Jesus only son?
Angel - Inner Quest
Father and Sons
Every child naturally idolizes his father. Weak and almost totally
helpless, innocent, ignorant and still untrained in the ways of the
world, he holds on tight for dear life, for protection, for guidance.
Gradually, but eventually however, with age and experience, he will in
time learn to fend for himself and live a life of his own.
God being Spirit created us spirits, in His image and likeness,
endowing us with eternal life and with every potentiality to be like
Him. Created innocent and ignorant, we are to develop to full maturity
and perfection through our own personal strivings and individual
merit. In the fullness of our development, as the Father is, so too
will His children be.
Yet, the teachers of religion would deny us our birthright. They
insist that we are mortal human beings with souls and bodies. We are
worldly. We cannot be a god. Such a Hindu teaching as Pantheism or the
existence of many gods is heretic, blasphemous and anti-Christ. Only
God is God. And yet in the very same breath, they teach that God is
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - Three in One. They are
right and they are wrong.
Yes, we are mortals because our bodies die. Yes, we are foolish and
ignorant, yet so prideful, selfish and immature, devilish, even. But
this is only because we are still children spirits. Just as there are
all sorts of human beings on Earth, there are also all kinds of
spirits in the Spirit World - elementals and nature spirits, ignorant
and evil spirits, playful and mischievous spirits, foolish and
pretentious spirits, developing spirits, scientific spirits, good-
hearted but not so knowledgeable spirits, wise and high spirits who
exemplify ethics and wisdom in the best sense imaginable in the world
and those spirits who have attained to spiritual perfection after
countless incarnations known to some as the Spirits of Truth and Light
and to many Christians collectively as the Holy Spirit. Because we on
Earth are still in our childhood, it is only natural for us to feel so
inadequate - so human.
But Jesus affirms, "Isn't it written in your Scriptures, 'You are
gods,'" but better, we are gods-in-the-making. "Those who do the will
of my Father in Heaven are as my mother, my brothers and sisters. All
that I have done, you too can do. You must be perfect as the Father in
Heaven is perfect. I and the Father are One."
So yes, we can never be the One True God of all. The created cannot
become equal to its Creator. But we can be more like Him. Given the
knowledge, we can be more in tune with His divine will. And in time,
we also can be at-one with Him.
Now choose. Which are the Higher Teachings and who should you believe
more - the teachers of your religion or Jesus the Christ, our brother?
Chuck Stamford
"Angel - Inner Quest" <l...@nerdshack.com> wrote in message
news:1173142961.6...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Jesus for sure. And He, through His servants Peter and Paul, warned us
about people like you.
Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up
your pure minds by way of reminder),
2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy
prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior,
3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking
according to their own lusts,
2 Peter 3:1-3 (NKJV)
1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come:
2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud,
blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers
of good,
4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of
God,
5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people
turn away!
6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of
gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts,
7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
2 Tim 3:1-7 (NKJV)
There are all kinds of spirits. One kind wants to be just like God, as
you're suggesting we all strive to be:
How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are
cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!
13 For you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt
my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the
congregation On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most
High.'
15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, To the lowest depths of the Pit.
Isaiah 14:12-15 (NKJV)
Take your false gospel which has no power to save with you when you return
to the darkness that has spawned you.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea
to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son
of hell as yourselves.
Matt 23:15 (NKJV)
Chuck Stamford
>
Mark T
> 2 Peter 3:1-3 (NKJV)
You've just quoted a fraud!
This was written 100 -160 CE and NOT by Peter the apostle who was dead at
the time!
> 2 Tim 3:1-7 (NKJV)
Likewise this is a fraud!
This was written 100 -150 CE and NOT by Paul who was dead at the time.
Do you think frauds are the "word of God"?????
I'll always see you as mentally and spiritually retarded.
One seldom (thank God!) stumbles across such a startling example of
retarded mental and spiritual development than widdle Chucky.
Widdle Chucky can't reply to me because his wife thinks that I will corrupt
him ... and I will!
Fundamentalists - the anus of the Body of Christ.
--
My Blog - - my thoughts on Christianity/ song covers & pics & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
Gordon Hudson
"Mark T" <moi@home0975946976658258758756> wrote in message
news:45ee...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "widdle Chucky Stamford" <shell__...@cox.net> wroteth:
>
>> 2 Peter 3:1-3 (NKJV)
>
> You've just quoted a fraud!
>
> This was written 100 -160 CE and NOT by Peter the apostle who was dead at
> the time!
>
>
>> 2 Tim 3:1-7 (NKJV)
>
> Likewise this is a fraud!
>
> This was written 100 -150 CE and NOT by Paul who was dead at the time.
Prove it.
And if you can prove that date explain why what it says does not matter.
^^^ Sword of Gideon
"Gordon Hudson" <host...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:45eeb639$0$760$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
>
> "Mark T" <moi@home0975946976658258758756> wrote in message
> news:45ee...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>>> 2 Peter 3:1-3 (NKJV)
>>
>> You've just quoted a fraud!
>>
>> This was written 100 -160 CE and NOT by Peter the apostle who was dead at
>> the time!
>>
>>
>>> 2 Tim 3:1-7 (NKJV)
>>
>> Likewise this is a fraud!
>>
>> This was written 100 -150 CE and NOT by Paul who was dead at the time.
>
> Prove it.
>
> And if you can prove that date explain why what it says does not matter.
>
such nonsense before. If Peter was dead, who wrote it "Fred", then they call
it the book of Fred, or maybe, "Book of Fred; Sorry Peter's dead".
Now where's that three legged stole of Liberal Christianity, you know, The
bible, history, and reason?
Looks to me like by claiming the bible to a fraud your only left with
history, flawed as we know it, and your best intentions. That pretty much
takes you out of the realm of Christianity, liberal or not.
I know this does not appeal to reason in anyway but years ago when I
experienced the power and truth of just one little part of God's word, the
bible, I decided to believe all of it. It does not mean I understand all of
it but I am growing in my understanding daily. I can't help it, I love
Jesus, I always will.
~~~ Sog
gaedhealic
> "widdle Chucky Stamford" <shell__...@cox.net> wroteth:
>
>> 2 Peter 3:1-3 (NKJV)
>
> You've just quoted a fraud!
>
> This was written 100 -160 CE and NOT by Peter the apostle who was dead at
> the time!
You quote the opinion of men as if it is proved fact.
>
>
>> 2 Tim 3:1-7 (NKJV)
>
> Likewise this is a fraud!
>
> This was written 100 -150 CE and NOT by Paul who was dead at the time.
Mark, you are quoting opinion as if it is proved fact.
IN FACT, the reason YOU chose to believe the opinion of men is that you
reject the Truth contained in Peter -- that this world will be destroyed!
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/main/about/hisword.html
owd
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/
-----
"The Bible is a window in this prison world, through which we may look
into eternity."
Timothy Dwight
.
Chuck Stamford
"^^^ Sword of Gideon" <So...@no.mail.noway.com> wrote in message
news:afc9c$45eed018$d066ef45$31...@FUSE.NET...
That was truly uplifting to read. Thanks. I could use a little right about
now.
Chuck Stamford
Mark T
>>>> 2 Peter 3:1-3 (NKJV)
>>> You've just quoted a fraud!
>>> This was written 100 -160 CE and NOT by Peter the apostle who was dead
>>> >>>at the time!
>>>
>>>> 2 Tim 3:1-7 (NKJV)
>>> Likewise this is a fraud!
>>> This was written 100 -150 CE and NOT by Paul who was dead at the time.
...
> Well I don't know about Mark proving these dates cause I've never ever
> heard
> such nonsense before.
Maybe you have never read a REAL book before.
Read http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
> If Peter was dead, who wrote it "Fred", then they call
> it the book of Fred, or maybe, "Book of Fred; Sorry Peter's dead".
The books WEREN'T given a name originally.
Just because someone CLAIMS to be Peter doesn't mean that the person IS
Peter. Remember the fraudulent Hitler Diaries that WEREN'T written by
Hitler????
--
Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
--
BIBLE - the Fundamentalist Golden Calf which comes in a Trew Kristyun
version that you can supersize with added fries (in Hell).
--
The Bible ...[is] ... a collection of human responses to God (very human,
some of them all too human), which we are at liberty to use in the process
of formulating our own individual, unique response to God. We don't do that
by imitating these responses slavishly. I mean God, if he exists, doesn't
want innumerable clones of the apostle Paul. He wants us to respond to him,
each of us in our own unique way. And we can use the Bible to do that, but
we don't do it by obeying it slavishly and blindly. - Peter Cameron
"Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 195
^^^ Sword of Gideon
"Chuck Stamford" <shell__...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:fcGHh.5105$S%2.4...@newsfe06.phx...
Chuck,
Your posts and replies seem to always uplift me, your patience is an example
for me daily.
Call it discernment or whatever but over the years I've been able to spot a
man [or woman] of God
from "a mile away".
.
.
.
..
..
..
I spotted you right off.
~~~ Sog
Mark T
> Call it discernment or whatever but over the years I've been able to spot
> a
> man [or woman] of God from "a mile away".
Faulty Grizian Discernment.
As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy.
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
^^^ Sword of Gideon
"Mark T" <moi@home0975946976658258758756> wrote in message
>
>
> Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
>
I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out
of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
(Exodus 20:2-3)
[Question]
Whom did I just quote?
<:^}- -
Mark T
>>> 2 Peter 3:1-3 (NKJV)
>> You've just quoted a fraud!
>> This was written 100 -160 CE and NOT by Peter the apostle who was dead
>> >>at the time!
>
> You quote the opinion of men as if it is proved fact.
You quote your own opinion as if it were proved fact
Read http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
>>> 2 Tim 3:1-7 (NKJV)
>> Likewise this is a fraud!
>> This was written 100 -150 CE and NOT by Paul who was dead at the time.
>
> Mark, you are quoting opinion as if it is proved fact.
Glenn, quote your own opinion as if it were proved fact
Read http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
YOU chose to reject truth when it conflicts with fundamentalist man-made
dogma.
--
BIBLE - the Fundamentalist Golden Calf which comes in a Trew Kristyun
version that you can supersize with added fries (in Hell).
Mark T
>> Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
>
>
> I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
> out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
> (Exodus 20:2-3)
>
> [Question]
>
> Whom did I just quote?
The authors / editors of Exodus (not merely Moses)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1375 - 1358 BC
- Reign of Egyptian Pharoah Amenhotep IV ( later called Ikhnaton)
inspiration of much of Moses' writing.
1250 BC
- Moses leads Isrealites out of Egypt
960 BC
- The YAHWIST editor began in Jerusalem. He calls God YHWH.and describes God
in humanlike terms. The Yahwist editor wrote Genesis 2 ( Genesis 1 had not
yer been written.). Bible heroes are not whitewashed - Abraham is called a
liar (Gen 20), Noah's drunken state is described (Gen 9) and Lot's incest is
told (Gen 19). The monarchy and priesthood in Jeruslem are important. This
editor wrote the first version of the 10 Commandments in Exodus 34 which
contains no reference to resting on the Sabbath.
850 BC
- The ELOHIST editor began in Samaria. He calls God Elohim. The
Elohist editor has a democratic value system and so asserts that no priest,
leader or king can claim permanent status over God's people. There is no
dynasty established. He starts his story with Abraham and wrote about Isaac
and Jacob. He places importance on the Northern kingdoms power and shrines.
He uses dreams, miracle and magic as a way to demonstrate God's power. He
asserts that God raises up prophets whn required.
621 BC
- The DEUTERONOMIST editor began in 621 BCE in the reign of King Josiah in
Jerusalem. The "discovered" book was called the second (deuters) giving of
the Law (nomas) and became known as Deuteronomy. It was responsive to the
prophetic tradition of Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, Micah and Jeremiah (who was
alivce at the time of writing). The deuteronomist editor centralised worship
under the supervision of the Jerusalem priesthood. Its interest's were in a
high spiritual monotheism and therefdore wrote than no image could be made
of God.
596 BC
- The PRIESTLY editors began after the city of Jerusalem fell to
Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians. Many of the Psalms were
written in this time (including Psalm 137). The priests edited and rewrote
massive parts of the sacred story. They emphasised circumcision, dietary
laws and Sabbath day observance and were responsible for writing Genesis 1
to provide a reason for observing the Sabbath abnd it was one of the last
parts of the Old Testament to be written. At the same time synagogues were
built to indoctrinate the people. As a result thje etails of worship, the
rules of worship, the observance of worship became important and resulted in
much of Exodus, almost all of Leviticus and major portions of Numbers. All
the chronologies were written by the priestly editors. The incompleted
harmonisation of the Yahwist and Elohist editors produce most of the
contradictions in the Old Testament.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Question 1]
Who is being spoken about in the quote of this passage?
Then God spoke all these words. He said: 'I am Yahweh your God who brought
you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have NO
GODS (INCLUDING JESUS) EXCEPT ME.' - Exodus 20: 1-2
[Question 2]
Have the YAHWIST, ELOHIST, DEUTERONOMIST and PRIESTLY editors
edited "God's word"?
[Question 3]
Can Moses really write about his own death in the past tense?
Deuteronomy 34: 5 - 6 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the
land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And he buried him in a
valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his
sepulchre unto this day.
--
BIBLE - the Fundamentalist Golden Calf which comes in a Trew Kristyun
version that you can supersize with added fries (in Hell).
--
^^^ Sword of Gideon
"Mark T" <moi@home0975946976658258758756> wrote in message
news:45ef...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>>> Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
>>
>>
>> I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
>> out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
>> (Exodus 20:2-3)
>>
>> [Question]
>>
>> Whom did I just quote?
>
>
> The authors / editors of Exodus (not merely Moses)
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 1375 - 1358 BC
Pharaoh'
>Amenhotep IV ( later called Ikhnaton)
> inspiration of much of Moses' writing.
Great, I thought you'd say Moses but hey I was wrong again.
I thought God was speaking, silly me.
I wish I could be smart like you, Mark.
Your my hero!
Sorry I snip the rest cause my reading comprehension is poor and all those
fancy big words give me a headache.
Let's try just one more question, please.
I was driving in my car when I came to an intersection, there was a sign
that read S-T-O-P.
What do you think that sign meant?
~~~~ Sog
Angel - Inner Quest
> "Angel - Inner Quest" <l...@nerdshack.com> wrote in messagenews:1173142961.6...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Just a short answer. We should be able to take up these matters more
in depth at a later more opportune time.
Can anything anywhere written or spoken overturn the words of Jesus,
himself? Can the words or teachings of Moses, Peter, Paul or Timothy?
We should refer instead to Jesus, the Master who knows, not the
students and followers who don't know as much. The Bible was written
and edited by so many different "inspired" authors. But everyone's
authority can only correspond to his level in the order of evolution.
And there are many different levels, sides and aspects to the divine
teachings.
Refer to Authorship of the Bible, long but should prove interesting to
serious students http://www.childpastlives.org/library_articles/earlybible.htm.
Angel
Angel - Inner Quest
Mark T
>>> I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
>>> out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
>>> (Exodus 20:2-3)
>>> [Question]
>>> Whom did I just quote?
>> The authors / editors of Exodus (not merely Moses)
...
> I thought God was speaking, silly me.
Yes, silly you. God didn't write the Bible. Fallible people did! They
also EDITED it!!!!
> Sorry I snip the rest cause my reading comprehension is poor and all those
> fancy big words give me a headache.
Typical!
"We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!" Fanny Wype ("Nudist Colony
Of The Dead")
I notice you could answer ANY of my three questions!!!!
[Question 1]
Who is being spoken about in the quote of this passage?
Then God spoke all these words. He said: 'I am Yahweh your God who brought
you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have NO
GODS (INCLUDING JESUS) EXCEPT ME.' - Exodus 20: 1-2
[Question 2]
Have the YAHWIST, ELOHIST, DEUTERONOMIST and PRIESTLY editors
edited "God's word"?
[Question 3]
Can Moses really write about his own death in the past tense?
Deuteronomy 34: 5 - 6 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the
land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And he buried him in a
valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his
sepulchre unto this day.
#######################################################
RESTORED QUOTES ......
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
>
> I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
> out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
> (Exodus 20:2-3)
>
> [Question]
>
> Whom did I just quote?
The authors / editors of Exodus (not merely Moses)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1375 - 1358 BC
- Reign of Egyptian Pharoah Amenhotep IV ( later called Ikhnaton)
inspiration of much of Moses' writing.
^^^ Sword of Gideon
"Mark T" <moi@home0975946976658258758756> wrote in message
news:45ef...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
I'll try to answer what I can if you'll first answer my very simple
question, the one you snipped, about the traffic sign.
Remember the sign said S-T-O-P and I asked, "what does it mean?".
Your friend always,
~~~Sog
Mark T
>> I notice you couldn't answer ANY of my three questions!!!!
>>
>> [Question 1]
>> Who is being spoken about in the quote of this passage?
>> Then God spoke all these words. He said: 'I am Yahweh your God who
>> brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You
>> shall have NO GODS (INCLUDING JESUS) EXCEPT ME.' - Exodus 20: 1-2
>>
>> [Question 2]
>> Have the YAHWIST, ELOHIST, DEUTERONOMIST and PRIESTLY editors edited
>> "God's word"?
>>
>> [Question 3]
>> Can Moses really write about his own death in the past tense?
>> Deuteronomy 34: 5 - 6 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the
>> land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And he buried him in a
>> valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of
>> his sepulchre unto this day.
>> #######################################################
>
> I'll try to answer what I can if you'll first answer my very simple
> question
Nah. You first. I insist. Old age before youth.
> Your friend always,
Aw! Isn't that so special!
As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy.
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
^^^ Sword of Gideon
"Mark T" <moi@home0975946976658258758756> wrote in message
> "^^^ Sore of Gideon" <So...@no.brains.noway.com> wroteth:
>
>>> I notice you couldn't answer ANY of my three questions!!!!
>>>
>>> [Question 1]
>>> Who is being spoken about in the quote of this passage?
>>> Then God spoke all these words. He said: 'I am Yahweh your God who
>>> brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You
>>> shall have NO GODS (INCLUDING JESUS) EXCEPT ME.' - Exodus 20: 1-2
>>>
>>> [Question 2]
>>> Have the YAHWIST, ELOHIST, DEUTERONOMIST and PRIESTLY editors edited
>>> "God's word"?
>>>
>>> [Question 3]
>>> Can Moses really write about his own death in the past tense?
>>> Deuteronomy 34: 5 - 6 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the
>>> land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And he buried him in a
>>> valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of
>>> his sepulchre unto this day.
>>> #######################################################
>>
>> I'll try to answer what I can if you'll first answer my very simple
>> question
>
> Nah. You first. I insist. Old age before youth.
Ok, if you change your mind just let me know.
It would take a while to answer your questions so I thought it best if you
answer my simple one first.
Thanks again,
~~~ Sog
Chuck Stamford
Well, you're eyesight is a LOT better than some others that are weighing
very heavily on my heart right now. I'd appreciate a prayer or two if
you've got the time over the next few days. Thanks.
Chuck Stamford
>
>
>
^^^ Sword of Gideon
Help is on the way!
~~~ Sog
Chuck Stamford
"^^^ Sword of Gideon" <So...@no.mail.noway.com> wrote in message
news:a5145$45ef72b0$d066ef45$22...@FUSE.NET...
>
> "Mark T" <moi@home0975946976658258758756> wrote in message
> news:45ef...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> "^^^ Sore of Gideon" <So...@no.brains.noway.com> wroteth:
>>
>>>>> I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of
>>>>> Egypt,
>>>>> out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
>>>>> (Exodus 20:2-3)
>>>>> [Question]
>>>>> Whom did I just quote?
>>>> The authors / editors of Exodus (not merely Moses)
>> ...
>>> I thought God was speaking, silly me.
>>
>> Yes, silly you. God didn't write the Bible. Fallible people did! They
>> also EDITED it!!!!
>>
>>
>>> Sorry I snip the rest cause my reading comprehension is poor and all
>>> those
>>> fancy big words give me a headache.
>>
>>
>> Typical!
>>
>> "We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!" Fanny Wype ("Nudist
>> Colony Of The Dead")
>>
>> I notice you could answer ANY of my three questions!!!!
If I were you....I'd take that admission at face value and let it go at
that. ;-)
Word to the wise. Mark is incorrigible. When things get slow, and there
are no "fundies" around at the moment, he'll make due with syncophants. The
man is all appetites and no soul.
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
I AM a serious student of the Bible. Refer to my original response.
Chuck Stamford
>
Mark T
... ABOUT me ... not TO me ... because his wife thinks I might corrupt him
... and I will!
> Mark is incorrigible. When things get slow, and there are no "fundies"
> around at > the moment, he'll make due with syncophants. The man is all
> appetites and no soul.
Aw! I luv you too, widdle Chucky!
As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy.
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
I notice that widdle Chucky cannot answer any of the questions below either.
;-)
>>> [Question 1]
>>>
>>> Who is being spoken about in the quote of this passage?
>>> Then God spoke all these words. He said: 'I am Yahweh your God who
>>> brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You
>>> shall >>> have NO GODS (INCLUDING JESUS) EXCEPT ME.' - Exodus 20: 1-2
>>>
>>> [Question 2]
>>>
>>> Have the YAHWIST, ELOHIST, DEUTERONOMIST and PRIESTLY >>> editors edited
>>> "God's word"?
>>>
>>> [Question 3]
>>>
>>> Can Moses really write about his own death in the past tense?
>>>
>>> Deuteronomy 34: 5 - 6 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the
>>> land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And he buried him in a
>>> valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of
>>> his sepulchre unto this day.
--
old man joe
<l...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
Father and Sons
*********************************************************
a copy and paste account of Gnosticism. the elect do not evolve
into salvation nor choose Christ unto salvation. Joh. 1:12,13;
Joh. 15;16
*****************************************************************
" and as many as had been appointed to eternal life, believed."
Acts 13:48
Linda Lee
> "^^^ Sword of Gideon" <S...@no.mail.noway.com> wrote in messagenews:a5145$45ef72b0$d066ef45$22...@FUSE.NET...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Mark T" <moi@home0975946976658258758756> wrote in message
> >news:45ef...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> >>>>> I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of
> >>>>> Egypt,
> >>>>> out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
> >>>>> (Exodus 20:2-3)
> >>>>> [Question]
> >>>>> Whom did I just quote?
> >>>> The authors / editors of Exodus (not merely Moses)
> >> ...
> >>> I thought God was speaking, silly me.
>
> >> Yes, silly you. God didn't write the Bible. Fallible people did! They
> >> also EDITED it!!!!
>
> >>> Sorry I snip the rest cause my reading comprehension is poor and all
> >>> those
> >>> fancy big words give me a headache.
>
> >> Typical!
>
> >> "We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!" Fanny Wype ("Nudist
> >> Colony Of The Dead")
>
> >> I notice you could answer ANY of my three questions!!!!
>
> If I were you....I'd take that admission at face value and let it go at
> that. ;-)
>
> Word to the wise. Mark is incorrigible. When things get slow, and there
> are no "fundies" around at the moment, he'll make due with syncophants. The
> man is all appetites and no soul.
>
> Chuck Stamford
So true. The funny thing is, he recently gave his definition of a
Fundy, and it wasn't what the dictionaries say it means. He takes it
to mean anyone who believes in Yeshua` Messiah, which is wrong.
I love how he spews all that hate and then hypocritically signs off
with "As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy". So "logical"
- not.
Mark T
> his definition of a Fundy ... He takes it to mean anyone who believes in
> Yeshua` > Messiah
You are wrong and bearing false witness against me ... again. That is a
sin.
I stated ....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF A FUNDAMENTALIST
.. quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist:
'Firstly, a fundamentalist has a very strong emphasis on the inerrancy
of the Bible, and believes in the absence from it of any sort of error.
Two, a strong hostility to modern theology and to the method, results
and implications of modern critical study of the Bible.
And three, an assurance that those who do not share their religious
viewpoint are not really true Christians at all.'
From Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Look unto Me [YAHWEH], and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I
[YAHWEH] am God, and there is none else [INCLUDING JESUS OF NAZARETH]."
Isaiah 45:21
--
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God {YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN MESSIAH]
with all your heart and with all
your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew
22:37-40
Chuck Stamford
"Linda Lee" <lindag...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1173429830.7...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Mark's hatred is his raison d' etre. He loses that; he's lost, completely
without meaning.
You want a good picture of hell? A thousand billion Mark's, forever seeking
to justify their self-love.
Chuck Stamford
Linda Lee
> "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
> > his definition of a Fundy ... He takes it to mean anyone who believes in
> > Yeshua` > Messiah
>
> You are wrong and bearing false witness against me ... again. That is a
> sin.
No Mark, it is you that is lying and bearing false witness against me
again, and that is a sin. You're playing games. You came up with
Peter Cameron's definition below after I gave you the definition of a
fundamentalist, which you had falsely claimed were all "those who
worship Jesus as God".
> I stated ....
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF A FUNDAMENTALIST
> .. quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
> distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist:
>
> 'Firstly, a fundamentalist has a very strong emphasis on the inerrancy
> of the Bible, and believes in the absence from it of any sort of error.
>
> Two, a strong hostility to modern theology and to the method, results
> and implications of modern critical study of the Bible.
>
> And three, an assurance that those who do not share their religious
> viewpoint are not really true Christians at all.'
>
> From Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notice you said below ***"For those who worship Jesus as God (aka
Fundamentalsists)"***. You only changed your definition of
fundamentalist after you were called on this. According to your
erroneous definition anyone who worships 'Jesus' as God is a
Fundamentalist.
The below quoted text is from my post at:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/144ef0644467e3f5
in response to your post - http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/3e386caca02e5582
"Mark,
You wrote: "For those who worship Jesus as God (aka Fundamentalsists)
it WOULD be the end of their faith ...... but it wouldn't be the end
of my faith."
You don't even know what a fundamentalist is. Fundamentalists are NOT
all people who are "those who worship Jesus as God (aka
Fundamentalsists)".
Fundamentalist:
"a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of
the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the
infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals
but
also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to
Christian
faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the
virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial
death of Christ, and the Second Coming." From dictionary.com
Many people you condemn as Fundamentalists do not believe one or more
of those concepts. In fact, belief in God incarnate as Messiah is not
one of the criteria required to be a Fundamentalist, so I'm assuming
they can believe that he was only the Son of God as you do.
So it is solely those who believe that Messiah was God incarnate that
you hate, not "Fundamentalists"."
You later responded to my post above with Peter Cameron's definition
of a fundamentalist (your reply at:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/90920574248f1aa1),
but you first said in the above post concerning the alleged discovery
of "Jesus' Tomb' -- "For those who worship Jesus as God (aka
Fundamentalsists) it WOULD be the end of their faith".
You're just a "silly little person" who doesn't understand the insults
he throws around (just say what you mean - Messianics or Christians -
not Fundamentalists), and can't quite comprehend the illogic of
insisting that an omnipotent Spirit with the power of God *cannot*
inhabit a body of His choice that He'd long prophesied He would do.
Linda Lee
> "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
It certainly is his reason for existing -- here at least, and he's
here a lot. I first thought he might actually be trying to convince
someone of something, instead of just spewing hatred, so I pointed out
to him his method would only serve to cause people to tune him out.
It didn't change. He enjoys the insults, and those are his only
purpose. Any moron would know that his method would not be a good
method of debate or of swaying anyone's opinion.
> He loses that; he's lost, completely
> without meaning.
He is a sad sack. And if it's true what he says, that he once
believed, he is in worse shape than one who had never believed.
2 Pet 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world
through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are
again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with
them than the beginning.
2 Pet 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way
of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the
holy commandment delivered unto them.
2 Pet 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true
proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that
was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
> You want a good picture of hell? A thousand billion Mark's, forever seeking to justify their self-love.
>
> Chuck Stamford
Prov 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to
his folly.
Prov 26:12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more
hope of a fool than of him.
You know, the gospel according to Mark T is that the omnipotent God is
not really omnipotent and can't do some things Mark T has decided He
can't do.
Talk about "wise in his own conceit".
Linda Lee
> in response to your post -http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/3e386c...
>
> "Mark,
>
> You wrote: "For those who worship Jesus as God (aka Fundamentalsists)
>
> it WOULD be the end of their faith ...... but it wouldn't be the end
> of my faith."
>
> You don't even know what a fundamentalist is. Fundamentalists are NOT
> all people who are "those who worship Jesus as God (aka
> Fundamentalsists)".
>
> Fundamentalist:
> "a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of
> the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the
> infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals
> but
> also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to
> Christian
> faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the
> virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial
> death of Christ, and the Second Coming." From dictionary.com
> Many people you condemn as Fundamentalists do not believe one or more
> of those concepts. In fact, belief in God incarnate as Messiah is not
> one of the criteria required to be a Fundamentalist, so I'm assuming
> they can believe that he was only the Son of God as you do.
> So it is solely those who believe that Messiah was God incarnate that
> you hate, not "Fundamentalists"."
>
> You later responded to my post above with Peter Cameron's definition
> but you first said in the above post concerning the alleged discovery
> of "Jesus' Tomb' -- "For those who worship Jesus as God (aka
> Fundamentalsists) it WOULD be the end of their faith".
>
> You're just a "silly little person" who doesn't understand the insults
> he throws around (just say what you mean - Messianics or Christians -
> not Fundamentalists), and can't quite comprehend the illogic of
> insisting that an omnipotent Spirit with the power of God *cannot*
> inhabit a body of His choice that He'd long prophesied He would do.
Sorry, those addresses didn't copy completely, so here they are again
if you want to refresh your memory:
The below quoted text is from my post at:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/144ef0644467e3f5
in response to your post - http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/3e386caca02e5582
And yes, it's true that Peter Cameron does provide that definition,
yet you've changed his definition of Fundamentalists to: "those who
worship Jesus as God (aka Fundamentalsists)". Your real problem is
with the Messiah who is God.
Linda Lee
fundamentalist you provided nor the Random House one I supplied say
ANYTHING about Fundamentalists being ***"those who worship Jesus as
God"*** as you claim, i.e. "those who worship Jesus as God (aka
fundamentalsists)".
Martin
"^^^ Sword of Gideon" <So...@no.mail.noway.com> wrote in message
news:a5145$45ef72b0$d066ef45$22...@FUSE.NET...
>
Stick To Original Point...?
Martin
Your opinion Chuck, yet I notice than none of you seem able or willing to answer
any of his pointed questions? Nor mine.
I think you confuse exasperation with hatred, and mischief with curiousity
sometimes. Whether that is by design (attempting to divert discussion from
subjects which are unanswerable, or might make you seem foolish), I don't know.
I'd like to think not, but it does look that way...
Cheers
Martin ("Child of Mars" in case you wondered)
Martin
You seem to know the answer Angel.
The fact is, the actual words of Jesus were not reliably recorded as he said
them, at the time, we have at best second hand reports, written up and
transcribed long after the crucifixion. Some were passed down by oral tradition,
and what you read in any modern Bible has probably been edited and translated
several times. The same goes for moses etc, even more remote.
During these various translations and revisions, political expediency and the
desire to please patrons paying for such services, have undoubtedly caused
certain 'undesirable' phrases and passages to be altered and ommitted, and
additions and alterations made to suit the times.
"Overturn" is perhaps a little extreme, but alter, revise, upgrade, edit and
redefine are not - an accurate description of what has happened to the essential
'messages' contained in the Bible. Most are records of spoken words, which
straightaway means that some 'input' from a scribe must have been involved at
best, and the memories of witnesses and observers (more usually the case)
interposed between speech and mss.
Unless you believe that God (using God's omniprescence and subtle, irresistable
'influence') always ensured no translation or transcription were made, that is
historical fact.
If you do believe that, I will risk my soul by stating with certainty that God
certainly missed a couple of 'mistakes' bigtime, which are glaringly obvious...
such as the deliberate alteration of "the future being in man's hands" by
someone with a horror of palmistry (to please KJ1&VI of England)
Like ALL historical documents, one must read between the lines and be objective.
If you don't, you are lost!
Cheers
Martin
Martin
> LOL. I just noticed that neither Peter Cameron's definition of a
> fundamentalist you provided nor the Random House one I supplied say
> ANYTHING about Fundamentalists being ***"those who worship Jesus as
> God"*** as you claim, i.e. "those who worship Jesus as God (aka
> fundamentalsists)".
>
> DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF A FUNDAMENTALIST
> .. quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
> distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist:
>
> 'Firstly, a fundamentalist has a very strong emphasis on the inerrancy
> of the Bible, and believes in the absence from it of any sort of
> error.
Blind belief with no consideration of the facts?
> Two, a strong hostility to modern theology and to the method, results
> and implications of modern critical study of the Bible.
A blinkered intransigence, and inability to accept any criticism ?
> And three, an assurance that those who do not share their religious
> viewpoint are not really true Christians at all.'
Intolerance and arrogance... no need for any question mark there.
That explains it really, thanks Linda.
Cheers
Martin
Mark T
....ABOUT ME BUT NOT TO ME ....
His wife thinks I might corrupt him ... and I will!!!
> You want a good picture of hell?
See Chucky!
As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy.
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
Mark T
Pr.26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly."
Pr.26:5 "Answer a fool according to his folly."
I've decided to use Pr. 26:5
> And if it's true what he says, that he once believed
I used to be a fundamentalist ... and then I woke up to the lies of
fiundamentalism.
> 2 Pet 2:20
You just quoted from a forgery written 100 -160 CE when Peter was dead.
Do you really think forgeries are "God's word"?
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God {YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN MESSIAH]
with all your heart and with all
your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew
22:37-40
--
Martin
"old man joe" <n...@home.com> wrote in message
news:cjovu2h73ro2g3nr7...@4ax.com...
Why choose? Consider all these things and THINK! Do your best...
Mark T
>> You are wrong and bearing false witness against me ... again. That is a
>> sin.
...
> I gave you the definition of a fundamentalist, which you had falsely
> claimed were > all "those who worship Jesus as God".
I have never stated that the definition of a fundamentalist is all "those
who worship Jesus as God".
> Notice you said below ***"For those who worship Jesus as God (aka
> Fundamentalsists)"***.
Yep!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For those who worship Jesus as God (aka Fundamentalsists)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All Fundamentalists worship Jesus as God
BUT
All who worship Jesus as God are NOT fundamentalists.
You have made a category error.
> In fact, belief in God incarnate as Messiah is not
> one of the criteria required to be a Fundamentalist
To be a Christian Fundamentalist, it IS!
BUT
All who worship Jesus as God are NOT Fundamentalists.
> So it is solely those who believe that Messiah was God incarnate that
> you hate
I don't hate anyone.
HOWEVER .....
"As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy."
> the illogic of insisting that an omnipotent Spirit with the power of God
> *cannot*
> inhabit a body of His choice that He'd long prophesied He would do.
God inhabits the bodies of EVERYONE if God is infinite (Find the dictionary
meaning of "infinite") .....
"In [YAHWEH ... not YAHWEH"S ANOINTED HUMAN MESSIAH] we live and move and
have our being" - Acts 17:28
Do you live and move and have your being in God's Messiah?
Did the apostles live and nmove and havce their being in JKesus of Nzareth?
Please explain.
As I repeatedly have stated the INFINITE One God cannot be FULLY CONTAINED
in a FINITE human.
IF the INFINITE One God is not FULLY CONTAINED within the FINITE Jesus then
Jesus is LESS than the INFINITE one God.
PROVE that I am wrong!
FURTHERMORE .....
The Messiah is GOD's anointed.
God anoints the Messiah.
God does not anoint himself.
God is not God's anointed.
PROVE that I am wrong!
IF
Jesus is the same as the Infinite One God
THEN
John 17 1- 3 (written by someone pretending to be the apostle John in
90 -120 CE)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the
time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2For you
granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all
those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you,
the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MEANS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
After GOD said this, GOD looked toward heaven and prayed: "GOD, the time has
come. Glorify your GOD, that your GOD may glorify GOD. For GOD granted GOD
authority over all people that GOD might give eternal life to all those GOD
have given GOD. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know GOD, the only
true GOD, and GOD, whom GOD has sent.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUE??????
Please explain.
Try the same substitution for any passage in the New Testament where the
finite human Jesus of Nazareth is talking to the infinite One God.
THE LORD'S PRAYER (which is inclusive of Jesus the Messiah in the "US")
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OUR FATHER, which art in HEAVEN,
Hallowed be THY Name.
THY kingdom come.
THY will be done,
in earth as it is in heaven.
Give US this day OUR daily bread.
And forgive US OUR trespasses,
As WE forgive them that trespass against US.
And lead US not into temptation;
But deliver US from evil:
[For THINE is the kingdom, The power, and the glory,
For ever and ever.] Amen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BECOMES (a prayer to Jesus as GOD)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ME, GOD, who art in this finite body,
Hallowed be MY Name (Jesus ... a common Jewish name).
MY kingdom come.
MY will be done,
in earth as it is in heaven.
Give US this day OUR daily bread (GOD needs bread from GOD)
And forgive US OUR trespasses (GOD trespasses)
As WE forgive them that trespass against US
And lead US not into temptation;
But deliver US from evil: (GOD needs deliverance from evil)
[For MINE is the kingdom, The power, and the glory,
For ever and ever.] Amen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then God spoke all these words. He said: 'I am Yahweh your God who brought
you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have NO
GODS (INCLUDING JESUS) EXCEPT ME.' - Exodus 20: 1-2
"Look unto Me [YAHWEH], and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I
[YAHWEH] am God, and there is none else [INCLUDING JESUS OF NAZARETH]."
Isaiah 45:21
--
Mark T
>Fundamentalists being ***"those who worship Jesus as
> God"*** ..... i.e. "those who worship Jesus as God (aka
> fundamentalsists)".
All Christian Fundamentalists worship Jesus as God
BUT
All who worship Jesus as God are NOT Fundamentalists.
You have made a category error.
"Martin" wrote:
>> DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF A FUNDAMENTALIST
>> .. quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
>> distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist:
>>
>> 'Firstly, a fundamentalist has a very strong emphasis on the inerrancy
>> of the Bible, and believes in the absence from it of any sort of
>> error.
>
> Blind belief with no consideration of the facts?
>
>> Two, a strong hostility to modern theology and to the method, results
>> and implications of modern critical study of the Bible.
>
> A blinkered intransigence, and inability to accept any criticism ?
>
>> And three, an assurance that those who do not share their religious
>> viewpoint are not really true Christians at all.'
>
> Intolerance and arrogance... no need for any question mark there.
>
> That explains it really, thanks Linda.
Yep! A nice and concise definition of a Christian Fundamentalism by
Australia's only living "heretic" (according to the Australian Presbyterian
Church).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Cameron was convicted of heresy by the Presbyterian Church of
Australia in March 1993. At that stage he was the Principal of St Andrew's
College at the University of Sydney. The charge arose out of a sermon the
previous year in which Cameron had supported the ordination of women,
criticised the church's hard line on homosexuality and questioned its
fundamentalism. This unleashed a remarkable attack on Cameron, the temper of
which he thus describes:
In all walks of life of which I had experience - in the legal profession,
the universities, even the underworld in Dundee - I never came across such
unpleasantness, and bitterness, and anger, and sheer nastiness, as I did in
the church.
All this in reaction to his liberal theological ambition:
What I wanted to do was to liberate people from their slavery to the Bible
and to give it a new status; I wanted to raise their own estimation of
themselves and their capacity to respond to God. I wanted to open their
eyes to the Humanity in the Bible and divinity in themselves.
Cameron has very ably told his story in three books he wrote after the
trial. His experiences, however, need to be dealt with here because a
heresy trial in Australia in 1993 unambiguously speaks of the rise of
fundamentalism, a mortal enemy of dissent. The fundamentalism in focus here
appears in our everyday experience as a loosely confederated movement of
biblical literalism and patriarchy.
This powerful movement against dissent and whistle blowing needs to be
constantly reappraised, for fundamentalism is to dissent as the mongoose is
to the snake. There is no middle ground; no peace is possible, no mediated
settlement can ever be brokered. This is no struggle between equally
matched opponents. In its fight against fundamentalism, dissent usually has
its back to the wall. In reflecting on Cameron's heresy trial, social
commentator Hugh McKay reflected this view:
Peter Cameron was a victim of a set of circumstances which did not favour
boat-rockers and whistleblowers. He came onto the scene at a time when many
people were looking for some relief from uncertainty, rather than a new set
of questions to face.
From http://www.carelinks.net/books/dem/dd.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark T
> I notice than none of you seem able or willing to answer
> any of his pointed questions? Nor mine.
>
> I think you confuse exasperation with hatred, and mischief with curiousity
> sometimes. Whether that is by design (attempting to divert discussion from
> subjects which are unanswerable, or might make you seem foolish), I don't
> know. I'd like to think not, but it does look that way...
--
"We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!" Fanny Wype ("Nudist Colony
Of The Dead")
THE QUESTIONS WHICH NONE DARE ANSWER:
#####################################################
[Question 1]
Who is being spoken about in the quote of this passage?
Then God spoke all these words. He said: 'I am Yahweh your God who
brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You
shall have NO GODS (INCLUDING JESUS) EXCEPT ME.' - Exodus 20: 1-2
[Question 2]
Have the YAHWIST, ELOHIST, DEUTERONOMIST and PRIESTLY editors edited "God's
word"?
[Question 3]
Can Moses really write about his own death in the past tense?
Deuteronomy 34: 5 - 6 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the
land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And he buried him in a
valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of
his sepulchre unto this day.
############################################################
^^^ Sword of Gideon
"Mark T" wrote in message
============================================================
"For those who worship Jesus as God (aka Fundamentalsists)"
[Then later Mark says]
I have never stated that the definition of a fundamentalist is all
"those who worship Jesus as God".
======================================
"Linda Lee" wrote:
Notice you said below ***"For those who worship Jesus as God (aka
Fundamentalsists)"***.
======================================
Mark replys to Linda:
Yep!
[I believe Mark just makes this stuff up as he goes along people, really]
Linda Lee
wrote:
> "Chuck Stamford" <shell__stamf...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:lW9Ih.21779$Xk....@newsfe17.phx...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
His *pointed questions*? So what if Moses compiled different stories
into a cohesive whole? So what if Joshua finished the narrative about
Moses? So what if different scribes edited the Pentateuch (the 'five
books of Moses')? They didn't have copying machines back then and
human hands and minds had to touch the new copies of scripture.
Mark claims he was a former Christian and started with criticism of
scummy "True Kristyuns" (i.e. anyone that believes in Messiah as God
according to him), claiming he was going to become a Noahide, and he
has now turned his critical eye towards the Hebrew Scriptures as well.
He thinks his alleged late dates for the NT scriptures should prove
they are worthless when there is much contention and no consensus
among scholars concerning the dates.
Regardless of the fact that certain phrases are explanatory additions
to the NT, there is a basis in fact for them as a whole. Yeshua`
lived and demonstrated by the miracles he performed that he was God.
He forgave sins and only God could do that; he raised people from the
dead, and only God could do that. If you or Mark choose to ignore the
many witnesses to those facts, that is your prerogative. Not everyone
is as 'stiff-necked' or confused. You are certainly free to reject
God if that is your (foolish) choice.
Linda Lee
wrote:
> "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173438253....@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > LOL. I just noticed that neither Peter Cameron's definition of a
> > fundamentalist you provided nor the Random House one I supplied say
> > ANYTHING about Fundamentalists being ***"those who worship Jesus as
> > God"*** as you claim, i.e. "those who worship Jesus as God (aka
> > fundamentalsists)".
>
> > DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF A FUNDAMENTALIST
> > .. quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
> > distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist:
>
> > 'Firstly, a fundamentalist has a very strong emphasis on the inerrancy
> > of the Bible, and believes in the absence from it of any sort of
> > error.
>
> Blind belief with no consideration of the facts?
>
> > Two, a strong hostility to modern theology and to the method, results
> > and implications of modern critical study of the Bible.
>
> A blinkered intransigence,
This from someone who's entirely missed the point that Mark T's
sources don't even support his claim that Fundamentalists are not
defined as those who accept Messiah as God incarnate?
> and inability to accept any criticism ?
I have no problem with criticism of the way the Bible was compiled; I
reject Paul's writings as false entirely.
> > And three, an assurance that those who do not share their religious
> > viewpoint are not really true Christians at all.'
>
> Intolerance and arrogance... no need for any question mark there.
There's no question that Mark's intolerance and arrogance is based on
ignorance.
> That explains it really, thanks Linda.
Explains what ? Mark does not claim to be a Christian, so to say he
is not a true Christian is certainly true. He's leaning heavily
towards atheism from what I can tell.
> Cheers
> Martin
Linda Lee
> "Linda Lee" wrote:
>
>
> > And if it's true what he says, that he once believed
>
> I used to be a fundamentalist ...
By whose definition? Yours, Cameron's, or the dictionary's?
> ...and then I woke up to the lies of
> fiundamentalism.
You're in a spiritual slumber.
>
> > 2 Pet 2:20
>
> You just quoted from a forgery written 100 -160 CE when Peter was dead.
I never said Peter wrote it; I'm well aware II Peter has always been
known to have been written in the second century. I will agree that
it should not be entitled II Peter making it seem as if Peter had
written it. A minute amount of research will reveal that it wasn't.
It's not like the church tried to hide its history of origin.
> Do you really think forgeries are "God's word"?
Your judgment is harsh. You call it a forgery. I call it a writing
by a later disciple who chose to elaborate on Jude. II Peter does not
pretend to quote the Messiah. The following from II Peter is in
reference to Proverbs 26:11-12 below. Regardless of your ignorant
opinion, many people here know I reject Paul's writings entirely, and
I don't make the false claim that every word in the Bible is God's
word. However, the truth and fulfillment of God's word is in there.
You are in the process of trying to pick apart the whole thing. That
is being 'wise in your own conceit'. You vomit out diatribes against
believers on a regular basis.
2 Pet 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the
world
through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are
again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with
them than the beginning.
2 Pet 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way
of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the
holy commandment delivered unto them.
2 Pet 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true
proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that
was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
This is referring to the following proverb:
Linda Lee
On Mar 9, 5:30 pm, "Mark T" <moi@home0936472965916565658751> wrote:
> "Linda Lee" wrote:
> >> You are wrong and bearing false witness against me ... again. That is a
> >> sin.
> ...
> > I gave you the definition of a fundamentalist, which you had falsely
> > claimed were > all "those who worship Jesus as God".
>
> I have never stated that the definition of a fundamentalist is all "those
> who worship Jesus as God".
>
> > Notice you said below ***"For those who worship Jesus as God (aka
> > Fundamentalsists)"***.
>
> Yep!
Now you're just idiotically contradicting yourself again.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "For those who worship Jesus as God (aka Fundamentalsists)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> All Fundamentalists worship Jesus as God
No, many consider him to be only God's 'Son' and a separate part of
the "Godhead".
> BUT
>
> All who worship Jesus as God are NOT fundamentalists.
Then quit calling me a fundamentalist because I don't fit the
dictionary definition of it at all.
> You have made a category error.
>
> > In fact, belief in God incarnate as Messiah is not
> > one of the criteria required to be a Fundamentalist
You just said, "All Fundamentalists worship Jesus as God".
> To be a Christian Fundamentalist, it IS!
You're nonsensical.
> BUT
>
> All who worship Jesus as God are NOT Fundamentalists.
You're an idiot.
> > So it is solely those who believe that Messiah was God incarnate that
> > you hate
>
> I don't hate anyone.
You do such a good imiation of it.
> HOWEVER .....
>
> "As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy."
Hypocritical statement. You deny you hate, and I assume so would
they, whatever they are. Your hatred is glaringly obvious.
> > the illogic of insisting that an omnipotent Spirit with the power of God
> > *cannot*
> > inhabit a body of His choice that He'd long prophesied He would do.
>
> God inhabits the bodies of EVERYONE if God is infinite
So you admit that the Spirit of God inhabited Yeshua`.
The body is finite. God is a Spirit. The Spirit is infinite. The
Spirit of Yeshua` never died; his body died.
> (Find the dictionary
> meaning of "infinite") .....
Find the dictionary meaning of OMNIPOTENT. It might help you out.
> "In [YAHWEH ... not YAHWEH"S ANOINTED HUMAN MESSIAH] we live and move and
> have our being" - Acts 17:28
You're citing the false prophet Paul's quote of two pagan poets, I
see. Do you claim that this is God's word? Please explain. If not,
why are you acting as if it is?
> Do you live and move and have your being in God's Messiah?
>
> Did the apostles live and nmove and havce their being in JKesus of Nzareth?
>
> Please explain.
I can't comment on the false apostle Paul's reference to the pagan
poet's conception of Zeus. It doesn't apply here. Zeus is a fallen
angel equivalent to the Devil. No one lives and moves and has their
being in Zeus.
In Acts 17:28, Saul/Paul says of 'the Lord', "For in him we live, and
move, and have our being: as certain also of your own poets have said,
For we are also his offspring".
These "poets" Paul references are the Greek poets/dramatists
Epimenides and Aratus who were writing of the Greek 'god' Zeus as
their Lord. Epimenides is the author of the first part of Paul's
statement in Acts 17:28, from his "Cretica" in words addressed to
Zeus, "For in thee we live and move and have our being", and Aratus is
the source of the second part whose "Phaenomena" states of Zeus, "For
we are indeed his offspring".
>
> As I repeatedly have stated the INFINITE One God cannot be FULLY CONTAINED
> in a FINITE human.
Ad nauseum. I'll give it one more try although the concept is
obviously beyond your comprehension. Spirit is infinite; it is
boundless and endless in time. It is only the body that is finite,
bounded and limited in time.
>
> IF the INFINITE One God is not FULLY CONTAINED within the FINITE Jesus then
> Jesus is LESS than the INFINITE one God.
Says you. Where did you obtain the idea that the Spirit, God, must be
"FULLY CONTAINED" in anything? That is your qualification. And it's
stupid.
> PROVE that I am wrong!
You prove yourself wrong. Your thinking is illogical, limited,
twisted, and confused.
> FURTHERMORE .....
>
> The Messiah is GOD's anointed.
>
> God anoints the Messiah.
>
> God does not anoint himself.
>
> God is not God's anointed.
>
> PROVE that I am wrong!
Isa 61:1 Isaiah says, "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because
the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings". This is not a
physical occurrence. When did God appear and anoint Isaiah
physically? He didn't. This is a spiritual occurrence. You don't
understand the difference between the two, and that is the crux of
your incomprehension of the Scriptures.
> IF
>
> Jesus is the same as the Infinite One God
>
> THEN
>
> John 17 1- 3
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 1After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the
> time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2For you
> granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all
> those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you,
> the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> MEANS
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> After GOD said this, GOD looked toward heaven and prayed: "GOD, the time has
> come. Glorify your GOD, that your GOD may glorify GOD. For GOD granted GOD
> authority over all people that GOD might give eternal life to all those GOD
> have given GOD. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know GOD, the only
> true GOD, and GOD, whom GOD has sent.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> QUE??????
>
> Please explain.
John 17:6 Yeshua` says, "I have manifested thy name". How do you
think Yeshua` manifested God's name? How can you ignore that? Look
up the meaning of manifested.
Zech. 2:10-11 "Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come,
and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD. And many
nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and shall be my
people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know
that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee."
This is talking about God having sent Himself. Prove me wrong.
> Try the same substitution for any passage in the New Testament where the
> finite human Jesus of Nazareth is talking to the infinite One God.
He is TEACHING. When he raised Lazarus from the dead, he said he
spoke in prayer solely for the benefit of those listening. He was
TEACHING.
He is TEACHING people how to pray to God. How many people would have
listened if he had worded it the way you demand?
The explanation is the same as the following verses where God 'swears
by Himself'.
Isa 45:23 "I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth
in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall
bow, every tongue shall swear."
Jer 22:5 But if ye will not hear these words, I swear by myself,
saith the LORD, that this house shall become a desolation.
No one can explain these things to you. You are thoroughly confused
about the spiritual nature of the language of the Scriptures. Your
only way out is to pray for God to lift your spiritual confusion.
P.S. As to your next post, I've had enough of this and choose to not
answer you at all 'according to your folly'. Who cares about Peter
Cameron's opinions? Besides you, that is. You say the church objected
because he "criticised the [Presbyterian] church's hard line on
homosexuality". LOL. Is he a homosexual? What is his problem
with this? They ***should have a 'hard line on homosexuality'.***
The Catholic Church has been far too tolerant of it as many male
adults complain of having been sexually abused as children by their
male priests.
Chuck Stamford
"Martin" <martin...@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45f1b...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
I'll be happy to answer any question you have, Martin, if I can. Mark is
another matter, as I have promised someone I love I will no longer respond
directly to him.
>
> I think you confuse exasperation with hatred, and mischief with curiousity
> sometimes.
I flatter myself I'm able to avoid confusion on such things; that when
someone is calling me hateful names it means they are being hateful.
Besides, my observations of and history with Mark cover YEARS, and have been
remarkably consistent. Watching Mark interact is about as unpredictable and
mysterious as watching paint dry.
Whether that is by design (attempting to divert discussion from
> subjects which are unanswerable, or might make you seem foolish), I don't
> know.
> I'd like to think not, but it does look that way...
> Cheers
> Martin ("Child of Mars" in case you wondered)
Well, Martin, I'm sorry if I've ignored your questions. I KNOW I've never
"refused" to answer them. I don't think I've "refused" to answer anyone's
questions...Mark being the exception that proves the rule, as they say. And
I'm sorry if my not answering you to your satisfaction has led you to
believe or suspect that it's because of some fear I have that my image will
suffer. I don't worry much about things like image.
Perhaps your questions are unanswerable. All I can say is try me again, and
let's see.
Chuck Stamford
>
Chuck Stamford
"Martin" <martin...@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45f1b...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
That's quite clever, Martin. Has it worked out well for you with traffic
cops?
Chuck Stamford
Mark T
PROVED he has no brains .......
>"Mark T" wrote in message
============================================================
> "For those who worship Jesus as God (aka Fundamentalsists)"
> [Then later Mark says]
> I have never stated that the definition of a fundamentalist is all
> "those who worship Jesus as God".
> ======================================
> "Linda Lee" wrote:
> Notice you said below ***"For those who worship Jesus as God (aka
> Fundamentalsists)"***.
> ======================================
> Mark replys to Linda:
> Yep!
SO???????
All Christian Fundamentalists worship Jesus as God
BUT
All who worship Jesus as God are NOT Fundamentalists.
You have made a category error.
--
"Ah, brother," said the confessor, "don't you know that whoever calls his
brother Raca is liable to hell fire? Now you have the misfortune to lead
anyone who reads you into immediate temptation to call you Raca. ... "
(Voltaire -The Jesuit Berthia)
Mark T
> Mark claims he was a former Christian
You are bearing dfalse witness against me ... again. I forgive you. (Am I
therefore God because I forgive your sin against me?)
I never said that I was a former Christian.
I said I was a former fundamentalist.
The two are not the same.
I am still a Christian.
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
> He thinks his alleged late dates for the NT scriptures should prove
> they are worthless
Only some of them such as 2 Peter.
>Yeshua lived and demonstrated by the miracles he performed that he was God.
Many people heal others. Jesus was not unique in that respect.
> He forgave sins and only God could do that
Then the Lord's Prayer is incorrect.
"As WE FORGIVE those who trespass against us"
"In [YAHWEH ... not YAHWEH"S ANOINTED HUMAN MESSIAH] we live and move and
have our being" - Acts 17:28
Do you live and move and have your being in God's Messiah?
Did the apostles live and move and have their being in Jesus of Nazareth?
Please explain.
As I repeatedly have stated the INFINITE One God cannot be FULLY CONTAINED
in a FINITE human.
IF the INFINITE One God is not FULLY CONTAINED within the FINITE Jesus then
Jesus is LESS than the INFINITE one God.
PROVE that I am wrong!
FURTHERMORE .....
The Messiah is GOD's anointed.
God anoints the Messiah.
God does not anoint himself.
God is not God's anointed.
PROVE that I am wrong!
IF
Jesus is the same as the Infinite One God
THEN
John 17 1- 3 (written by someone pretending to be the apostle John in
90 -120 CE)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the
time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2For you
granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all
those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you,
the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MEANS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
After GOD said this, GOD looked toward heaven and prayed: "GOD, the time has
come. Glorify your GOD, that your GOD may glorify GOD. For GOD granted GOD
authority over all people that GOD might give eternal life to all those GOD
have given GOD. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know GOD, the only
true GOD, and GOD, whom GOD has sent.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUE??????
Please explain.
Try the same substitution for any passage in the New Testament where the
finite human Jesus of Nazareth is talking to the infinite One God.
THE LORD'S PRAYER (which is inclusive of Jesus the Messiah in the "US")
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then God spoke all these words. He said: 'I am Yahweh your God who brought
you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have NO
GODS (INCLUDING JESUS) EXCEPT ME.' - Exodus 20: 1-2
"Look unto Me [YAHWEH], and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I
[YAHWEH] am God, and there is none else [INCLUDING JESUS OF NAZARETH]."
Isaiah 45:21
--
Mark T
> Mark is another matter, .... I will no longer respond directly to him.
His wife fears that I might corrupt him ... and I will!
If Chucky is so correct, and I am so wrong, why is Chucky afraid of me?????
Fundamentralism is built on fear.
> Besides, my observations of and history with Mark cover YEARS, and have
> been remarkably consistent.
Chucky ALWAYS runs away with his tail between his legs when he is faced
wirth questions that he cannot answer. He then demonises his opponent and
says that they are not "Trew Krustyuns".
As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy.
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
> I don't think I've "refused" to answer anyone's questions.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!
> Mark being the exception that proves the rule, as they say.
See above. ;-)
Poor widdle fear-filled Chucky!
Mark T
> Mark T's sources don't even support his claim that Fundamentalists are not
> defined as those who accept Messiah as God incarnate?
Are you completely illieterate and braiun=dead or just acting that way?
Learn English comprehension!
Neither I nor Peter Cameron have ever said that all who erroneously believe
that the finite Jesus of Nazareth is the infinite One God Yahweh are
fundamentalists.
Read it again ....
#########################################################
All Christian Fundamentalists worship Jesus as God
BUT
All who worship Jesus as God are NOT Fundamentalists.
You have made a category error.
##########################################################
DO YOU COMPREHEND or do you need remedial English lessons??????
> Mark does not claim to be a Christian
Yes I DO!
I AM a Christian and have beens so since 1972.
HOWEVER I am NOT a fundamentalist.
One doesn't have to be a fundamentalist to be a Christian.
You are bearing false witness about me ... again!
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
> to say he is not a true Christian is certainly true.
See above!
> He's leaning heavily towards atheism from what I can tell.
Complete bullshit!
You have no idea at all!
Get a life, you silly little person!!!
--
"Ah, brother," said the confessor, "don't you know that whoever calls his
brother Raca is liable to hell fire? Now you have the misfortune to lead
anyone who reads you into immediate temptation to call you Raca. ... "
(Voltaire -The Jesuit Berthia)
Barry OGrady
>^^^ Sore of Gideon" <So...@no.brains.noway.com>
>
>PROVED he has no brains .......
By trying to educate you.
>>"Mark T" wrote in message
>============================================================
>> "For those who worship Jesus as God (aka Fundamentalsists)"
>> [Then later Mark says]
>> I have never stated that the definition of a fundamentalist is all
>> "those who worship Jesus as God".
>> ======================================
>> "Linda Lee" wrote:
>> Notice you said below ***"For those who worship Jesus as God (aka
>> Fundamentalsists)"***.
>> ======================================
>> Mark replys to Linda:
>> Yep!
>
>SO???????
>
>All Christian Fundamentalists worship Jesus as God
>
>BUT
>
>All who worship Jesus as God are NOT Fundamentalists.
>
>You have made a category error.
You have made an English comprehension error.
If all who worship Jesus as God are NOT Fundamentalists then
nobody who worships Jesus as God is a fundamentalist..
>--
>"Ah, brother," said the confessor, "don't you know that whoever calls his
>brother Raca is liable to hell fire? Now you have the misfortune to lead
>anyone who reads you into immediate temptation to call you Raca. ... "
>(Voltaire -The Jesuit Berthia)
You are a fool.
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
I do not represent atheists or atheism
celia
> ^^^ Sore of Gideon" <S...@no.brains.noway.com>
>
>
> My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 formathttp://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
By this definition Jeff isn't a fundamentalist.
and some of the liberals are.
Celia
Mark T
>> > And if it's true what he says, that he once believed
>> I used to be a fundamentalist ...
>
> By whose definition? Yours, Cameron's, or the dictionary's?
ALL of the above.
I was Pentecostal and then Baptist.
>> > 2 Pet 2:20
>> You just quoted from a forgery written 100 -160 CE when Peter was dead.
>
> I never said Peter wrote it; I'm well aware II Peter has always been
> known to have been written in the second century. I will agree that
> it should not be entitled II Peter making it seem as if Peter had
> written it. A minute amount of research will reveal that it wasn't.
> It's not like the church tried to hide its history of origin.
Have you read 2 Peter lately?????
You have written absolute bullshit!
I quote from the NIV ....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2 Peter 1
1 SIMON PETER, A SERVANT AND APOSTLE OF JESUS CHRIST ..... 1 WE did not
follow cleverly invented stories when WE told you about the power and coming
of our Lord Jesus Christ, but WE WERE EYEWITNESSES of his majesty.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The writer is clearly claiming to be the apostle Peter and to be an
eyewitness. This is IMPOSSIBLE if 2 Peter was written 100 - 160 CE when
Peter was DEAD!!!!
It is clearly a forgery.
>> Do you really think forgeries are "God's word"?
>
> Your judgment is harsh.
... but TRUE!
> You call it a forgery.
Yep!
> I call it a writing by a later disciple who chose to elaborate on Jude.
Perhaps it is BUT the writer claimes to be the apostle Peter and to be an
eyewitness. Both claims are a LIE!
Not only that but an eyewitness to an event in 30 CE would not be alive in
100 - 160 CE especially when very few people lived past 50 in Israel at that
time!!!!
Why do you defend lies? Is your father the father of all lies?
You either have extremely poor English comprehension or you are playing
games.
Barry OGrady
>"Linda Lee" <lindag...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> Mark T's sources don't even support his claim that Fundamentalists are not
>> defined as those who accept Messiah as God incarnate?
>
>Are you completely illieterate and braiun=dead or just acting that way?
>
>Learn English comprehension!
From the illiterate Mark T.
>Neither I nor Peter Cameron have ever said that all who erroneously believe
>that the finite Jesus of Nazareth is the infinite One God Yahweh are
>fundamentalists.
>
>Read it again ....
>
>#########################################################
>All Christian Fundamentalists worship Jesus as God
>BUT
>All who worship Jesus as God are NOT Fundamentalists.
Which is to say none who worship Jesus as God are fundamentalists.
>You have made a category error.
You need remedial English lessons.
>##########################################################
>
>DO YOU COMPREHEND or do you need remedial English lessons??????
Do you understand your error?
>> Mark does not claim to be a Christian
>
>Yes I DO!
>
>I AM a Christian and have beens so since 1972.
Mark is what he hates.
>HOWEVER I am NOT a fundamentalist.
Your hatred and one track mind make you a fundamentalist.
>One doesn't have to be a fundamentalist to be a Christian.
>
>You are bearing false witness about me ... again!
You are lying still.
>> to say he is not a true Christian is certainly true.
Very much so.
>See above!
>
>
>> He's leaning heavily towards atheism from what I can tell.
Mark thought that I as an atheist would be a good ally.
Mark is more of a God, bible, and Christian hater, but he would be an
atheist if he wasn't so brainwashed.
>Complete bullshit!
>
>You have no idea at all!
>
>Get a life, you silly little person!!!
So much hate.
You really are a fundamentalist. You give without brains.
Jude_ Alexander
I think what Mark is trying to distinguish is that not ALL people who think
Jesus was God incarnate are Fundies. However, ALL Fundies do believe in
inerrancy, and you get your "partial Fundies" who believe that the bible has
technical errors but no errors in faith issues.
Mark T
>> >> You are wrong and bearing false witness against me ... again. That is
>> >> a
>> >> sin.
>> > I gave you the definition of a fundamentalist, which you had falsely
>> > claimed were > all "those who worship Jesus as God".
>> I have never stated that the definition of a fundamentalist is all "those
>> who worship Jesus as God".
>> > Notice you said below ***"For those who worship Jesus as God (aka
>> > Fundamentalsists)"***.
>> Yep!
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> "For those who worship Jesus as God (aka Fundamentalsists)
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> All Fundamentalists worship Jesus as God
>
> No, many consider him to be only God's 'Son' and a separate part of
> the "Godhead".
As I said worship
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jesus as God"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
which is the same as
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"God's 'Son' and a separate part of the "Godhead".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> BUT
>> All who worship Jesus as God are NOT fundamentalists.
>
> Then quit calling me a fundamentalist because I don't fit the
> dictionary definition of it at all.
I sincerely apologise.
You are not a fundamentalist.
You are a fundamentalist fool.
"Ah, brother," said the confessor, "don't you know that whoever calls his
brother Raca is liable to hell fire? Now you have the misfortune to lead
anyone who reads you into immediate temptation to call you Raca. ... "
(Voltaire -The Jesuit Berthia)
>> You have made a category error.
...
>> All who worship Jesus as God are NOT Fundamentalists.
....
>> I don't hate anyone.
> You do such a good imiation of it.
Not as good as fundamentalist fool like you.
As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves her enemy.
>> "As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy."
> Hypocritical statement.
TRUE statement.
>> God inhabits the bodies of EVERYONE if God is infinite
> So you admit that the Spirit of God inhabited Yeshua`.
Yes BUT he also inhabits me and George W Bush. Am I and George W Bush both
God?
Your silly little illogical point is .......?????
> The body is finite. God is a Spirit. The Spirit is infinite. The
> Spirit of Yeshua` never died; his body died.
If you understood Jewsish theology of both now and at the time of Jesus of
Nazareth you would understand that Jews do not hold to a duality in
describing humans. According to Jews we are enlivened flesh rather than a
spirit dwelling in a body.
Furthermore, since Jesus was a human then his spirit is finite like any
other peron's spirit.
If you say that Jesus has the Holy Spirit within him, it is true. But the
Holy Spirit (the One God who is holy) is INFINITE and in all people by
definition. That makes ALL people God by your definition.
You have extremely poor English comprehension.
>> "In [YAHWEH ... not YAHWEH"S ANOINTED HUMAN MESSIAH] we >>live and move
>> and have our being" - Acts 17:28
>
> You're citing the false prophet Paul's quote of two pagan poets, I
> see. Do you claim that this is God's word? Please explain. If not,
> why are you acting as if it is?
Is it trrue or not?
All truth is God's truth.
>> As I repeatedly have stated the INFINITE One God cannot be FULLY
>> >>CONTAINED in a FINITE human.
>
> Ad nauseum.
...and STILL you have NO COMPREHENSION of a basic mathematical fact!
>> IF the INFINITE One God is not FULLY CONTAINED within the FINITE >>Jesus
>> then Jesus is LESS than the INFINITE one God.
>
> Says you. Where did you obtain the idea that the Spirit, God, must be
> "FULLY CONTAINED" in anything? That is your qualification. And it's
> stupid.
It is logical IF you claim that Jesus is the One God Yahweh.
The One God Yahweh (by definition) is INFINITE.
Is Jesus of Nazareth INFINITE?????
If Jesus of Nazareth is infinite, he could be God (but that is only ONE
qualification amongst many)
If Jesus of Nazareth is NOT infinite (but finite) then HE CANNOT BE THE
INFINITE ONE GOD YAHWEH by definition.
Learn English comprehension!
> You prove yourself wrong. Your thinking is illogical, limited,
> twisted, and confused.
Prove where!
My first degree was a BA majoring in philosophy.
You have denmonstrated NO PROOF that any of my thinking is illogical.
>> FURTHERMORE .....
>> The Messiah is GOD's anointed.
>> God anoints the Messiah.
>> God does not anoint himself.
>> God is not God's anointed.
>> PROVE that I am wrong!
>
> Isa 61:1 Isaiah says, "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because
> the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings". This is not a
> physical occurrence. When did God appear and anoint Isaiah
> physically? He didn't. This is a spiritual occurrence.
SO????
God anoints a human.
When did God anoint God?
When did God become what he anoints?
THOSE are the questions!
>> IF
>> Jesus is the same as the Infinite One God
>> THEN
>> John 17 1- 3
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> 1After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the
>> time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2For you
>> granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to
>> all
>> those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know
>> you,
>> the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> MEANS
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> After GOD said this, GOD looked toward heaven and prayed: "GOD, the time
>> >> has come. Glorify your GOD, that your GOD may glorify GOD. For GOD
>> granted GOD authority over all people that GOD might give eternal life to
>> all >> those GOD have given GOD. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may
>> know
>> GOD, the only true GOD, and GOD, whom GOD has sent.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> QUE??????
>>
>> Please explain.
....
>> Try the same substitution for any passage in the New Testament where the
>> finite human Jesus of Nazareth is talking to the infinite One God.
>
> He is TEACHING. When he raised Lazarus from the dead, he said he
> spoke in prayer solely for the benefit of those listening. He was
> TEACHING.
SO ... God is teaching through prayer to God thanking God for all those God
has given God that all may know God and the God whom God sent.
Makes sense ............................. not!
That is illogiocal!
But JESUS IS god according to you.
SO ... Jesus is teaching people how to pray to Jesus
OR ... God is teaching people how to pray to God.
Is it really true that GOD needs bread from GOD and that GOD trespasses????
You are being absurd!
> You are thoroughly confused about the spiritual nature of the language of
> the
> Scriptures. Your only way out is to pray for God to lift your spiritual
> confusion.
You are thoroughly confused about English comprehension. Get some remedial
English lessons.
> They ***should have a 'hard line on homosexuality'.***
> The Catholic Church has been far too tolerant of it as many male
> adults complain of having been sexually abused as children by their
> male priests.
You really are a bigot!
When has it been proved that homsosexuality and child abuse are always
linked????
Jude_ Alexander
"Mark T" <moi@home0936472965916565658751> wrote in message
news:45f2...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Linda Lee" <lindag...@juno.com> wroteth:
(snipped a lot)
>> You are thoroughly confused about the spiritual nature of the language of
>> the Scriptures. Your only way out is to pray for God to lift your
>> spiritual confusion.
>
> You are thoroughly confused about English comprehension. Get some
> remedial English lessons.
>
>> They ***should have a 'hard line on homosexuality'.***
>> The Catholic Church has been far too tolerant of it as many male
>> adults complain of having been sexually abused as children by their
>> male priests.
>
> You really are a bigot!
>
> When has it been proved that homsosexuality and child abuse are always
> linked????
Pedophilia has only recently been examined by experts and now there are
actually pedophile experts who study nothing but pedophilia and pedophiles.
Pedophiles have NO sexual orientation. They will molest boys or girls
depending on the availability and extremely rare cases engage in adult
sexual behavior. The "need" for children is a fetish, the YOUTH of the
child is paramount, not the gender.
People may have a hard time wrapping their minds around this but there are
no such thing as homosexual or heterosexual pedophiles.
Otoh, there ARE heterosexuals and homosexuals who do molest but have the
capacity and desire for adult relationships. Professionals have begun to
distinquish between the two for important reason in the effort to understand
and for treatment. These people are usually married (or have been married),
unlike the true pedophile, and do have a sexual orientation, a discovered
attraction toward a gender, and when they molest it will be the object of
their sexual orientation. However, the biggest surprise here (one in which
bigots will have a difficult time of it to accept because they will have to
deny their enjoyment of slamming homosexuals as being the highest risk of
child molesters) is that the VAST MAJORITY of child molesters are
heterosexual MEN with young girls are their targets. Experts have further
found that in line of rarity, the male heterosexual is the most prolific,
the male homosexual is next but is extremely rare, even rarer still the
female homosexual and most rare of all molester is the mother of a child.
Qadosh Stephanos
Mark thinks everybody who believes Messiah is God, is a fundamental.
He has a radar screen. It finds people that proclaim Messiah is God.
Yet he fails to recognize that Messiah (God with us) is fundamental.
Oxymoron's abound in religion. The "partial Fundies" is one of them.
Partial Preterists is another label to separate the sheep and goats.
Neither of them are willing to have a polite debateful conversation.
Jude_ Alexander
"Qadosh Stephanos" <qadosh.s...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:48i5v2h9dveh301hj...@4ax.com...
Messiah doesn't mean "God with us" in the sense that Jesus WAS God. EVEN in
the Jewish bible when prophets were sent it was understood that to have them
present was a sense of having "God with us." ANY person, through which God
spoke was thought of as "God with us."
> Oxymoron's abound in religion. The "partial Fundies" is one of them.
I made up the word. Live with it. They believe in inerrancy in matter of
faith within the bible. The term is legit even though I just made it up in
my own mind (perhaps others have used the phrase before, I don't know).
which is THE major declaration of Fundamentalism, all of Fundamentalist
Jews, Christians and Moslems. Their books are said to be without error and
they're ALL riddled with errors.
> Partial Preterists is another label to separate the sheep and goats.
>
> Neither of them are willing to have a polite debateful conversation.
It's almost impossible to have a polite debate with a wall. One doesn't
"debate" with a wall. One doesn't show anything to a blind man?
...Timothy...
"Mark T" <moi@home0936472965916565658751> wrote in message
news:45f2...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>> Mark is another matter, .... I will no longer respond directly to him.
>
> His wife fears that I might corrupt him ... and I will!
>
> If Chucky is so correct, and I am so wrong, why is Chucky afraid of
> me?????
>
> Fundamentralism is built on fear.
>
>> Besides, my observations of and history with Mark cover YEARS, and have
>> been remarkably consistent.
>
> Chucky ALWAYS runs away with his tail between his legs when he is faced
> wirth questions that he cannot answer. He then demonises his opponent and
> says that they are not "Trew Krustyuns".
>
> As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy.
>
> #################################################
> ... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
> distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
> who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians
> at
> all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
> #################################################
>
>
>> I don't think I've "refused" to answer anyone's questions.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!
>
He refused to answer mine - and added to that a barrage of abuse. Am I
supposed to believe that man could teach me ANYTHING about Christian values?
As soon as I read insults, I read no further.
Tim.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
"celia" <c_a_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173530340.0...@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I keep telling everyone, I am an "APOSTOLIC TRADITIONALIST"
Btw Celia, after some deliberation, and although I considered it against my
better judgment, I decided to go to the UKRC meet and take a peep, as I
thought you might attend.
After finally meeting some of the UKRC posters, I has some rather
interesting discussions.
Jeff...
Qadosh Stephanos
<Ju...@littlerowofoaks.usa> wrote:
Yet another oxymoron: The Jewish Bible. ;-)
>> Oxymoron's abound in religion. The "partial Fundies" is one of them.
>
>I made up the word. Live with it. They believe in inerrancy in matter of
>faith within the bible. The term is legit even though I just made it up in
>my own mind (perhaps others have used the phrase before, I don't know).
>which is THE major declaration of Fundamentalism, all of Fundamentalist
>Jews, Christians and Moslems. Their books are said to be without error and
>they're ALL riddled with errors.
>
>> Partial Preterists is another label to separate the sheep and goats.
>>
>> Neither of them are willing to have a polite debateful conversation.
>
>It's almost impossible to have a polite debate with a wall. One doesn't
>"debate" with a wall. One doesn't show anything to a blind man?
Even those that think they "see" are faced with their own wall.
Nobody is exclusive. Nobody can say I'm more able than another.
What are the requirements for certain people to suck up to God?
How can a certain person say, I am closer to God then you are?
You offer sanity in spirit. Not because you are closer to God.
But because He has given to those that question the tradition.
Jude_ Alexander
Not so. The Jews would disagree with you. Christians were NOT the first
the claim inerrancy.
>>> Oxymoron's abound in religion. The "partial Fundies" is one of them.
>>
>>I made up the word. Live with it. They believe in inerrancy in matter of
>>faith within the bible. The term is legit even though I just made it up
>>in
>>my own mind (perhaps others have used the phrase before, I don't know).
>>which is THE major declaration of Fundamentalism, all of Fundamentalist
>>Jews, Christians and Moslems. Their books are said to be without error
>>and
>>they're ALL riddled with errors.
>>
>>> Partial Preterists is another label to separate the sheep and goats.
>>>
>>> Neither of them are willing to have a polite debateful conversation.
>>
>>It's almost impossible to have a polite debate with a wall. One doesn't
>>"debate" with a wall. One doesn't show anything to a blind man?
>
> Even those that think they "see" are faced with their own wall.
>
> Nobody is exclusive. Nobody can say I'm more able than another.
We are not all gifted in the same manner. Doesn't meant one is better than
another. You can't say an apple is a better fruit than an orange.
> What are the requirements for certain people to suck up to God?
Who cares and who can know if somebody is sucking up? That's God's domain.
We don't have the capacity to know all that some claim they know.
> How can a certain person say, I am closer to God then you are?
Yet, some are closer than others. Doesn't mean that one is more valuable to
God than the other.
> You offer sanity in spirit. Not because you are closer to God.
Are you talking to me? (said in my best DeNiro immitation) :)
> But because He has given to those that question the tradition.
Want to try speaking in complete sentences that can be responded to easily,
please.
Qadosh Stephanos
<Ju...@littlerowofoaks.usa> wrote:
There needs to be only one teacher.
The people of Paul follow a teacher.
Although, it ain't the Messiah God.
>>>> Oxymoron's abound in religion. The "partial Fundies" is one of them.
>>>
>>>I made up the word. Live with it. They believe in inerrancy in matter of
>>>faith within the bible. The term is legit even though I just made it up
>>>in
>>>my own mind (perhaps others have used the phrase before, I don't know).
>>>which is THE major declaration of Fundamentalism, all of Fundamentalist
>>>Jews, Christians and Moslems. Their books are said to be without error
>>>and
>>>they're ALL riddled with errors.
>>>
>>>> Partial Preterists is another label to separate the sheep and goats.
>>>>
>>>> Neither of them are willing to have a polite debateful conversation.
>>>
>>>It's almost impossible to have a polite debate with a wall. One doesn't
>>>"debate" with a wall. One doesn't show anything to a blind man?
>>
>> Even those that think they "see" are faced with their own wall.
>>
>> Nobody is exclusive. Nobody can say I'm more able than another.
>
>We are not all gifted in the same manner. Doesn't meant one is better than
>another. You can't say an apple is a better fruit than an orange.
>
>> What are the requirements for certain people to suck up to God?
>
>Who cares and who can know if somebody is sucking up? That's God's domain.
>We don't have the capacity to know all that some claim they know.
Speak for yourself.
>> How can a certain person say, I am closer to God then you are?
>
>Yet, some are closer than others. Doesn't mean that one is more valuable to
>God than the other.
>
>> You offer sanity in spirit. Not because you are closer to God.
>
>Are you talking to me? (said in my best DeNiro immitation) :)
>
>> But because He has given to those that question the tradition.
>
>Want to try speaking in complete sentences that can be responded to easily,
>please.
What is a complete sentence? Is that like a complete scripture?
I guess that means I need to divide those Words into scriptures.
"Let there be light". I guess this in an incomplete sentence?
Jude_ Alexander
Well, the reason I said that is because I had NO clue why you were giving me
what appeared to be disjointed statements. I took each statement on it's
own merit and commenting. I'm not sure you were heading in any specific
direction.
Qadosh Stephanos
<Ju...@littlerowofoaks.usa> wrote:
I was not shoving scriptures down your nostrils.
Nor was I ever making them into a Pharisee tale.
Sometimes directions seem to be a bit confusing.
Some wait for the Word of God. Others babble.
Martin
No need... our signs say 'GIVE WAY' or 'HALT'.
.
Martin
"Mark T" <moi@home0936472965916565658751> wrote in message
news:45f2...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> > Mark claims he was a former Christian
>
> You are bearing dfalse witness against me ... again. I forgive you. (Am I
> therefore God because I forgive your sin against me?)
>
> I never said that I was a former Christian.
>
> I said I was a former fundamentalist.
>
> The two are not the same.
>
> I am still a Christian.
Linda may be confusing you with me?
For the record, I was born/baptised as a Christian, and brought up as one in a
Church School, but no longer consider myself 'a Christian'... largely because of
dissatisfaction with that 'upbringing'.
My interest in Christianity was reawokened when I began to study history, first
medieval then generally - you can't be interested in history without some
interest in religion, they are inextricably intertwined from the start.
I am not an atheist, and am still undecided on spiritual matters and beliefs.
Cheers
Martin.
Mark T
> I think what Mark is trying to distinguish is that not ALL people who
> think Jesus was God incarnate are Fundies. However, ALL Fundies do
> believe in inerrancy, and you get your "partial Fundies" who believe that
> the bible has technical errors but no errors in faith issues.
Exactly!
Do these people speak some other language?
Mark T
>> All Christian Fundamentalists worship Jesus as God
>> BUT
>> All who worship Jesus as God are NOT Fundamentalists.
>> You have made a category error.
...
> By this definition Jeff isn't a fundamentalist.and some of the liberals
> are.
QUE????
Mark T
>> Yet he fails to recognize that Messiah (God with us) is fundamental.
>
> Messiah doesn't mean "God with us" in the sense that Jesus WAS God.
My name means lion and a hammer. Am I a real lion or hammer?
>> Neither of them are willing to have a polite debateful conversation.
>
> It's almost impossible to have a polite debate with a wall. One doesn't
> "debate" with a wall. One doesn't show anything to a blind man?
You mention a rainbow to a blind man and he he has no clue.
The clueless black and white fundies have no clue about rainbows.
The ONLY people who have failed to engage me in debate are fundamentalists.
They run away as soon as they are losing the argument.
Mark T
> For the record, I was born/baptised as a Christian, and brought up as one
> in a
> Church School
You poor bugger! ;-)
> My interest in Christianity was reawokened when I began to study history,
> first
> medieval then generally - you can't be interested in history without some
> interest in religion, they are inextricably intertwined from the start.
Yep. Christianity is best understood in the historical setting of the day.
In Jesus' day it was a clash of kingdoms - Rome vs God. The victory of Rome
in Jerusalem spred Christianity elsewhere. Today the rapid rise of
knowledge and change in the latter half of the 20th century, the Cold War,
Vietnam and economic recession have led to insecurity which was answered by
the rise of fundamentalism with its pat answers.
> I am not an atheist, and am still undecided on spiritual matters and
> beliefs.
"All who wander are not lost" - J R R Tolkien
I was impressed by John Dominic Crossan's "The Birth of Christianity" and
"Excavating Jesus: Beneath the stones, Behind the texts" (with Jonathan
Reed)
Extracts on my blog.
celia
<nospamat...@add.com> wrote:
> "celia" <c_a_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Too far for me to drive, though I would have liked to go.
You live a lot nearer.
I would have liked to listen in on those discussions !
Hope you survived a bit of fellowship safely .
Celia
Barry OGrady
>"Jude_ Alexander" wrote:
>
>
>> I think what Mark is trying to distinguish is that not ALL people who
>> think Jesus was God incarnate are Fundies. However, ALL Fundies do
>> believe in inerrancy, and you get your "partial Fundies" who believe that
>> the bible has technical errors but no errors in faith issues.
>
>Exactly!
>
>Do these people speak some other language?
They speak English so you don't understand.
>--
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
> On Mar 10, 4:03 pm, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
> <nospamat...@add.com> wrote:
>> "celia" <c_a_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > and some of the liberals are.
>>
>> I keep telling everyone, I am an "APOSTOLIC TRADITIONALIST"
>>
>> Btw Celia, after some deliberation, and although I considered it against
>> my
>> better judgment, I decided to go to the UKRC meet and take a peep, as I
>> thought you might attend.
>> After finally meeting some of the UKRC posters, I has some rather
>> interesting discussions.
>>
>> Jeff...
>
> Too far for me to drive, though I would have liked to go.
I decided to "let the train take the strain"....and it was great, no
driving, and arrive raring to go, and only £6:30 return with my senior pass.
> You live a lot nearer.
Where are you?
> I would have liked to listen in on those discussions !
Yes! much the same subjects of course, but with more smiles on our faces.
> Hope you survived a bit of fellowship safely.
Huh! huh! I am quite an outgoing personage really. {;o;}
And am cheerful about most things I do.
The market at Chesterfield was huge and well worth a visit, and the crooked
church spire.
Jeff...
celia
I live between Maidenhead and Windsor; I used to live in Mansfield
nearer to Chesterfield when I was a child.
Celia
Jude_ Alexander
"Mark T" <moi@home0936472965916565658751> wrote in message
> "Jude_ Alexander" wrote:
>
>
>> I think what Mark is trying to distinguish is that not ALL people who
>> think Jesus was God incarnate are Fundies. However, ALL Fundies do
>> believe in inerrancy, and you get your "partial Fundies" who believe that
>> the bible has technical errors but no errors in faith issues.
>
> Exactly!
>
> Do these people speak some other language?
Fundieprojectionspeak.
Jude_ Alexander
"Mark T" <moi@home0936472965916565658751> wrote in message
> "Jude_ Alexander" wrote:
>
>>> Yet he fails to recognize that Messiah (God with us) is fundamental.
>>
>> Messiah doesn't mean "God with us" in the sense that Jesus WAS God.
>
> My name means lion and a hammer. Am I a real lion or hammer?
No, but you've been in a lineup and are such a good ham but I don't think
that's the same. :)
>>> Neither of them are willing to have a polite debateful conversation.
>>
>> It's almost impossible to have a polite debate with a wall. One doesn't
>> "debate" with a wall. One doesn't show anything to a blind man?
>
> You mention a rainbow to a blind man and he he has no clue.
>
> The clueless black and white fundies have no clue about rainbows.
>
> The ONLY people who have failed to engage me in debate are
> fundamentalists. They run away as soon as they are losing the argument.
What was that said.... a house build on poor soil will not stand.
Fundamentalism is build on inerrancy which is a soil riddled with "organic
material" shall we say. This applies to all 3 major religions, none of
which can claim inerrancy nor complete God inspired as God doesn't inspire
errors, absurdities and contradictions.
::: vera :::
Qadosh Stephanos <qadosh.s...@yahoo.ca> typed:
No, I believe he just hates all who love God - it is that easy.
Jesus is God. And that is what he denies. He simply adds the term
"fundamentalists" to them, because he thinks that it will do them harm
and cause a negative reaction in people, because they usually assign
this term to the aggressive Islamistic fundamentalists subconsciously.
It is the same method that the Nazis used - nothing special. But it
perfectly shows the spirit of Mark T.
> He has a radar screen. It finds people that proclaim Messiah is God.
>
> Yet he fails to recognize that Messiah (God with us) is fundamental.
Amen!
> Oxymoron's abound in religion. The "partial Fundies" is one of them.
>
> Partial Preterists is another label to separate the sheep and goats.
>
> Neither of them are willing to have a polite debateful conversation.
I cannot do much with these terms...
By the way, what are your sweet kittens doing?
Be blessed,
::: vera :::
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Hebrews 13:8
WEB)
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
--
___________________________________________________
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de :::::::
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de/Israel.htm :::::::
::::::: http://www.e-sword.net :::::::
::::::: http://alpha.org/default.asp :::::::
Linda Lee
> "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Mark claims he was a former Christian
>
> You are bearing dfalse witness against me ... again. I forgive you. (Am I
> therefore God because I forgive your sin against me?)
>
> I never said that I was a former Christian.
>
> I said I was a former fundamentalist.
>
> The two are not the same.
>
> I am still a Christian.
>
> ... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
> distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
> who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
> all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
> #################################################
>
> > they are worthless
>
> Only some of them such as 2 Peter.
>
> >Yeshua lived and demonstrated by the miracles he performed that he was God.
>
> Many people heal others. Jesus was not unique in that respect.
>
> > He forgave sins and only God could do that
>
> Then the Lord's Prayer is incorrect.
Not holding someone's sin against them is not the same as being
forgiven of sin by God. As usual, you take one word or phrase and
focus on that i.e. 'forgive sins'. The point in the Lord's prayer is
that if we want God to forgive us, we should forgive others their sins
against us. But should I forgive someone for a sin against me, but
they don't repent of that to God, and therefore God doesn't forgive
them that sin, my forgiveness towards them would not do anything for
them, only for me.
Pro 25:21 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he
be thirsty, give him water to drink:
Pro 25:22 For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the
LORD shall reward thee.
Sorry Mark, you don't have the power to forgive sins and apparently
you don't even have the power to identify them. You have said you
were formerly a Fundamentalist.
Linda Lee
> On Mar 10, 8:16 am, "Mark T" <moi@home0936472965916565658751> wrote:
> > "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
I wasn't done with this but somehow it decided to post, so to
continue...
> > > Mark claims he was a former Christian
>
> > You are bearing dfalse witness against me ... again. I forgive you. (Am I
> > therefore God because I forgive your sin against me?)
Your thinking is really convoluted.
> > I never said that I was a former Christian.
>
> > I said I was a former fundamentalist.
>
> > The two are not the same.
>
> > I am still a Christian.
How so? What makes you think you're a Christian? You do not believe
that Yeshua` was God incarnate. So do you believe that Yeshua` was
the anointed Son of God incarnate as the Saviour and Messiah? You
have indicated that he did nothing special, and that many people can
heal (apparently to the point of raising the dead) and anyone can
forgive sins. So what do you think of Yeshua`? Did he perform
miracles? Did he (and was he the first to) raise from the dead? Was
he anything at all? He knew the Hebrew Scriptures? Well, so did Paul
in a twisted way. I don't think you know what you believe.
> > > He thinks his alleged late dates for the NT scriptures should prove they are worthless
> > Only some of them such as 2 Peter.
II Peter is good because it elaborates on the theology of Jude. It
has never been a secret that it wasn't written by Peter.
> > >Yeshua lived and demonstrated by the miracles he performed that he was God.
> > Many people heal others. Jesus was not unique in that respect.
Oh. How many people have ever claimed to, and have been seen to,
raise people from the dead?
And if you really want to be correct, why do you use the false name
Jesus for Yeshua`? You must have noticed in your research that his
name is not Jesus. Not only that, but you accept Paul's writings as
valid even when he's quoting pagan concepts' vision of Zeus. If you
earnestly desired to view the scriptures correctly, you wouldn't do
those things.
> > > He forgave sins and only God could do that
>
> > Then the Lord's Prayer is incorrect.
>
> Not holding someone's sin against them is not the same as being
> forgiven of sin by God. As usual, you take one word or phrase and
> focus on that i.e. 'forgive sins'. The point in the Lord's prayer is
> that if we want God to forgive us, we should forgive others their sins
> against us. But should I forgive someone for a sin against me, but
> they don't repent of that to God, and therefore God doesn't forgive
> them that sin, my forgiveness towards them would not do anything for
> them, only for me.
>
> Pro 25:21 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he
> be thirsty, give him water to drink:
> Pro 25:22 For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the
> LORD shall reward thee.
> Sorry Mark, you don't have the power to forgive sins and apparently
> you don't even have the power to identify them. You have said you
> were formerly a Fundamentalist.
The verses in Proverbs 25 indicate that a believer's forgiveness of
their enemies' sins actually is detrimental towards them if they have
not repented towards and been forgiven by God.
Linda Lee
> "Martin" wrote:
> > For the record, I was born/baptised as a Christian, and brought up as one
> > in a
> > Church School
>
> You poor bugger! ;-)
>
> > My interest in Christianity was reawokened when I began to study history,
> > first
> > medieval then generally - you can't be interested in history without some
> > interest in religion, they are inextricably intertwined from the start.
>
> Yep. Christianity is best understood in the historical setting of the day.
> In Jesus' day it was a clash of kingdoms - Rome vs God. The victory of Rome
> in Jerusalem spred Christianity elsewhere. Today the rapid rise of
> knowledge and change in the latter half of the 20th century, the Cold War,
> Vietnam and economic recession have led to insecurity which was answered by
> the rise of fundamentalism with its pat answers.
>
> > I am not an atheist, and am still undecided on spiritual matters and
> > beliefs.
>
> "All who wander are not lost" - J R R Tolkien
Are you trying to encourage him to remain "undecided on spiritual
matters and beliefs"? The purpose of this life is to choose to accept
God or suffer the consequences.
>
> I was impressed by John Dominic Crossan's "The Birth of Christianity" and
> "Excavating Jesus: Beneath the stones, Behind the texts" (with Jonathan
> Reed)
His co-author, Jonathan Reed, was on the panel of Ted Koppel's show
critiquing the Lost Tomb of Jesus. He was very unimpressed with the
'docudrama' and called the 'find' "porno" archaeology.
Martin
"Linda Lee" <lindag...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1173647805.2...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 10, 6:25 pm, "Mark T" <moi@home0936472965916565658751> wrote:
> > "Martin" wrote:
> > > For the record, I was born/baptised as a Christian, and brought up as one
> > > in a
> > > Church School
> >
> > You poor bugger! ;-)
> >
> > > My interest in Christianity was reawokened when I began to study history,
> > > first
> > > medieval then generally - you can't be interested in history without some
> > > interest in religion, they are inextricably intertwined from the start.
> >
> > Yep. Christianity is best understood in the historical setting of the day.
> > In Jesus' day it was a clash of kingdoms - Rome vs God. The victory of Rome
> > in Jerusalem spred Christianity elsewhere. Today the rapid rise of
> > knowledge and change in the latter half of the 20th century, the Cold War,
> > Vietnam and economic recession have led to insecurity which was answered by
> > the rise of fundamentalism with its pat answers.
> >
> > > I am not an atheist, and am still undecided on spiritual matters and
> > > beliefs.
> >
> > "All who wander are not lost" - J R R Tolkien
>
> Are you trying to encourage him to remain "undecided on spiritual
> matters and beliefs"? The purpose of this life is to choose to accept
> God or suffer the consequences.
I need no 'encouragement' Linda - it is my choice. I do 'accept God' in fact,
but probably not in the same way that you see God, worship God, or 'obey God'.
We all have to obey God as I see it, God's 'rules' are inviolable.
> > I was impressed by John Dominic Crossan's "The Birth of Christianity" and
> > "Excavating Jesus: Beneath the stones, Behind the texts" (with Jonathan
> > Reed)
>
> His co-author, Jonathan Reed, was on the panel of Ted Koppel's show
> critiquing the Lost Tomb of Jesus. He was very unimpressed with the
> 'docudrama' and called the 'find' "porno" archaeology.
I haven't read this yet, but as with all such books and documentaries, there is
an inevitable requirement to make them interesting and 'entertaining' for the
general public. I can't imagine where the 'porn' comes in?
If you have ever seen 'The Naked Archaeologist' (on Discovery, History Channel
etc), you will appreciate that there has to be some 'entertainment value', and
with regard to that particular series, it is very well done, and thoroughly
objective.
Cheers
Martin
Mark T
>> > Mark claims he was a former Christian
>> You are bearing false witness against me ... again. I forgive you. (Am I
>> therefore God because I forgive your sin against me?)
>> I never said that I was a former Christian.
>> I said I was a former fundamentalist.
>> The two are not the same.
>> I am still a Christian.
>> #################################################
>> ... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
>> distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that
>> those
>> who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians
>> at
>> all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
>> #################################################
....
>> > He forgave sins and only God could do that
>>
>> Then the Lord's Prayer is incorrect.
>
> Not holding someone's sin against them is not the same as being
> forgiven of sin by God.
BUT you said ....
" But should I FORGIVE someone for a sin against me, but
they don't repent of that to God, and therefore God doesn't forgive
them that sin, MY FORGIVENESS towards them would not do anything for
them, only for me."
It is STLL forgiveness.
Learn English Comprehension..
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
--
Mark T
> I wasn't done with this but somehow it decided to post, so to
> continue...
I forgive you.
>> > I never said that I was a former Christian.
>> > I said I was a former fundamentalist.
>> > The two are not the same.
>> > I am still a Christian.
>
> How so? What makes you think you're a Christian?
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
> You do not believe that Yeshua` was God incarnate.
So? Neither did Jesus of Nazareth.
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God {YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN MESSIAH]
with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is
the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your
neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two
commandments." Matthew 22:37-40
> So do you believe that Yeshua` was the anointed Son of God incarnate as
> the
> Saviour and Messiah?
Nope! Jesus was an ordinary finite Jewish human anointed to bring the good
news about the grace and mercy of the One God Yahweh.
"Look unto Me [YAHWEH], and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I
[YAHWEH] am God, and there is none else [INCLUDING JESUS OF NAZARETH]."
Isaiah 45:21
>> > > He thinks his alleged late dates for the NT scriptures should prove
>> > > they are worthless
>> > Only some of them such as 2 Peter.
>
> II Peter is good because it elaborates on the theology of Jude. It
> has never been a secret that it wasn't written by Peter.
Have you read 2 Peter lately?????
I quote from the NIV ....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2 Peter 1
1 SIMON PETER, A SERVANT AND APOSTLE OF JESUS CHRIST ..... 1 WE did not
follow cleverly invented stories when WE told you about the power and coming
of our Lord Jesus Christ, but WE WERE EYEWITNESSES of his majesty.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The writer is clearly claiming to be the apostle Peter and to be an
eyewitness. This is IMPOSSIBLE if 2 Peter was written 100 - 160 CE when
Peter was DEAD!!!!
It is clearly a forgery.
Mark T
>> > I am not an atheist, and am still undecided on spiritual matters and
>> > beliefs.
>>
>> "All who wander are not lost" - J R R Tolkien
>
> Are you trying to encourage him to remain "undecided on spiritual
> matters and beliefs"?
I encourage him to explore truth. All truth is God's truth. If one has
truth as one's aim then one cannot go far wrong. If that means searching
other faiths or nonfaiths that's fine. C S Lewis said much the same to an
agnostic who came to him.
>The purpose of this life is to choose to accept God or suffer the
>consequences.
Is it?????
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God {YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN MESSIAH]
with all your heart and with all
your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew
22:37-40
>> I was impressed by John Dominic Crossan's "The Birth of Christianity" and
>> "Excavating Jesus: Beneath the stones, Behind the texts" (with Jonathan
>> Reed)
>
> His co-author, Jonathan Reed, was on the panel of Ted Koppel's show
> critiquing the Lost Tomb of Jesus. He was very unimpressed with the
> 'docudrama' and called the 'find' "porno" archaeology.
He knows what he is talking about. I think the lost tomb is a fraud ... as
I said before.
Linda Lee
> "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wroteth:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> You are wrong and bearing false witness against me ... again. That is
> >> >> a
> >> >> sin.
> >> > I gave you the definition of a fundamentalist, which you had falsely
> >> > claimed were > all "those who worship Jesus as God".
> >> I have never stated that the definition of a fundamentalist is all "those
> >> who worship Jesus as God".
> >> > Fundamentalsists)"***.
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> "For those who worship Jesus as God (aka Fundamentalsists)
> >> All Fundamentalists worship Jesus as God
>
> > No, many consider him to be only God's 'Son' and a separate part of
> > the "Godhead".
>
> As I said worship
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jesus as God"
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> which is the same as
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "God's 'Son' and a separate part of the "Godhead".
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >> BUT
> >> All who worship Jesus as God are NOT fundamentalists.
>
> > Then quit calling me a fundamentalist because I don't fit the
> > dictionary definition of it at all.
>
> I sincerely apologise.
>
> You are not a fundamentalist.
>
> You are a fundamentalist fool.
You're an idiot. I don't fit the definition of a Fundamentalist at
all.
> "Ah, brother," said the confessor, "don't you know that whoever calls his
> brother Raca is liable to hell fire? Now you have the misfortune to lead
> anyone who reads you into immediate temptation to call you Raca. ... "
> (Voltaire -The Jesuit Berthia)
>
>
>
> >> You have made a category error.
> ...
> >> All who worship Jesus as God are NOT Fundamentalists.
Mark says: "***"For those who worship Jesus as God (aka
Fundamentalsists)"***. "
> >> I don't hate anyone.
> > You do such a good imiation of it.
>
> Not as good as fundamentalist fool like you.
You're an idiot. I am not a Fundamentalist, so why do you think
calling me one will accomplish anything except to make you look like a
liar and an idiot?
> >> "As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy."
> > Hypocritical statement.
>
> TRUE statement.
You're hateful, yet you claim fundamentalist are hateful towards their
enemies, therefore it is hyopcritical.
> >> God inhabits the bodies of EVERYONE if God is infinite
> > So you admit that the Spirit of God inhabited Yeshua`.
>
> Yes BUT he also inhabits me and George W Bush. Am I and George W Bush both
> God?
What is wrong with your brain? Did George W say 'when you've seen me
you've seen the Father' as did Yeshua`?
> Your silly little illogical point is .......?????
>
> > The body is finite. God is a Spirit. The Spirit is infinite. The
> > Spirit of Yeshua` never died; his body died.
>
> If you understood Jewsish theology of both now and at the time of Jesus of
> Nazareth you would understand that Jews do not hold to a duality in
> describing humans. According to Jews we are enlivened flesh rather than a
> spirit dwelling in a body.
What is your point? You have just claimed to be a Christian.
> Furthermore, since Jesus was a human then his spirit is finite like any
> other peron's spirit.
The physical body is finite. No one's spirit is, or ever was,
finite. No wonder you can't comprehend the finite and the infinite in
relation to the body and spirit of Yeshua`. What has ever given you
the idea the spirit is finite? Where does the Bible ever say the
spirit dies when the body dies??
Prior to the resurrection, the spirits of the righteous, whose bodies
had died, were in a different part of the realm of the afterlife
(called 'the bosom of Abraham' in Luke) held apart from those other
spirits whose bodies were dead. Since the resurrection of Yeshua`,
the dead are either in Hades (called 'the grave' part of Sheol)
awaiting judgment or are in Heaven. There is no destruction of
spirits until Judgment Day.
>
> If you say that Jesus has the Holy Spirit within him, it is true. But the
> Holy Spirit (the One God who is holy) is INFINITE and in all people by
> definition. That makes ALL people God by your definition.
You're extremely confused, and it's laughable to see you reach these
illogical conclusions and believe that you're being logical. All dogs
are animals; yet all animals are not dogs. By your method, all dogs
are animals means all animals are dogs.
> You have extremely poor English comprehension.
You have a communication disability probably caused in part by your
confused 'belief' system.
>
> >> "In [YAHWEH ... not YAHWEH"S ANOINTED HUMAN MESSIAH] we >>live and move
> >> and have our being" - Acts 17:28
>
> > You're citing the false prophet Paul's quote of two pagan poets, I
> > see. Do you claim that this is God's word? Please explain. If not,
> > why are you acting as if it is?
>
> Is it trrue or not?
No it's not true. My being is not contained in Zeus. Why are you
acting as if Paul's quote of a pagan poet is scripture or the word of
God?
> All truth is God's truth.
>
> >> As I repeatedly have stated the INFINITE One God cannot be FULLY
> >> >>CONTAINED in a FINITE human.
>
> > Ad nauseum.
>
> ...and STILL you have NO COMPREHENSION of a basic mathematical fact!
You're too thick to realize that "fully contained" is a qualification
you've supplied that has nothing to do with the body being finite or
the spirit being infinite. Everyone agrees that the physical body of
everyone is finite, i.e. is contained and has a beginning and an
ending.
> >> IF the INFINITE One God is not FULLY CONTAINED within the FINITE >>Jesus
> >> then Jesus is LESS than the INFINITE one God.
>
> > Says you. Where did you obtain the idea that the Spirit, God, must be
> > "FULLY CONTAINED" in anything? That is your qualification. And it's
> > stupid.
>
> It is logical IF you claim that Jesus is the One God Yahweh.
You don't know what logic is as your post here amply demonstrates.
> The One God Yahweh (by definition) is INFINITE.
>
> Is Jesus of Nazareth INFINITE?????
To repeat, a body is finite; a spirit is infinite. And his name is
not Jesus, ignoramus.
> If Jesus of Nazareth is infinite, he could be God (but that is only ONE
> qualification amongst many)
Since you believe he was only a body, his body must fill the whole
universe or he doesn't demonstrate he was infinite?
> If Jesus of Nazareth is NOT infinite (but finite) then HE CANNOT BE THE
> INFINITE ONE GOD YAHWEH by definition.
>
> Learn English comprehension!
LOL. You are so dense. Spirits are not finite. There is an
afterlife. How can you claim to be a Christian and maintain spirits
of humans are finite? You make absolutely no sense.
> > You prove yourself wrong. Your thinking is illogical, limited,
> > twisted, and confused.
>
> Prove where!
Everywhere Mark.
>
> My first degree was a BA majoring in philosophy.
I'm impressed. Too bad your philosophy is based on illogical thinking
processes.
> You have denmonstrated NO PROOF that any of my thinking is illogical.
You are too dense to comprehend what is said to you.
> >> FURTHERMORE .....
> >> The Messiah is GOD's anointed.
> >> God anoints the Messiah.
> >> God does not anoint himself.
> >> God is not God's anointed.
> >> PROVE that I am wrong!
>
> > Isa 61:1 Isaiah says, "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because
> > the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings". This is not a
> > physical occurrence. When did God appear and anoint Isaiah
> > physically? He didn't. This is a spiritual occurrence.
>
> SO????
>
> God anoints a human.
This is apparently useless, but I will try to spell it out for you.
Isaiah said "the Lord hath anointed me", but God did not appear and
physically pour anointing oil onto Isaiah. It is a spiritual
anointing just like the anointing of the Anointed One.
> When did God anoint God?
> When did God become what he anoints?
> THOSE are the questions!
As I've said before, your only way out of your confusion and spiritual
slumber are to pray for God to give you wisdom and release you from
your confusion. The more someone tries to explain something to you,
the more confused you become.
> > He is TEACHING people how to pray to God.
>
> But JESUS IS god according to you.
>
> SO ... Jesus is teaching people how to pray to Jesus
He is teaching how to reach God in Spirit in Heaven. He did not want
them to worship him in the flesh because spirit is greater than flesh,
that is also why he said the Father is greater than I.
> OR ... God is teaching people how to pray to God.
Yes God is teaching people how to pray to him as God the Father in
Heaven.
> Is it really true that GOD needs bread from GOD and that GOD trespasses????
>
> You are being absurd!
Absurd is your middle name. Mark Absurd T.
> > You are thoroughly confused about the spiritual nature of the language of
> > the
> > Scriptures. Your only way out is to pray for God to lift your spiritual
> > confusion.
>
> You are thoroughly confused about English comprehension. Get some remedial
> English lessons.
Everything you say is so funny. You do not comprehend English, nor
the Scriptures, and your thought processes are not logical. Your
reasoning is always circulur, and you're running in circles.
> > They ***should have a 'hard line on homosexuality'.***
> > The Catholic Church has been far too tolerant of it as many male
> > adults complain of having been sexually abused as children by their
> > male priests.
>
> You really are a bigot!
LOL. So you think the churches should approve of homosexuality.
Linda Lee
wrote:
> "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
I guess he meant the docudrama was like porn - titillating, but no
real substance.
> If you have ever seen 'The Naked Archaeologist' (on Discovery, History Channel
> etc), you will appreciate that there has to be some 'entertainment value', and
> with regard to that particular series, it is very well done, and thoroughly
> objective.
> Cheers
> Martin- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Linda Lee
There is obviously no hope for your own comprehension.
Yeshua` said he had the power to forgive sins so they would not suffer
any punishment for their sins, and only God has that power.
Try to comprehend that our own forgiveness towards anyone will not
alleviate any punishment they receive for their sins. Yes, it is
still the word forgiveness, but that does not mean that we have the
POWER to forgive anyone's sins so that they will escape God's
punishment for them. That is what Yeshua` meant when he said he had
the *power* to forgive sins.
And I notice you answered none of my questions about why you consider
yourself a Christian when you don't think Yeshua` was capable of
performing miracles, and apparently do not believe that he was the Son
of God, the Anointed, nor God incarnate. You are not any kind of
Christian.
Mark T
>> >> God inhabits the bodies of EVERYONE if God is infinite
>> > So you admit that the Spirit of God inhabited Yeshua`.
>> Yes BUT he also inhabits me and George W Bush. Am I and George W Bush >>
>> both God?
>
> What is wrong with your brain? Did George W say 'when you've seen me
> you've seen the Father' as did Yeshua`?
God inhabits the bodies of EVERYONE if God is infinite
>> > The body is finite. God is a Spirit. The Spirit is infinite. The
>> > Spirit of Yeshua` never died; his body died.
>>
>> If you understood Jewsish theology of both now and at the time of Jesus
>> of
>> Nazareth you would understand that Jews do not hold to a duality in
>> describing humans. According to Jews we are enlivened flesh rather than
>> a
>> spirit dwelling in a body.
>
> What is your point?
You are wrong about your dualistic body / spirit claims above.
>> Furthermore, since Jesus was a human then his spirit is finite like any
>> other peron's spirit.
>
> The physical body is finite.
I agree.
> No one's spirit is, or ever was, finite.
Prove it!
If our individual spoirits are infinite then we are all God for only God is
infinite spirit.
What has ever given you the idea that infinite (a SPATIAL term) means
eternal (a TEMPORAL term)?
> Prior to the resurrection, the spirits of the righteous, whose bodies
> had died, were in a different part of the realm of the afterlife
> (called 'the bosom of Abraham' in Luke) held apart from those other
> spirits whose bodies were dead. Since the resurrection of Yeshua`,
> the dead are either in Hades (called 'the grave' part of Sheol)
> awaiting judgment or are in Heaven. There is no destruction of
> spirits until Judgment Day.
There must be all ONE SPIRIT and not many different "spirits" if each spirit
is INFINITE (a SPATIAL term NOT a TEMPORAL term)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
from http://www.answers.com/topic/infinite
INFINITE
1.. Having no boundaries or limits.
2.. Immeasurably great or large; boundless ....
3.. Mathematics.
1.. Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value.
2.. Unlimited in spatial extent ....
3.. Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one
correspondence with a proper subset of itself.
... in its strict mathematical sense infiniteness is an absolute property
...
Meaning #1: having no limits or boundaries in ... space or extent or
magnitude
Antonym: finite
....
Meaning #4: total and all-embracing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THAT is how I am using the word "infinite" - in a SPATIAL sense.
YOU are using it in a TEMPORAL sense.
>> If you say that Jesus has the Holy Spirit within him, it is true. But
>> the
>> Holy Spirit (the One God who is holy) is INFINITE and in all people by
>> definition. That makes ALL people God by your definition.
...
>> >> As I repeatedly have stated the INFINITE One God cannot be FULLY
>> >> >>CONTAINED in a FINITE human.
....
>> ...and STILL you have NO COMPREHENSION of a basic mathematical >>fact!
>
> You're too thick to realize that "fully contained" is a qualification
> you've supplied that has nothing to do with the body being finite or
> the spirit being infinite.
FINITE MEANS CONTAINED.(Spatial term)
INFINITE MEANS UNCONTAINED. (Spatial term)
Learn English comprehension
>> >> IF the INFINITE One God is not FULLY CONTAINED within the >>>>FINITE
>> >> Jesus then Jesus is LESS than the INFINITE one God.
...
>> It is logical IF you claim that Jesus is the One God Yahweh.
...
>> The One God Yahweh (by definition) is INFINITE.
>> Is Jesus of Nazareth INFINITE?????
>
> To repeat, a body is finite; a spirit is infinite.
The ONLY spirit that is INFINITE is God. (SPATIAL term)
>> If Jesus of Nazareth is infinite, he could be God (but that is only ONE
>> qualification amongst many)
>
> Since you believe he was only a body, his body must fill the whole
> universe or he doesn't demonstrate he was infinite?
No, his finite SPIRIT must be INFINITE (SPATIAL term)
Jesus is defined as a FINBITE human bounded by a body.
His spirit was also FINITE bounded by his BODY.
To be God Jesus' sopirit must be INFINITE (SPATIAL term)
A finite Jesus can NEVER fully contain an INFINITE spirit. (SPATIAL term).
i.e. An INFINITE spirit (akak God) cannot be BOUNDED by a FINITE body (aka
Jesus of Nazareth's body) (SPATIAL term)
None of the above has anything to do with ETERNAL (infinite time - a
TEMPORAL term) but everything to do with SPACE.
IF
Jesus is God
THEN
The INFINITE (SPATIAL term) One God, an INFINITE spirit (SPATIAL term) must
be BOUNDED (i.e.FULLY CONTAINED) within the FINITE (SPATIAL term) body of
Jesus of Nazareth.
BUT
IF
the One God is an INFINITE spirit (SPATIAL term)
THEN
he also exists OUTSIDE Jesus' body. i.e. The One God Yahweh is NOT BOUNDED /
NOT CONFIONED to Jesus' body
THEREFORE
The finite (SPATIAL term) Jesus of Nazareth can NOT be the INFINITE One God
(SPATIAL term)
BECAUISE
there is NO one to one correspondence between a FINITE (SPATIAL term) Jesus
of Nazareth and the INFINITE (SPATIAL term) One God Yahweh.
>> >> FURTHERMORE .....
>> >> The Messiah is GOD's anointed.
>> >> God anoints the Messiah.
>> >> God does not anoint himself.
>> >> God is not God's anointed.
>> >> PROVE that I am wrong!
>>
>> > Isa 61:1 Isaiah says, "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because
>> > the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings". This is not a
>> > physical occurrence. When did God appear and anoint Isaiah
>> > physically? He didn't. This is a spiritual occurrence.
>>
>> SO????
>>
>> God anoints a human.
>
> This is apparently useless, but I will try to spell it out for you.
> Isaiah said "the Lord hath anointed me", but God did not appear and
> physically pour anointing oil onto Isaiah. It is a spiritual
> anointing just like the anointing of the Anointed One.
But it was A HUMAN NOT GOD HIMSEL:F who was anointed.
>> When did God anoint God?
>> When did God become what he anoints?
>> THOSE are the questions!
>
> As I've said before
You have no answer!
>> > He is TEACHING people how to pray to God.
>> But JESUS IS god according to you.
>> SO ... Jesus is teaching people how to pray to Jesus
>
> He is teaching how to reach God in Spirit in Heaven.
That is UNREQUIRED if Jesus FULLY CONTAINS the INFINITE (SPATIAL term) One
God Yahweh AS YOU CLAIM for God is therefore NOT in heaven but in Jesus!!!!
>> OR ... God is teaching people how to pray to God.
> Yes God is teaching people how to pray to him as God the Father in
> Heaven.
But you say JESUS is God. How can Jesus of Nazreth be FULLY INFINITE God
BOUNDED AND CONTAINED in a FINITE body and also in heaven AT THE SAME
TIME???? Is heaven Jesus' FINITE (SPATIAL term) body????
>> Is it really true that GOD needs bread from GOD and that GOD
>> >>trespasses????
>> You are being absurd!
Jesus said in the Loird's prayer "Give US our daily bread". The "US"
INCLUDES Jesus. If Jesus is God, why does God need daily bread???? An
INFINITE (SPATIAL term) spirit does not require daily bread!
You have not answered the question.
You have continuually misrepresented INFINITE (a SPATIAL term) to mean
ETERNAL (a TEMPORAL term).
Learn English comprehension.
Prove your point, don't just hurl insults.
Linda Lee
> "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
> >> > I am not an atheist, and am still undecided on spiritual matters and
> >> > beliefs.
>
> >> "All who wander are not lost" - J R R Tolkien
>
> > Are you trying to encourage him to remain "undecided on spiritual
> > matters and beliefs"?
>
> I encourage him to explore truth. All truth is God's truth. If one has
> truth as one's aim then one cannot go far wrong. If that means searching
> other faiths or nonfaiths that's fine. C S Lewis said much the same to an
> agnostic who came to him.
>
> >The purpose of this life is to choose to accept God or suffer the
> >consequences.
>
> Is it?????
>
> Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God {YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN MESSIAH]
> with all your heart and with all
> your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
> commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
> All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew
> 22:37-40
If you choose to love the Lord your God with all your hearth and soul
and mind, and love your neighbor as he commanded, you have chosen to
accept God.
Ecc. 12:11-14, "The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails
fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one
shepherd. And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many
books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. Let
us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: ***Fear God, and keep his
commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.*** For God shall
bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be
good, or whether it be evil."
And yes, that is life's only purpose, to give us the chance to repent
of our original sin and return to God whom we had rejected before time
is no more, and the final judgment day occurrs, and it is too late to
repent. Sin was the reason for God's creation of Adamic humankind.
He didn't create man to suffer and die in the flesh, and then they
sinned. He created humankind to give them the chance to repent before
the final judgment day because they'd already sinned.
Ecc 1:12-14 I the Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem. And I
gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things
that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the
sons of man to be exercised therewith. I have seen all the works that
are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of
spirit.
Ecc 3:10 I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of
men to be exercised in it.
> >> I was impressed by John Dominic Crossan's "The Birth of Christianity" and
> >> "Excavating Jesus: Beneath the stones, Behind the texts" (with Jonathan
> >> Reed)
>
> > His co-author, Jonathan Reed, was on the panel of Ted Koppel's show
> > critiquing the Lost Tomb of Jesus. He was very unimpressed with the
> > 'docudrama' and called the 'find' "porno" archaeology.
>
> He knows what he is talking about. I think the lost tomb is a fraud ... as
> I said before.
Yes, the same 'journalist', Simcha, also did a docudrama on the ten
lost tribes of Israel he'd claimed to have found.
Mark T
> You are not any kind of Christian.
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
Mark T
>> >> > I am not an atheist, and am still undecided on spiritual matters and
>> >> > beliefs.
>> >> "All who wander are not lost" - J R R Tolkien
>> > Are you trying to encourage him to remain "undecided on spiritual
>> > matters and beliefs"?
>> I encourage him to explore truth. All truth is God's truth. If one has
>> truth as one's aim then one cannot go far wrong. If that means searching
>> other faiths or nonfaiths that's fine. C S Lewis said much the same to
>> an
>> agnostic who came to him.
>> >The purpose of this life is to choose to accept God or suffer the
>> >consequences.
>> Is it?????
>>
>> Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God {YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S
>> HUMAN MESSIAH] with all your heart and with all
>> your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
>> commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
>> All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew
>> 22:37-40
>
> If you choose to love the Lord your God with all your hearth (sic) and
> soul
> and mind, and love your neighbor as he commanded, you have chosen to
> accept God.
Funny about that! Obviously I'm not the spawn of Satan after all.
Linda Lee
> "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
> > You are not any kind of Christian.
>
> #################################################
> ... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
> distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
> who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
> all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
> #################################################
Mark, you have denied that Yeshua` was God incarnate; you have denied
that Yeshua` had the power to forgive sins; you have denied that
Yeshua` could perform miracles and raise people from the dead, so HOW
do you possibly see yourself as a Christian at all? LOL. Christians
are those who have a belief in the Messiah. You really are illogical.
Chuck Stamford
>
>> Furthermore, since Jesus was a human then his spirit is finite like any
>> other peron's spirit.
>
> The physical body is finite. No one's spirit is, or ever was,
> finite. No wonder you can't comprehend the finite and the infinite in
> relation to the body and spirit of Yeshua`. What has ever given you
> the idea the spirit is finite? Where does the Bible ever say the
> spirit dies when the body dies??
I'm glad to see you're standing up to Mark's intellectual imperialism, but a
couple of points I'd like to suggest for your consideration here:
1.) We are told that the risen Christ, who rose in a physical body able to
eat, be touched, physically interact with other physical objects, etc., was
the "first fruits" to God. Other places we are told that we too will
eventually receive a "spiritual" body much like Christ's "spiritual" body.
These things, and many others besides in the NT, strongly imply that we will
live forever with both spirits and bodies that will never die or be
destroyed by the ravages of time and physical necessity.
So when you say, "The physical body is finite", it is important to designate
to which physical body you're referring. Clearly the one we all have now
is, as a consequence of sin's corrupting influence on the "good" God
created, but not the one we are to eventually recieve. That one is said to
last forever no matter what other properties we may come to possess.
2.) You are right. The Bible never so much as implies that the spirit ever
"dies", in the sense that it ceases to exist. But suppose that our spirits
did die at some distant point in forever; that they had no beginning to
their existence, but had an end. Would you then conclude our spirits were
"infinite"? Probably not. The same holds true if they have a beginning to
their existence, but no end. In both cases, they would be "potentially
infinite", not "infinite". Any true infinite is completely boundless, both
actually and conceptually. Both a beginning to exist, and an end of
existence, constitute "bounds" to existence, and thus rule out whatever has
them (either of them or both of them) as being a true infinite.
3.) No where are we ever told in Scripture, nor is it logically coherent,
to postulate that Jesus, when he came as a man, ever had a human "spirit".
According to what Scripture has to say, and according to the Creeds of
Christianity and traditional doctrine, Jesus's spirit was always and at all
times the spirit of God, rather than the spirit of a man.
Now some people make a point (at this juncture) of saying, "Well, we all
have God's spirit indwelling our bodies, for God is everywhere", and that is
certianly true, at least in some sense. The question it raises is, in what
sense is it true that God inhabits us all, and is it in this same sense that
it is true that Jesus' body was inhabited by the spirit of God? And when
all is said and done, the answer to the latter question turns out to be,
"no", the Spirit of God DIDN'T inhabit the body of Jesus of Nazereth in the
same sense as it does all human beings who ever existed. There is a crucial
difference (actually, there are several crucial differences, but here I want
to point out just one) that makes Jesus unique, and here's what it turns out
to be:
There was no OTHER spirit BUT the Spirit of God inhabiting Jesus' physical
body. When the Spirit of God inhabits us, WE, that is OUR spirit, is also
present in that body we inhabit with God. The Spirit that was the sole
inhabitant of Jesus' physical body WAS actually infinite in that it never
had a beginning to its existence (See the introduction of John's gospel,
among other biblical passages), nor will it ever cease to exist. Thus two
crucial differences between human beings and Jesus are that a) Jesus'
"spirit" was the Spirit of God, and it existed alone in (i.e., without
sharing that body with any other God created spirit) His body, and b) Jesus'
Spirit was actually infinite, as opposed to ours which are only potentially
infinite in the Aristotlian sense of that term.
Now it is here that Mark will argue that you can't "fit" an infinite spirit
into a finite physical body, but that is simply confused. If a spirit is
immaterial, then it follows that it takes up no "space" at all. If it is
unrelated to space in this way, then it has no "size" and can "fit"
anywhere. Inside a human body; inside a quark, it just doesn't matter,
because "size" is irrelevant to an immaterial being.
Sorry for butting in, but in reading your ongoing debate with Mark, I began
to suspect that you were beginning to assert more than you actually meant.
Or maybe that's just my imagination acting up. At any rate, I thought I
would interject the above for your consideration.
Chuck Stamford