaginary history of the Greek language.
But why are you bothering to derail my thread on DRUG DEALERS, if you have no interest in the main topic?
If your concern is the legitimacy of "modern" medicine, why not just start a thread on that, and see who is interested?
If you want to post here, lets talk about DRUG DEALERS, and why they are going to HELL.
peace
Nazaroo
Last edited:
Tyrathca
New member
Ummm no.... What planet are you on? Only two of the links were to a journal article (and they were to the SAME article, just through different sites, which indicates you didn't even read them). And that one article was a literature review which did not support your case in the way you claimed.
Oh how nice of you to say... But why do you think I am dishonest? I acurately critiqued your "research" and found it lacking. Were any of my colleages to have given me research sourced so poorly (regardless of what they were arguing) they would have deserved to be criticised. You want to play with the big boys in research put in the effort and do it right, which preferably means cite the article directly and not some non-peer reviewed piece and make them wade through text to get the references (if what you linked even properly references itself, which some of those links did not).
I care about studies with large populations and statistically (and clinically) significant results. What is not adequate are studies that are too small to say anything other than "more research needed" or from whom unjustified explanations are drawn. This is all basic evidence based medicine, you show me the evidence and I'll change my mind. I have no vested interest, what would I have to gain in perpetuating a deception concerning vaccines?
Nazaroo
New member
Again you just continue to ignore what this thread is all about and miss the main point.
I'm not concerned at the moment to condemn modern medicine, although I gladly would, for all of its corruption and the misery that it has caused.
We are here to talk about DRUG DEALERS and their fate, whether illegal, such as those who run cocaine (namely the CIA and cartels) or those who run heroin (namely the American Govt. in Afganistan), or, LEGAL drug dealers, such as the major German pharmaceutical companies, who have murdered millions.
If you have anything useful to contribute, please do so.
If you want to debate the pros and cons of modern medicine (quackery) start another thread, and get out of this one.
If you want to debate the effectiveness of vaccines, versus the irrepairable harm they do, again, start a new thread. I have no doubt at all that those who violently promote (force) vaccinations upon an unwilling and ignorant populace are indeed going to hell.
I also have no doubt that a large number of greedy materialistic doctors who perform needless operations and prescribe poisonous drugs will also be going to hell.
But that is another thread for another day.
peace
Nazaroo
Nazaroo
New member
My first post still stands:
Drug Dealers In the Bible? Where?
Drug dealing is treated gravely and severely condemned in the New Testament: 5 times.
(Gal.5:20, Rev.9:21, 18:23, 21:8, 22:15, original Greek)
Paul Spoke out against Drug Dealing:
See you in hell, you murderers, unless you repent and believe in the Gospel of Jesus the Christ.
Drug Dealers In the Bible? Where?
Drug dealing is treated gravely and severely condemned in the New Testament: 5 times.
(Gal.5:20, Rev.9:21, 18:23, 21:8, 22:15, original Greek)
Paul Spoke out against Drug Dealing:
Gal 5:20 "Now the works of the flesh are OBVIOUS: sexual immorality, uncleanness, ... DRUG DEALING ( pharmakeia )...and things like these I am warning you, THOSE WHO DO THEM WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD!"
John also Speaks out against Drugs:
Rev. 9:21 "Nor did they even repent of their murders or their DRUG DEALING (ton pharmakon) or their sexual immorality or their robbery."
Rev 22:15 "OUTSIDE (heaven) are the dogs and the DRUG DEALERS (hoi pharmakoi), and everyone who practises falsehood."
Rev 18:23 Babylon the Great City has fallen...All nations were deceived by your DRUG DEALING (en te pharmakeia)"
Rev 21:8 "But as for the ...DRUG DEALERS (pharmakois) their place will be in the Lake of Fire, which is the Second Death!"
Rev 22:15 "OUTSIDE (heaven) are the dogs and the DRUG DEALERS (hoi pharmakoi), and everyone who practises falsehood."
Rev 18:23 Babylon the Great City has fallen...All nations were deceived by your DRUG DEALING (en te pharmakeia)"
Rev 21:8 "But as for the ...DRUG DEALERS (pharmakois) their place will be in the Lake of Fire, which is the Second Death!"
See you in hell, you murderers, unless you repent and believe in the Gospel of Jesus the Christ.
Nazaroo
New member
Swine Flu Hoax of 1976 costs over 3 Billion dollars in lawsuits and medical damage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83YNxxnxiIA&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83YNxxnxiIA&feature=channel
Selaphiel
Well-known member
Well, let us check the Hebrew then.
Ecclesiastes 9:7, Psalms 104:15 and Amos 9:14 : Word used for wine in those passages is yayin, the same word used for what Noah drank. Ergo, it is alcoholic wine.
Deuteronomy 14:26: The word used for drink here is shekar, which means strong intoxicating drink.
There is no doubt that alcohol is legitimate according to the word of God.
You are confusing abuse of alcohol with drinking alcohol in a responsible way. To support your claim you twist scripture to fit an unbiblical view on wine and other alcoholic drinks.
If you do not want to drink it that is fine, but claiming people are going to hell for it is false.
Your claim for knowing Koine Greek is kind of destroyed by anyone who can use a dictionary.
Pharmakoia has the following translation options according to the Bibleworks dictionary:
5331 farmakei,a pharmakeia {far-mak-i'-ah}
Meaning: 1) the use or the administering of drugs 2) poisoning 3) sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it 4) metaph. the deceptions and seductions of idolatry
Origin: from 5332;; n f
Usage: AV - sorcery 2, witchcraft 1; 3
The contextual use of the word is as it says under usage: Sorcery or witchcraft. So while it can mean administering of drugs, that is not what the authors intended to say. In other words, it is meaning 3 and 4 that are relevant to the passages you list.
And you keep calling people morons. Maybe you should watch yourself instead of condemning others: Matthew 5:22
Nazaroo
New member
I'm glad you are making an effort at this. But your analysis is sloppy, incomplete, and error-ridden.
You correctly make note that there are two (actually about 8) different Hebrew words that have been incorrectly translated with the same word "wine".
Which is only further evidence of the incompetance of translators.
You observe that "yayin" can clearly refer to intoxicating drugs like alcoholic beverages fermented from grapes and other fruit (wines), grains (beers and ales) and even concentrated man-made drugs (such as brandy and hard liquor).
Then you make an assertion about the second word, "shekar", with no support whatsoever, as if they were synonyms. In the 21st century, after hundreds of years of debate on this subject, you ought to have done better than this tripe.
Alcohol is not mentioned in the Bible, because modern chemistry and recent knowledge has only just identified this chemical byproduct as the waste produced by moulds and yeasts.
The Bible mentions early fruit drinks and products which may or may not contain alcohol, but that cannot be determined from the Biblical text, except indirectly in specific instances from the effects of some concoctions on human beings (detrimental effects like intoxication).
There is no "responsible" way to consume a known and scientifically identified toxin which has no nutritional value and is detrimental in any quantity to all higher biological organisms.
If you are making a claim that modern alcoholic "wines" have some medicinal value, then you have already lost the argument, because any medicinal value as a result of remaining nutrients in "wine" can be had WITHOUT fermentation and WITHOUT alcohol as an ingredient.
To put it bluntly, just because alcohol doesn't completely destroy all the nutrients in grape-juice, does not in any way support the claim that the alcohol in "wine" has any benefit to humans.
Using that logic, we could mix pig excrement with our food, and because this doesn't completely destroy its nutritional value, we could claim that pig excrement was beneficial to eat.
By the way, if the Word of God, or the Koran, or any religious writing contradicted scientific fact, it would not be of value except as toilet-paper.
No. I hold a scientific view on the ingredient alcohol, which is a well-known and long-studied chemical compound currently destroying Western civilization because of false and dangerous doctrines like the one you are promoting.
According to the Prophets in the Old Testament, those who not only commit sin, but teach others to do so, will die.
Using a dictionary does NOT make you any kind of expert, as this proves:
This is a legitimate listing for the dictionary, but it has no authority at all, except to point to the fact that MODERN translations, in this case even those of the Reformation such as the King James and Douay/Rheims, have offered this INTERPRETATION of the underlying Greek, which is in fact WRONG.
There is no earlier support for such a rendering or translation. The first translation of "Pharmakeia" as "sorcery" was done around 1550 A.D., at a time when Europe was buried in superstition and ignorance, and they burnt women at the stake as witches.
You admit that the primary meaning (#1) of your dictionary gives DRUG DEALING, but then you claim that the "authors", in this case presumably the NT writers meant "sorcery".
You have no evidence for this whatsoever. Your claim is an empty tissue, unsupported by any historical evidence predating Martin Luther and his ignorant followers.
Matthew was the last gospel written, by committee in an attempt to unite Jewish and Gentile Christians, and heal over the controversy and rift between them, by blending and harmonizing the teaching of Paul and Luke/Acts with that of James and Peter.
That is why there are about a dozen insertions from the Letter of James into the Sermon on the Mount, which was taken from Luke originally, and has had the whole 'social gospel' aspect of the speech conveniently removed for rich people.
Enjoy Matthew. I'll stick with Luke, which is more authentic.
peace
Nazaroo
Nazaroo
New member
You can always repent, and be willing to humbly learn something new.
Perhaps you can avoid hell. Ezekiel taught that as long as a man was still breathing, there was hope in repentance.
peace
Nazaroo
Selaphiel
Well-known member
Shekar does indeed mean strong drink, strong wine or any form of strong fermented drink which have an intoxicating effect. The main difference between yayin and shekar seems to be that shekar is stronger in terms of alcohol content.
<07941> (shekar) (1016b)
Meaning: intoxicating drink, strong drink
Origin: from 7937
Usage: drunkards*(1), liquor(1), strong drink(21)
I think they had excellent knowledge about fermentation. Maybe not on the chemical level, but they probably understood that fermentation in one way or another altered the substance of the drink and caused intoxication if one over-indulged in it.
Alcohol is healthy? I've made no such claim. But drinking alcohol in a responsible manner is not very dangerous. Alcohol in drinks do serve a purpose though, the taste of wine and beer are largely determined by alcohol, in that way it serves as an aromatic compound.
To put it bluntly, just because alcohol doesn't completely destroy all the nutrients in grape-juice, does not in any way support the claim that the alcohol in "wine" has any benefit to humans.
If you find that pig excrement improves your food, be my guest. Other than that excrement is dangerous in pretty much any amount due to the bacteria found in it. Even the smallest bit of excrement will make you severly sick, a glass of wine or a beer will not.
Maybe. But once you are claiming condemnation for those who do consume alcohol it becomes relevant, because condemnation is a theological and thus a scriptural issue.
Promoting a realistic view on alcohol which focuses on respecting its intoxicating effects are far better than prohibiting it. There have been quite a few attempts at doing so, the only thing accomplished by that dangerous home brewing of strong spirits and forcing the entire business of alcohol into the criminal world.
You make me sound like a binge drinker who says that a bottle of whisky a day will do no harm. That is not what I am saying. I have maybe the equivelant of one glass of wine or beer a month.
Do you even know what Bibleworks is? It is probably the dominating exegetical tool used by Bible academics all over the world. The dictionaries in that program is a serious one, the program has about 50 different translations of the Bible + both Hebrew and Greek (multiple Greek manuscripts) texts. The translations in the dictionary and word analysis of Bibleworks has nothing to do with the reformation.
When the dictionary lists "Usage" it is the probable meaning given the historical and social context of the text.
The primary meaning and the usage in a given context do not need to be the same. The way the dictionary works is giving the context usage under "Usage", meanings is simply a list of what the word CAN mean.
No serious Bible scholar would place Matthew after John. Matthew is gospel probably originating from a didache following Christian community. It was written pretty much at the same time as Luke.
To claim that Sermon of the mount was taken from Luke is not something you can claim without providing some very impressive arguments. The dominating hypothesis on synoptic relations in the academic world is still the the two source hypothesis which provides Mark/Q as sources for Luke and Matthew and Matthew and Luke have nothing to do with each other.
That being said, I do not understand why you think I prefer Matthew? Because I listed one verse? I actually prefer Luke myself, it is the one I like the most and it is also the one I studied the most in an academic setting.
Tyrathca
New member
You brought it up and I responded to that post. If you don't want to talk about this then don't say things like this.... (underline mine for emphasis)
So long as you keep making claims about the pros and cons of modern medicine I will keep responding to them. Don't like it? Tough. Stop making stupid claims for me to refute and you wont have a problem.
Again you are the one who brought up the cons of vaccines so I fail to see why I should be to blame for thread derailing when I merely criticise these comments. Either stick to purely biblical claims or put up with me disputing your scientific claims.
And you have basically accussed me of being (or going to be) a dishonest doctor in a previous post, so again don't blame me for taking offence and responding.
It's quite simple really, don't bring up the topic and I won't either. But so long as you derail your own thread with baseless claims about the scientific merit and safety about medicine and vaccines I'll keep rebutting you and help the derailment along. Stick to the bible only and I'll lose interest.
Tyrathca
New member
In your opinion would repentance require him to stop providing those drugs? Wouldn't that break the commandment "thou shalt not kill"?