Peter never went to Rome, and the Word of God is what counts, not tradition... Gal. 2:9
old man joe
the elect of God see the Apostle Peter as one of the twelve chosen by God for eternal
life, for the administering of the gospel with attesting miracles and the writing of God's
Word to the elect... an eye witness to the things done and said by Christ. no more glory
is to be heaped upon Peter than on Mary, or John, or Paul or any other of the truly elect
or such would be idolatry. " when you shall have done all the things commanded you, say,
We are unprofitable servants, for we have done what we ought to do. " Lk. 17:10
simple recognition of the person as a child of God chosen by God through His grace to
fulfill God's purpose for our instruction is enough. all of the glory goes to God, not
man.
idolater's are named in the Holy Scriptures as being much more than someone who
worship's statues... Col. 3:5, for example, gives account of the fact that idolatry also
lies extensively in the heart... Paul writes... " immorality, impurity, passion, evil
desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry... "
this being the case, while the expositor's agree and disagree that Peter ever went to
Rome is not the crux of the matter. one will conclude that the passage of Gal. 2:9 speaks
to the direction Peter took as he fulfilled the command of Christ to preach the gospel...
" so that we ( Paul and Barnabas ) might go to the Gentiles and they ( James, Cephas and
John ) to the circumcised. "
there beinging many more Jews in Israel and surrounding area's than in Rome in that
time, as now, is a serious consideration before concluding that Peter went to Rome.
the Roman Catholic Church insists that not only did Peter go to Rome but that office of
Apostleship that he held was transferrible with all of the graces of that office. if he
passed on his apostleship, with all of the graces of that particular office, regardless of
his earthly whereabouts, that, is the crux of the matter.
here we have a denomination making great claims that it's head is speaking infallibly in
matter's of doctrine as though the Bible is not completed to be written as God say's it
is. Rev.22:18,19. other such denominations claim this, also.
one has only to enter into a Roman Catholic Church building and see than he has stepped
into an idol worshiping temple of Satan.
since the RCC answer's only to itself it always finds the means to usurp the Word of
God. the common man is also liable since he has no use for the Bible except to hide money
in, but rather follows the traditions set forth by his denomination.
duke
Hey, old man joe, he's buried there.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Patrick
> speaking infallibly in
> matter's of doctrine as though the Bible is not completed to be written as
> God say's it
> is. Rev.22:18,19. other such denominations claim this, also.
You think the bible is the only and complete word of God?
You need to read John where he says all of the Words of Jesus
were not written down.
RWKnapp
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 07:37:10 -0400, old man joe <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hey, old man joe, he's buried there.
That is only what the Church says, no one really knows if he is or is
not buried there, as far as I can see there is no record that the
Apostle Peter ever went to Rome, Paul did, Peter not so. Can you give
us a verse from the Bible that shows Peter ever went to Rome. Do you
have any proof of Peter dying in Rome or preaching in Rome. Now you
and I know the Catholic Church says he did, so it makes their story
and history sound better and gives them some authority that Orthodox
Church does not give them and in the Beginning Church was one and
later when the Bishop of Rome, claimed to be the POPE the Greek and
other Orthodox Churches went their own ways, and even to day the
Orthodox Church sees Bishop of Rome the "Pope" and that He is only a
minister not the leader of the Church universal. If you can provide
evidences of Peter in Rome that is not only because a Priest says so,
I would like to look at that, if you would be so kind.
Raymond
RWKnapp
Please show me where in the words of John he says the Words of Jesus
were not written down? I ran word search on those words and nothing
turned up that match such a statement. So please post the location of
what John said if he ever did.
It is kind of plain someone did write what Jesus said and even in the
book of John where pointed out what Jesus said was not written down.
All the verses in John below listed all say "Jesus said" so how can
you say it is not written when it is clear that JESUS SAID, and it is
as clear someone did write them down and they are the Words of JESUS.
John 2:3
3 And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him,
"They have no wine."
NKJV
John 2:4
4 Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does your concern have to do with
Me? My hour has not yet come."
NKJV
John 2:7
7 Jesus said to them, "Fill the waterpots with water." And they filled
them up to the brim. NKJV
John 4:7
7 A woman of Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, "Give Me a
drink." NKJV
John 4:16
16 Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come here."
NKJV
John 4:17
17 The woman answered and said, "I have no husband."
Jesus said to her, "You have well said, 'I have no husband,' NKJV
John 4:21
21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you
will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father.
NKJV
John 4:26
26 Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am He."
NKJV
John 4:34
34 Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me,
and to finish His work. NKJV
John 4:48
48 Then Jesus said to him, "Unless you people see signs and wonders,
you will by no means believe."
NKJV
John 4:50
50 Jesus said to him, "Go your way; your son lives." So the man
believed the word that Jesus spoke to him, and he went his way. NKJV
John 4:53
53 So the father knew that it was at the same hour in which Jesus said
to him, "Your son lives." And he himself believed, and his whole
household.
NKJV
John 5:8
8 Jesus said to him, "Rise, take up your bed and walk." NKJV
John 6:10
10 Then Jesus said, "Make the people sit down." Now there was much
grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five
thousand. NKJV
John 6:32
32 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did
not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true
bread from heaven. NKJV
John 6:35
35 And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me
shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. NKJV
John 6:53
53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you
eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life
in you. NKJV
John 6:67
67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also want to go away?"
NKJV
John 7:6
6 Then Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is
always ready. NKJV
John 7:33
33 Then Jesus said to them, "I shall be with you a little while
longer, and then I go to Him who sent Me. NKJV
John 8:11
11 She said, "No one, Lord."
And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no
more."
NKJV
John 8:21
Jesus Predicts His Departure
21 Then Jesus said to them again, "I am going away, and you will seek
Me, and will die in your sin. Where I go you cannot come."
NKJV
John 8:25
25 Then they said to Him, "Who are You?"
And Jesus said to them, "Just what I have been saying to you from the
beginning. NKJV
John 8:28
28 Then Jesus said to them, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you
will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My
Father taught Me, I speak these things. NKJV
John 8:31
The Truth Shall Make You Free
31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My
word, you are My disciples indeed. NKJV
John 8:39
39 They answered and said to Him,"Abraham is our father."
Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the
works of Abraham. NKJV
John 8:42
42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me,
for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself,
but He sent Me. NKJV
John 8:58
58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham
was, I AM."
NKJV
John 9:37
37 And Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him and it is He who is
talking with you."
NKJV
John 9:39
39 And Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, that
those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made
blind."
NKJV
John 9:41
41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but
now you say, 'We see.' Therefore your sin remains.
NKJV
John 10:7
Jesus the Good Shepherd
7 Then Jesus said to them again, "Most assuredly, I say to you, I am
the door of the sheep. NKJV
John 11:14
14 Then Jesus said to them plainly, "Lazarus is dead. NKJV
John 11:23
23 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again."
NKJV
John 11:25
25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who
believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. NKJV
John 11:39
39 Jesus said, "Take away the stone."
Martha, the sister of him who was dead, said to Him, "Lord, by this
time there is a stench, for he has been dead four days."
NKJV
John 11:40
40 Jesus said to her, "Did I not say to you that if you would believe
you would see the glory of God?" NKJV
John 11:44
44 And he who had died came out bound hand and foot with
graveclothes, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to
them, "Loose him, and let him go."
NKJV
John 12:7
7 But Jesus said, "Let her alone; she has kept this for the day of My
burial. NKJV
John 12:35
35 Then Jesus said to them, "A little while longer the light is with
you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you; he who
walks in darkness does not know where he is going. NKJV
John 13:10
10 Jesus said to him, "He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet,
but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you." NKJV
John 13:27
27 Now after the piece of bread, Satan entered him. Then Jesus said to
him, "What you do, do quickly." NKJV
John 13:31
The New Commandment
31 So, when he had gone out, Jesus said, "Now the Son of Man is
glorified, and God is glorified in Him. NKJV
John 14:6
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one
comes to the Father except through Me.
NKJV
John 14:9
9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have
not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how
can you say, 'Show us the Father'? NKJV
John 18:5
5 They answered Him,"Jesus of Nazareth."
Jesus said to them, "I am He." And Judas, who betrayed Him, also stood
with them. NKJV
John 18:11
11 So Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I
not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?"
NKJV
John 20:15
15 Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you
seeking?"
She, supposing Him to be the gardener, said to Him, "Sir, if You have
carried Him away, tell me where You have laid Him, and I will take Him
away."
NKJV
John 20:16
16 Jesus said to her, "Mary!"
She turned and said to Him, "Rabboni!" (which is to say, Teacher).
NKJV
John 20:17
17 Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended
to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them,'I am ascending to
My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.'"
NKJV
John 20:21
21 So Jesus said to them again, "Peace to you! As the Father has sent
Me, I also send you." NKJV
John 20:29
29 Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have
believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
NKJV
John 21:5
5 Then Jesus said to them, "Children, have you any food?"
They answered Him, "No."
NKJV
John 21:10
10 Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish which you have just
caught."
NKJV
John 21:12
12 Jesus said to them, "Come and eat breakfast." Yet none of the
disciples dared ask Him, "Who are You?" — knowing that it was the
Lord. NKJV
John 21:15
Jesus Restores Peter
15 So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,
"Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?"
He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You."
He said to him, "Feed My lambs."
NKJV
John 21:17
17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love
Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you
love Me?"
And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love
You."
Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep. NKJV
John 21:22
22 Jesus said to him, "If I will that he remain till I come, what is
that to you? You follow Me."
NKJV
Enjoy, then if you do not like the NKJV try the KJV or the NIV or what
ever verson you can find of the Holy Bible or just the New Testament
if you do not have money to purchase the whole bible.
Enjoy
Raymond
www.pioneers-for-Jesus.org
Abe Froman
You've GOT to check your info before posting, Patrick (like your
naming the wrong Bible version that is approved by the Church). There
is nothing in John about "words" not being written down... it's the
WORKS of Jesus that are referred to.
"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one
of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not
contain the books that would be written."
Jn 25:21
bob young
Abe Froman wrote:
ROFL . . . . . . Considering the man is a myth then more 'ROFL'
The dullards who wrote the yarns never thought it worth covering 'His' first
eighteen years from the cradle, nothing, but nothing, is recorded - they just
couldn't wait to have him old enough to do all the magical stuff ! Marvelous
They were rather gullible in those days; and things haven't changed very much
even today !
You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of
magic and religion. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the
price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, quite intelligent
enough.
[Aldous Leonard Huxley]
duke
>On Sep 19, 8:13�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 07:37:10 -0400, old man joe <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hey, old man joe, he's buried there.
>
>That is only what the Church says, no one really knows if he is or is
>not buried there, as far as I can see there is no record that the
>Apostle Peter ever went to Rome, Paul did, Peter not so. Can you give
>us a verse from the Bible that shows Peter ever went to Rome.
You mean in that partial historical record that was eventually written down?
John 21:25.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm
> Do you
>have any proof of Peter dying in Rome or preaching in Rome. Now you
>and I know the Catholic Church says he did, so it makes their story
>and history sound better and gives them some authority that Orthodox
>Church does not give them and in the Beginning Church was one and
>later when the Bishop of Rome, claimed to be the POPE the Greek and
>other Orthodox Churches went their own ways, and even to day the
>Orthodox Church sees Bishop of Rome the "Pope" and that He is only a
>minister not the leader of the Church universal. If you can provide
>evidences of Peter in Rome that is not only because a Priest says so,
>I would like to look at that, if you would be so kind.
The Dukester, American-American
duke
>
>
>Abe Froman wrote:
>
>> "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"old man joe" <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> >> here we have a denomination making great claims that it's head is
>> >> speaking infallibly in
>> >> matter's of doctrine as though the Bible is not completed to be written as
>> >> God say's it
>> >> is. Rev.22:18,19. other such denominations claim this, also.
>> >
>> >You think the bible is the only and complete word of God?
>> >You need to read John where he says all of the Words of Jesus
>> >were not written down.
>>
>> You've GOT to check your info before posting, Patrick (like your
>> naming the wrong Bible version that is approved by the Church). There
>> is nothing in John about "words" not being written down... it's the
>> WORKS of Jesus that are referred to.
>>
>> "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one
>> of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not
>> contain the books that would be written."
>> Jn 25:21
>
>ROFL . . . . . . Considering the man is a myth then more 'ROFL'
>
>The dullards who wrote the yarns never thought it worth covering 'His' first
>eighteen years from the cradle, nothing, but nothing, is recorded - they just
>couldn't wait to have him old enough to do all the magical stuff ! Marvelous
You can run, but you can't hide. God is watching you.
>They were rather gullible in those days; and things haven't changed very much
>even today !
>You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of
>magic and religion.
Which animal told you why?
duke
>On Sep 19, 8:36�am, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
>> "old man joe" <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> > �here we have a denomination making great claims that it's head is
>> > speaking infallibly in
>> > matter's of doctrine as though the Bible is not completed to be written as
>> > God say's it
>> > is. �Rev.22:18,19. �other such denominations claim this, also.
>>
>> You think the bible is the only and complete word of God?
>> You need to read John where he says all of the Words of Jesus
>> were not written down.
>
>Please show me where in the words of John he says the Words of Jesus
>were not written down?
John 21:25, the last sentence in John.
.
The Dukester, American-American
duke
wrote:
Abe, that's John 21:25.
vince garcia
As always, old fart joe is a liar and an incompetant. All one need do is
read 1st Peter to see he was writing from Rome! (Calling it Babylon!)
Of course, since Joe is a biblical illiterate who can't think his way
out of a paper bag, he'll incompetantly claim Peter was writing from the
original babylon because he's too stupid and geographically illiterate
to note that the subjects of this epistle are all located in the regions
of Turkey and the Balkans, and that there is no mention of any cities of
the Middle East. The author clearly meant to address Western churches
much closer to Rome than Babylon.*
* Which Strabo also wrote was a desolate wilderness in this time.
But this is what happens when liars and biblical illiterates try to
teach the Bible.
All liars shall have their part in the lake of fire--and Joe will lead
the way in with his undending series of lies and dsistortions he posts
Patrick
"Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
> "old man joe" <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > here we have a denomination making great claims that it's head is
> > speaking infallibly in matter's of doctrine as though the Bible is not
> > completed to be written as
> > God say's it is. Rev.22:18,19. other such denominations claim this,
> > also.
>
> You think the bible is the only and complete word of God?
> You need to read John where he says all of the Words of Jesus
> were not written down.
Please show me where in the words of John he says the Words of Jesus
were not written down? I ran word search on those words and nothing
turned up that match such a statement. So please post the location of
what John said if he ever did.
Patrick... OK... I'll help you out in a minute.
------------------------
Poor Ray said:
It is kind of plain someone did write what Jesus said and even in the
book of John where pointed out what Jesus said was not written down.
All the verses in John below listed all say "Jesus said" so how can
you say it is not written when it is clear that JESUS SAID, and it is
as clear someone did write them down and they are the Words of JESUS.
Patrick:
Read John 21: 24-25
Patrick
Twice in one day.
I must be tired.
RWKnapp
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 20:58:47 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 19, 8:36 am, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
> >> "old man joe" <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >> > here we have a denomination making great claims that it's head is
> >> > speaking infallibly in
> >> > matter's of doctrine as though the Bible is not completed to be written as
> >> > God say's it
> >> > is. Rev.22:18,19. other such denominations claim this, also.
>
> >> You think the bible is the only and complete word of God?
> >> You need to read John where he says all of the Words of Jesus
> >> were not written down.
>
> >Please show me where in the words of John he says the Words of Jesus
> >were not written down?
>
> John 21:25, the last sentence in John.
> .
No that verse proves most of the words of Jesus were written down,
only since he spoke so much many other words were not written down.
It shows Jesus did have his words written down, just not all of them,
then that is what happens today, the teacher teaches and the students
write what they hear him say, no one writes word for word every word a
person says, today they record it and then have to hear over an over
again to get most every world in print. John 21:25
25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they
were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could
not contain the books that would be written. Amen.NKJV
RWKnapp
> "RWKnapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote ..
25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they
were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could
not contain the books that would be written. Amen.NKJV
Jesus had so many of his words written down thousands of them , and if
all could of been no book could of held them. Just the opposite of
what he wanted. The point was Jesus never had his words written down,
and your verse only show he did and lots of them. So there is no poor
Ray here only someone like Patrick that does not understand what he
posted.
RWKnapp
In one post of late you applied the term Animal to yourself as a human
being and just because you closed you eye does not mean that other
human animals do not do the absurd, they do, and they call on magical
stuff also, your kind of persons. And you believe this as it is your
folly.
bob young
Patrick wrote:
> "RWKnapp" <rwk...@aim.com> wrote ..
> "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
> > "old man joe" <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > > here we have a denomination making great claims that it's head is
> > > speaking infallibly in matter's of doctrine as though the Bible is not
> > > completed to be written as
> > > God say's it is. Rev.22:18,19. other such denominations claim this,
> > > also.
> >
> > You think the bible is the only and complete word of God?
> > You need to read John where he says all of the Words of Jesus
> > were not written down.
>
> Please show me where in the words of John he says the Words of Jesus
> were not written down? I ran word search on those words and nothing
> turned up that match such a statement. So please post the location of
> what John said if he ever did.
ROFL A 'location' ? From the bible ? You will be asking for 'dates' and
'verifications' next !
The Bible is a chaotically cobbled together anthology of disjointed
documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by
hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly
unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries. This may explain some of the
sheer strangeness of the Bible. Unfortunately it is the same weird volume
that religious zealots hold up as the inerrant source of our morals and rules
for living.
[Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion]
bob young
RWKnapp wrote:
Proof please. Hearsay and wishful thinking does not count in the real world.
Ooooops forgot, we are not dealing with the real world are we ? !!!!
> Just the opposite of
> what he wanted. The point was Jesus never had his words written down,
> and your verse only show he did and lots of them. So there is no poor
> Ray here only someone like Patrick that does not understand what he
> posted.
Jesus never had a single word recorded about his first eighteen years from the
cradle either. I wonder why ?
Sons-of-Gods Saviors who came to Earth and died for our sins:
Krishna--- 1200 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
Sakia--- 600 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
Thammuz--- 400 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
Wittoba--- 552 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
Iao--- 622 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
Hesus--- 834 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
Quexalcote--- 587 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
Quirinus--- 506 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
Prometheus--- 547 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
Thulis--- 1700 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
Indra--- 725 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
Alcestos--- 600 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
Atys--- 1170 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
Crite--- 1200 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
Bali--- 725 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
Mithra--- 600 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
Jesus--- 6 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
[acknowledgements to 'desertphile]
bob young
duke wrote:
ROFL He isn't watching you, you just think he is.
Now tell me - is that very intelligent ?
>
>
> >They were rather gullible in those days; and things haven't changed very much
> >even today !
>
> >You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of
> >magic and religion.
>
> Which animal told you why?
Yes we know why you pander after your god, it's because someone told you too.
Animals are lucky, they cannot speak, otherwise no doubt they would create and
propagate their gods too.
In a couple of million years chimps may learn a simple language, then they can
expect to see their first god, looking remarkably chimplike !
bob young
RWKnapp wrote:
W H A T ? ! !
old man joe
only the Catholics say he was writing from Rome... replacing the Bible word Babylon and
inserting Rome in its place. these have removed the Second Commandment out of the Bible
all together so they can continue being idol worshipers, so its no wonder that they should
remove other words out of the Bible to fit this thinking.
they need to do that to give credence to their idea that their popes are successors of
Peters office of apostle... so they are forced to say he went to Rome contrary to Gal.
2:9... no pope ever fit the Biblically stated requirements of that office.
bob young
duke wrote:
I'm watching you too, waiting for you to deal with my point above which, since it
frightens you so much, you had no alternative but to ignore it and dance around as
usual.
Have you no SHAME ?
The most unpardonable sin in society is independence of thought.
Emma Goldman (1869-1940)
Anarchism And Other Essays_ [1910],
"Minorities Versus Majorities"
duke
>On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 05:58:55 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>duke wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 07:37:10 -0400, old man joe <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey, old man joe, he's buried there.
>>As always, old fart joe is a liar and an incompetant. All one need do is
>>read 1st Peter to see he was writing from Rome! (Calling it Babylon!)
>>
>>Of course, since Joe is a biblical illiterate who can't think his way
>>out of a paper bag, he'll incompetantly claim Peter was writing from the
>>original babylon because he's too stupid and geographically illiterate
>>to note that the subjects of this epistle are all located in the regions
>>of Turkey and the Balkans, and that there is no mention of any cities of
>>the Middle East. The author clearly meant to address Western churches
>>much closer to Rome than Babylon.*
>>* Which Strabo also wrote was a desolate wilderness in this time.
>>But this is what happens when liars and biblical illiterates try to
>>teach the Bible.
>>All liars shall have their part in the lake of fire--and Joe will lead
>>the way in with his undending series of lies and dsistortions he posts
>only the Catholics say he was writing from Rome... replacing the Bible word Babylon and
>inserting Rome in its place.
Uh, no, the word "Babylon" is still in scripture. It's just that "Babylon" is
the secret decoder ring word for Rome, the true city of Babylon having been
destroyed at that time.
> these have removed the Second Commandment out of the Bible
>all together so they can continue being idol worshipers,
According to my bible, the 2nd Commandment is "worship no god but me".
According to my copy of the 10 commandments, the 1st says: I, the Lord am your
God, You shall not have other gods besides me."
So what is your problem with comprehension?
> so its no wonder that they should
>remove other words out of the Bible to fit this thinking.
You lose.
>they need to do that to give credence to their idea that their popes are successors of
>Peters office of apostle... so they are forced to say he went to Rome contrary to Gal.
>2:9... no pope ever fit the Biblically stated requirements of that office.
>
The Dukester, American-American
duke
>On Sep 21, 7:05�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 20:58:47 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>> >On Sep 19, 8:36�am, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
>> >> "old man joe" <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> >> > �here we have a denomination making great claims that it's head is
>> >> > speaking infallibly in
>> >> > matter's of doctrine as though the Bible is not completed to be written as
>> >> > God say's it
>> >> > is. �Rev.22:18,19. �other such denominations claim this, also.
>>
>> >> You think the bible is the only and complete word of God?
>> >> You need to read John where he says all of the Words of Jesus
>> >> were not written down.
>>
>> >Please show me where in the words of John he says the Words of Jesus
>> >were not written down?
>>
>> John 21:25, the last sentence in John.
>No that verse proves most of the words of Jesus were written down,
>only since he spoke so much many other words were not written down.
No, that verse proves that Jesus said and did many other things that were NOT
written down.
John 21:25 (New International Version)
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down,
I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would
be written.
>It shows Jesus did have his words written down, just not all of them,
>then that is what happens today, the teacher teaches and the students
>write what they hear him say, no one writes word for word every word a
>person says, today they record it and then have to hear over an over
>again to get most every world in print. John 21:25
The 4 Gospels were written 30-60 years after Jesus ascended to the Father. Now
what would go into said writings? Possibly some snippets written earlier, maybe
even some written when face to face with Jesus. Probaby many words passed down.
So what do the 4 Gospels represent, not in terms of liturgy, but in terms of
practical record keeping? The answer is that the words represent the words,
actions, and religious practices of the new Christian people, rather than a
"videotape-type" record of his words.
Now since the gospels represent what the Christians were doing in religious
practice, and they got these from Jesus and the written word {only that part of
Holy Tradition that was written down (script)}, then it likely that the Holy
Script does represent a solid view of what Christ wanted from us.
But not necessarily everything. But nothing has been added to Script, so we're
ok.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
>> You can run, but you can't hide. God is watching you.
>ROFL He isn't watching you, you just think he is.
>Now tell me - is that very intelligent ?
No, no you're not.
>> >They were rather gullible in those days; and things haven't changed very much
>> >even today !
>> >You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of
>> >magic and religion.
>> Which animal told you why?
>Yes we know why you pander after your god, it's because someone told you too.
>Animals are lucky, they cannot speak, otherwise no doubt they would create and
>propagate their gods too.
>In a couple of million years chimps may learn a simple language, then they can
>expect to see their first god, looking remarkably chimplike !
Well, wait on them.
vince garcia
I'm shocked...you had the guts to respond to some criticism for once!
Well, you're wrong. In fact, why don't you cite some reputable scholars,
if you can, who claim he was LITERALLY writing from the non-existent
city of babylon from that time? Then explain why his words are to cities
near rome, rather than cities near babylon
While we're on it, what proof do you have that even paul was martyred in
rome? The BIBLE doesn't say that! So why don't you accuse the catholics
of lying about HIS execution? There is NOTHING BUT THE SAME TRADITION
THAT SAYS PETER WAS MARTYRED AT THE SAME TIME that asserts paul was
literally martyred in rome.
Show me one verse that EXPLICITLY says paul was martyred in rome!
these have removed the Second Commandment out of the Bible
> all together so they can continue being idol worshipers, so its no wonder that they should
> remove other words out of the Bible to fit this thinking.
And YOU regularly deny the commandment about not bearing false witness
when you present falsehood and distortions as 'truth'
So you should clean your own laundry first before you worry about the
catholocs'
>
> they need to do that to give credence to their idea that their popes are successors of
> Peters office of apostle...
THAT is at least a more reasonable point, and if you'd stay on that
point intelligently, instead of using distortions and hyperbole to
support it, you might be worth listening to.
so they are forced to say he went to Rome contrary to Gal.
> 2:9... no pope ever fit the Biblically stated requirements of that office.
Gal 2:9 has nothing to do with the qualifications of being a "pope", and
is no evidence whatever that peter never went to rome.
You are misusing the scripture again, and in fact...YOU ARE DOING THE
VERY THING YOU ARE ACCUSING THE CATHOLICS OF! You have an
anti-catholic/anti-papal agenda, and so you are ignoring the obvious use
of babylon as a euphemism for Rome in order to redfine it literally in
order to promote the unfounded idea that peter never went to rome!
Do you think rev 14 is referring to literal Babylon too, instead of
Rome?
In fact, don't you think the RCC is the "whore of BABYLON"????
Dan Listermann
"bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:4AB8A63C...@netvigator.com...
>
>> >They were rather gullible in those days; and things haven't changed very
>> >much
>> >even today !
>>
>> >You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible
>> >fooleries of
>> >magic and religion.
>>
>> Which animal told you why?
>
> Yes we know why you pander after your god, it's because someone told you
> too.
> Animals are lucky, they cannot speak, otherwise no doubt they would create
> and
> propagate their gods too.
>
> In a couple of million years chimps may learn a simple language, then they
> can
> expect to see their first god, looking remarkably chimplike !
>
I like to remind Christians that their deities look like great apes as per
their scriptures.
RWKnapp
Where do you get the information that it was 30-60 after Jesus
ascended? I do not see such proof any for that statement, only what
people that do not want to accept what Jesus said, so like the
evolution folks do not like thousands of years as that does no support
their view, so now I see it is billions of years, like on said 250
Billion years. Such is pure foolish, as there is no way to prove such
dates, all the proofing is made up by man and they say this and others
say that. I would like to see where the four Gospels took that many
years for all of them. They were being written from the day they were
said and the things done, they took years to compile them, but they
were written by people that were there and heard what was said and
seen what was done. Nothing proves otherwise. Now the other books
and chapters that did come later such as 60 AD to 95-105 AD would not
have been written before they happen, but would be dated after they
were complied. Which was done as many writers had the same story to
tell and so the best reports were put into what is seen as the four
Gospels. I am sure you had a point with the videotape etc, but I do
not see what that has to do with what was written 2000 years ago
before such was in use.
>
> Now since the gospels represent what the Christians were doing in religious
> practice, and they got these from Jesus and the written word {only that part of
> Holy Tradition that was written down (script)}, then it likely that the Holy
> Script does represent a solid view of what Christ wanted from us.
>
> But not necessarily everything. But nothing has been added to Script, so we're
> ok.
I suppose the way you wrote that, I would have to agree, as all
scripture is anointed by the Holy Spirit.
Have a nice day Duke.
Raymond
RWKnapp
I wonder why you would say that, except maybe you never read the bible
about the boy and the temple at 12 years old where Jesus showed up and
taught the ministers about God. Luke 2:41-50
41 His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the
Passover. 42 And when He was twelve years old, they went up to
Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast. 43 When they had
finished the days, as they returned, the Boy Jesus lingered behind in
Jerusalem. And Joseph and His mother did not know it; 44 but
supposing Him to have been in the company, they went a day's journey,
and sought Him among their relatives and acquaintances. 45 So when
they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking Him. 46 Now
so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting
in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them
questions. 47 And all who heard Him were astonished at His
understanding and answers. 48 So when they saw Him, they were amazed;
and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You done this to us? Look,
Your father and I have sought You anxiously."
49 And He said to them, "Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I
must be about My Father's business?" 50 But they did not understand
the statement which He spoke to them. NKJV
There are millions of fake 100 dollar bills and they are made in most
every nation, they are useless, no value, but there are still people
trying to pass them as the real bill. So it is understandable if one
has the real thing, others will make up stories that they have the
real and the real is false. What you posted below only proves that
point.
>
> Sons-of-Gods Saviors who came to Earth and died for our sins:
>
> Krishna--- 1200 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Sakia--- 600 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Thammuz--- 400 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Wittoba--- 552 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Iao--- 622 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Hesus--- 834 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Quexalcote--- 587 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Quirinus--- 506 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Prometheus--- 547 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Thulis--- 1700 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Indra--- 725 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Alcestos--- 600 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Atys--- 1170 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Crite--- 1200 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Bali--- 725 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Mithra--- 600 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Jesus--- 6 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
>
> [acknowledgements to 'desertphile
Acknowledgement to Hindu faith we would have over ten thousand gods,
and Buddhism sure have hundreds and so. Hindu religion even have a
three head trinity god.
Whats the point?
Abe Froman
>I would like to see where the four Gospels took that many
>years for all of them. They were being written from the day they were
>said and the things done, they took years to compile them, but they
>were written by people that were there and heard what was said and
>seen what was done. Nothing proves otherwise.
You must depend on Usenet for your "education" about the Gospels.
Visit a library, and do some real research.
It is accepted by the vast majority of biblical scholars (Protestant
or Catholic - maybe even Jewish for all I know) that the gospels were
not written by eyewitnesses, that they were written between from 30-60
(maybe 70) years after the Christ left this world.
bob young
RWKnapp wrote:
>
> 41 His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the
> Passover. 42 And when He was twelve years old, they went up to
> Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast.
Proof
> 43 When they had
> finished the days, as they returned, the Boy Jesus lingered behind in
> Jerusalem. And Joseph and His mother did not know it; 44 but
> supposing Him to have been in the company, they went a day's journey,
> and sought Him among their relatives and acquaintances. 45 So when
> they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking Him. 46 Now
> so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting
> in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them
> questions.
Old wifes tale
> 47 And all who heard Him were astonished at His
> understanding and answers. 48 So when they saw Him, they were amazed;
> and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You done this to us? Look,
> Your father and I have sought You anxiously."
> 49 And He said to them, "Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I
> must be about My Father's business?" 50 But they did not understand
> the statement which He spoke to them. NKJV
Proof
The point, my friend, is that every one of man's gods is made up by man, the
Christian one being no exception.
I have asked that question about nothing recorded about Jesus to many Christians,
none of them ever reply. Your attept at answering is based on nothing other than
stories written at any time that cannot be verified. THAT for the son of a god
that created everything ?
O dear !
Bear
Hello Abe,
What sources are you basing you statement, "It is accepted by the vast
majority of biblical scholars�" on?
I believe the Bible Knowledge Commentary presents some sound arguments
for the dating of the Gospels, albeit there probably is no irrefutable
evidence one way or the other.
Bear
Matthew
Pinpointing the writing of the First Gospel to a specific year is
impossible. Various dates for the book have been suggested by
conservative scholars. C.I. Scofield in the original Scofield
Reference Bible gave a.d. 37 as a possible date. Few scholars give a
date after a.d. 70, since Matthew made no reference to the destruction
of Jerusalem. Furthermore, Matthew's references to Jerusalem as the
"Holy City" (Matt. 4:5; 27:53) imply that it was still in existence.
But some time seems to have elapsed after the events of the
Crucifixion and the Resurrection. Matthew 27:7-8 refers to a certain
custom continuing "to this day," and 28:15 refers to a story being
circulated "to this very day." These phrases imply the passing of
time, and yet not so much time that the Jewish customs had ceased.
Since church tradition has strongly advocated that the Gospel of
Matthew was the first Gospel account written, perhaps a date somewhere
around a.d. 50 would satisfy all the demands mentioned. It would also
be early enough to permit Matthew to be the first Gospel account.
The Bible knowledge commentary: An exposition of the scriptures
Mark
Nowhere does the New Testament have any explicit statement regarding
the date of Mark. The discourse centered around Jesus' prediction of
the destruction of the Jerusalem temple (cf. comments on 13:2, 14-23)
suggests that Mark's Gospel was written before a.d. 70, when the
temple was destroyed.
Early testimony from the church fathers is divided on whether Mark
wrote his Gospel before or after the martyrdom of Peter (ca. a.d.
64-68). On one hand, Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3. 1. 1) declared that
Mark wrote after the "departure" (exodon) of Peter and Paul (thus
after a.d. 67 or 68). By the word exodon Irenaeus probably meant
"departure in death." The word is used this way in Luke 9:31 and 2
Peter 1:15. This is clearly supported by the Anti-Marcionite Prologue
to Mark which asserts, "After the death of Peter himself, he [Mark]
wrote down this same Gospel. . . ." On the other hand, Clement of
Alexandria and Origen (cf. Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 2. 15. 2;
6. 14. 6; 6. 25. 5) placed the writing of Mark's Gospel during Peter's
lifetime stating, in fact, that Peter participated in its production
and ratified its use in the church.
Because of conflicting external evidence the question of date remains
problematic. Two options are available. One view is that the Gospel
can be dated between a.d. 67-69 if one accepts the tradition that it
was written after the deaths of Peter and Paul. Advocates of this view
usually hold either that Matthew and Luke were written after a.d. 70
or that they were written before Mark. A second view is that the
Gospel can be dated prior to a.d. 64-68 (when Peter was martyred) if
one accepts the tradition that it was written during Peter's lifetime.
On this view one can accept the priority of Mark (or Matt.) and still
hold that all the Synoptic Gospels were written before a.d. 70.
The second view is preferred for these reasons: (1) Tradition is
divided though the more reliable evidence supports this view. (2) The
priority of Mark (cf. comments under "Sources"), particularly Mark's
relationship to Luke, which antedates Acts (cf. Acts 1:1), points to a
date before a.d. 64. The fact that Acts closes with Paul still in
prison prior to his first release (ca. a.d. 62) pushes the date for
Mark before a.d. 60. (3) It is historically probable that Mark (and
perhaps Peter also for a short time) could have been in Rome during
the latter part of the 50s (cf. comments under "Authorship" and under
"Place of Origin and Destination"). Thus a plausible dating would seem
to be a.d. 57-59 during the early part of Emperor Nero's reign (a.d.
54-68).
The Bible knowledge commentary: An exposition of the scriptures
Luke
A number of dates have been suggested for the writing of Luke. If Acts
were written before the time of Nero's persecution (a.d. 64)-which
seems evident by the fact that Acts closed with Paul still alive and
in prison-then the Book of Luke must have been written several years
before that, for Acts was subsequent to Luke. Though it is impossible
to pinpoint a specific date, a time of composition between a.d. 58 and
60 fits well.
Luke gave no clues as to the place where he wrote his Gospel. Thus any
statement on the matter would be mere speculation. Some suggest that
Luke wrote from either Caesarea or Rome.
The Bible knowledge commentary: An exposition of the scriptures
John
The date for the Gospel of John was probably between a.d. 85 and 95.
Some critics have attempted to assign a date as late as a.d. 150 on
the basis of the book's alleged similarities to Gnostic writings or
because of a supposed long development of church theology.
Archeological finds supporting the authenticity of the text of John
(e.g., John 4:11; 5:2-3), word studies (e.g., synchr?ntai, 4:9),
manuscript discoveries (e.g., P52), and the Dead Sea Scrolls have
given powerful support to an early dating for John. So it is common
today to find nonconservative scholars arguing for a date as early as
a.d. 45-66. An early date is possible. But this Gospel has been known
in the church as the "Fourth" one, and the early church fathers
believed that it was written when John was an old man. Therefore a
date between 85 and 95 is best. John 21:18, 23 require the passing of
some time, with Peter becoming old and John outliving him.
The Bible knowledge commentary: An exposition of the scriptures
Abe Froman
>On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:50:28 -0500, Abe Froman
><sausa...@cheecawgo.invalid> wrote:
>
>>RWKnapp <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I would like to see where the four Gospels took that many
>>>years for all of them. They were being written from the day they were
>>>said and the things done, they took years to compile them, but they
>>>were written by people that were there and heard what was said and
>>>seen what was done. Nothing proves otherwise.
>>
>>You must depend on Usenet for your "education" about the Gospels.
>>Visit a library, and do some real research.
>>
>>It is accepted by the vast majority of biblical scholars (Protestant
>>or Catholic - maybe even Jewish for all I know) that the gospels were
>>not written by eyewitnesses, that they were written between from 30-60
>>(maybe 70) years after the Christ left this world.
>
>Hello Abe,
>
>What sources are you basing you statement, "It is accepted by the vast
>majority of biblical scholars�" on?
Several years of exegetical study of the New Testament using books
from a variety of sources both personally owned and from libraries.
Books by Raymond E. Brown, Joseph Fitzmeyer, Pheme Perkins, Francis
Maloney and Roland Faley all are in my personal collection.
>I believe the Bible Knowledge Commentary presents some sound arguments
>for the dating of the Gospels, albeit there probably is no irrefutable
>evidence one way or the other.
>
>Bear
>
>Matthew
>
>Pinpointing the writing of the First Gospel to a specific year is
>impossible. Various dates for the book have been suggested by
>conservative scholars. C.I. Scofield in the original Scofield
>Reference Bible gave a.d. 37 as a possible date. Few scholars give a
>date after a.d. 70, since Matthew made no reference to the destruction
>of Jerusalem. Furthermore, Matthew's references to Jerusalem as the
>"Holy City" (Matt. 4:5; 27:53) imply that it was still in existence.
Dating Matthew prior to a.d. 70 is quite strange... see below.
>But some time seems to have elapsed after the events of the
>Crucifixion and the Resurrection. Matthew 27:7-8 refers to a certain
>custom continuing "to this day," and 28:15 refers to a story being
>circulated "to this very day." These phrases imply the passing of
>time, and yet not so much time that the Jewish customs had ceased.
>Since church tradition has strongly advocated that the Gospel of
>Matthew was the first Gospel account written, perhaps a date somewhere
>around a.d. 50 would satisfy all the demands mentioned. It would also
>be early enough to permit Matthew to be the first Gospel account.
Matthew was clearly NOT the first gospel written. See below.
>
>The Bible knowledge commentary: An exposition of the scriptures
>
>Mark
>
>Nowhere does the New Testament have any explicit statement regarding
>the date of Mark. The discourse centered around Jesus' prediction of
>the destruction of the Jerusalem temple (cf. comments on 13:2, 14-23)
>suggests that Mark's Gospel was written before a.d. 70, when the
>temple was destroyed.
True. And since Matthew obviously used a large part of Mark (as Did
Luke), Matthew was obviously written AFTER Mark.
Bizarre. Luke depends on Mark (and another source "Q")... i.e., it
was written AFTER MARK.
>Luke gave no clues as to the place where he wrote his Gospel. Thus any
>statement on the matter would be mere speculation. Some suggest that
>Luke wrote from either Caesarea or Rome.
>
>The Bible knowledge commentary: An exposition of the scriptures
>
>John
>
>The date for the Gospel of John was probably between a.d. 85 and 95.
>Some critics have attempted to assign a date as late as a.d. 150 on
>the basis of the book's alleged similarities to Gnostic writings or
>because of a supposed long development of church theology.
>Archeological finds supporting the authenticity of the text of John
>(e.g., John 4:11; 5:2-3), word studies (e.g., synchr?ntai, 4:9),
>manuscript discoveries (e.g., P52), and the Dead Sea Scrolls have
>given powerful support to an early dating for John. So it is common
>today to find nonconservative scholars arguing for a date as early as
>a.d. 45-66. An early date is possible. But this Gospel has been known
>in the church as the "Fourth" one, and the early church fathers
>believed that it was written when John was an old man. Therefore a
>date between 85 and 95 is best. John 21:18, 23 require the passing of
>some time, with Peter becoming old and John outliving him.
John indeed was written last.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary appears to be a fringe publication. The
authors believe in the complete inerrancy of the bible, and hold that
there are no contradictions in the bible.
That alone is highly suspect and hardly represents mainline biblical
theology.
Elijahovah
> You think the bible is the only and complete word of God?
> You need to read John where he says all of the Words of Jesus
> were not written down.
People fail to see these words here.
They think it is saying other words of God are down
in writing and in other books. In a way this is true,
but it is not what it means. It means what it says
when it says NOT written down any where at all
and yet are still acts of God and word of God.
Jesus said he is the word of God and therefore
all that he did is also word of God even if no
where ever written down. This is very simple
reasonsing and fact by saying that truth is word
of God. All truth is word of God and all word of God is truth.
It refers to all things we should know including
the knowledge that arsenic on the lips will kill you.
Yes truth determines life and death, so even the
knowledge of poisons, antidotes, avoidance, cures,
is truth of God determining life and death.
The field of meds and its lying doctors or few who
know truth about meds is included in the whole
field of GOD'S TRUTH. This is why the expression
God's truth. If you take a scripture and you read it
wrong or interpret it in a false way, then that scripture
is no longer God's word or God's truth in the
meaning of YOUR interpretation of it. The truth
is wayed by it proving true. All truth is in reality
predictions that come true.... arsenic in a shot glass
with no antidote or mix will always do as we know it to do.
It is predictable, and so it proves to be truth of God.
In theory then we should be able to see enough to avoid
death even if we make mistakes that we must turn back
away from. In theory, none of our mistakes are sins,
but rather they are a learning process, because in theory
none of our mistakes should be big enough to cause death
to anyone.
Elijahovah
> You've GOT to check your info before posting, Patrick (like your
> naming the wrong Bible version that is approved by the Church). There
> is nothing in John about "words" not being written down... it's the
> WORKS of Jesus that are referred to.
This is stupid reasoning. If the works were not written down,
then it means words about these works were not written down
How else do you write down other than words.
Do you have a brain at all?
Granted I will not dispute against Jesus likewise playing word games.
Though he taught no man would rise to heaven until (he) the Son
of Man does; (and so this means not Enoch, not Noah, not Elijah,
not Abram, nor Lazarus), he none the less gave a pagan Greek analogy
to the Greek taught Jews of Lazarus in heaven with Abram and
a rich man in hell. He also says I am the god of Abram as if
Abram is alive, but he means the man who is not alive, is
alive in God's mind for the day God brings him back alive.
Thus a man's words are not a sin unless he intends to deceive
(successfully proudly accomplish a WRONG by the use of deceit).
Rebecca's clothing Jacob was an intent of justice and so is not
regarded
as deceit. In scriptural thinking, a right is not justified by a
wrong,
for the simple reason that if the result is what's right then the
means
wasn't wrong. Jesus enticed the men to kill him to prove men would
rather choose to be evil and wrong; thus he did not sin by knowing
their responce in how to anger them to kill him. He accomplished
perfectly what must be done to see why no son has ever led rightly
as a christ, we kill them all, none could ever be perfect enough for
us in our eyes. Thus the game of those who say Judas must be our
Christ for offering up Jesus as sacrifice, or Jesus walked into
suicide
which is a crime or sin, and so couldnt have gone to heaven.
These are reasonings that deliberately create a deceit so others
fail to see where the end path of all that is happening is headed for
and going to. This is why Jesus said that it is not crimes
(blaspheme) against God or Son that brings death, but a continued
defiance against the spirit which brings death and makes that death
eternal for the one who will refuse to ever change his spirit
by allowing God's spirit to conform his ways.
This is what proves that mistakes are not Sin.
It is not sin if proper atonements are made.
The sacrifice atonements of the Jews were symbols, not actual
atonements. You kill gonnorhea with penicillin or by eating
bread with mold, not by killing a dove on an altar.
Once atoned you do not go back to the cause of it or
you are sinning against spirit that eventually kills you.
Elijahovah
> cradle either. I wonder why ?
Being left at the temple when he was 12 is more than a single word
about him, and so is the story of his birth and
a few months later a christening by Magi.
> Sons-of-Gods Saviors who came to Earth and died for our sins:
> Thulis--- 1700 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Krishna--- 1200 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Crite--- 1200 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Atys--- 1170 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Hesus--- 834 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Indra--- 725 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Bali--- 725 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Iao--- 622 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Sakia--- 600 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Alcestos--- 600 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Mithra--- 600 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Quexalcote--- 587 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Wittoba--- 552 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Prometheus--- 547 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Quirinus--- 506 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Thammuz--- 400 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Jesus--- 6 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
DOES ANYONE NOTICE THE CALENDAR ASTRONOMY IN THESE FIGURES?
Kishna actually means Christ Noah and 1200 years from Noah's death
on Dec 24 of 2021 BC is Dec 29 of 821 BC. This is 1200 Egyptian years
minus 60 days; it is a formula for Venus
(1200x 365 days = 750x 584 days) which is 1199 Julian and 5 days.
It is Cyrus who is coronated for 1460 years (Dec 24 of 561 BC)
40 days later as Noah was claimed in spirit 2020 BC Feb 2
and 560 BC Feb 2. The Venus calendar was created in Noah's year 1200
(b.2970 BC- 1770 BC) based on only 600 years after the Flood.
Though Venus will be in the same stars 1199 Julian apart,
the planet Earth had the 365-day formula for Venus
only after the Flood ... due to astral impact that caused the
water canopy to fall, and plates to fall one year under the ocean.
The reason why we have 600 years going to Magi of Jesus
is because of Amizaduga Venus (1625 BC being Adams 2400).
This created the prediction that an expectation of 3600 more
years to year 6000 could have a venus calendar to mark it.
Thus Venus was used to claim the last 1200 or last 600
of our world each time armageddon was predicted to be
soon around the corner.
One interesting factor is Venus being 8 years.
In the 360-day calendar, 592 years of Venus is
600 years of 360 days and so conversion came into existence
that said if Noah's years for Venus before the Flood was
in 360-day then the whole 1200 years is of 360-day.
This however is 1183.56 egyptian years
1184 egyptian years being twice the 592 year venus.
(1182.75 Julian)
Since the true formula is subtract 30 days for 600x 365
and subtract 60 days for 1200x 365
it is easy to see where they may have altered this to
600x 360 days plus 60 days
so 1200x360 days plus 120 days
It is all about incompetent science,
men who are priest or teacher or astronomer
and do not know their field yet rule the world.
Elijahovah
riding the governments. The picture has the three
entities of governement and religion and commerce.
But a Babylon effect of confusion exists in al three
fields and the internet gathering all together proves
that though the truth is freed into the world by the net,
the massive volume of lies explodes into a confusion
of beleiving anything anyone wishes to beleive.
CONTROL over what people say to the whole world
is now lost, and the lies can bury them all, all these
people can die because no longer is their a truth
to them, they are confused in seeing mass bullshit.
And the cause of death is then their laughing at it all
when this is SERIOUS.
Abe Froman
>> You've GOT to check your info before posting, Patrick (like your
>> naming the wrong Bible version that is approved by the Church). There
>> is nothing in John about "words" not being written down... it's the
>> WORKS of Jesus that are referred to.
>
>This is stupid reasoning.
[snip]
It wasn't reasoning at all, it was a statement. And you snipped the
past that explained the statement, you idiot.
>"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one
>of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not
>contain the books that would be written."
> Jn 21:25
duke
Right there in the intro to each bible book, discussing the projected purpose of
the writing as evidenced by the words themselves, the author, the time, and a
survey.
> I do not see such proof any for that statement,
I suggest you look for a better bible.
>Now the other books
>and chapters that did come later such as 60 AD to 95-105 AD would not
>have been written before they happen, but would be dated after they
>were complied.
Of course. But Matthew, Mark and Luke never knew Jesus.
>> Now since the gospels represent what the Christians were doing in religious
>> practice, and they got these from Jesus and the written word {only that part of
>> Holy Tradition that was written down (script)}, then it likely that the Holy
>> Script does represent a solid view of what Christ wanted from us.
>> But not necessarily everything. �But nothing has been added to Script, so we're
>> ok.
>I suppose the way you wrote that, I would have to agree, as all
>scripture is anointed by the Holy Spirit.
>Have a nice day Duke.
You too.
duke
I'm sorry, but they DO NOT look like you.
bob young
duke wrote:
Does being pathetically childish come naturally to you Dook,
or do you find you have to work at it ?
Bear
<sausa...@cheecawgo.invalid> wrote:
>Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:50:28 -0500, Abe Froman
>><sausa...@cheecawgo.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>RWKnapp <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I would like to see where the four Gospels took that many
>>>>years for all of them. They were being written from the day they were
>>>>said and the things done, they took years to compile them, but they
>>>>were written by people that were there and heard what was said and
>>>>seen what was done. Nothing proves otherwise.
>>>
>>>You must depend on Usenet for your "education" about the Gospels.
>>>Visit a library, and do some real research.
>>>
>>>It is accepted by the vast majority of biblical scholars (Protestant
>>>or Catholic - maybe even Jewish for all I know) that the gospels were
>>>not written by eyewitnesses, that they were written between from 30-60
>>>(maybe 70) years after the Christ left this world.
>>
>>Hello Abe,
>>
>>What sources are you basing you statement, "It is accepted by the vast
>>majority of biblical scholars�" on?
>
>Several years of exegetical study of the New Testament using books
>from a variety of sources both personally owned and from libraries.
>Books by Raymond E. Brown, Joseph Fitzmeyer, Pheme Perkins, Francis
>Maloney and Roland Faley all are in my personal collection.
>
Why only the NT, why not the Bible?
>>I believe the Bible Knowledge Commentary presents some sound arguments
>>for the dating of the Gospels, albeit there probably is no irrefutable
>>evidence one way or the other.
>>
>>Bear
>>
>>Matthew
>>
>>Pinpointing the writing of the First Gospel to a specific year is
>>impossible. Various dates for the book have been suggested by
>>conservative scholars. C.I. Scofield in the original Scofield
>>Reference Bible gave a.d. 37 as a possible date. Few scholars give a
>>date after a.d. 70, since Matthew made no reference to the destruction
>>of Jerusalem. Furthermore, Matthew's references to Jerusalem as the
>>"Holy City" (Matt. 4:5; 27:53) imply that it was still in existence.
>
>Dating Matthew prior to a.d. 70 is quite strange... see below.
>
Not in the opinion of some scholars.
Hello Abe,
Thanks for your interesting comments; however, I did not see where you
presented any evidence refuting any of the information by the Bible
Knowledge Commentary group. Granted, one can find material that
differs from most any subject of interest. It is my opinion that the
Bible Knowledge group submitted a reasonable, plausible argument for
their views, but as they also pointed out, there are different
opinions on the subject, none of which seems to be irrefutable.
>>But some time seems to have elapsed after the events of the
>>Crucifixion and the Resurrection. Matthew 27:7-8 refers to a certain
>>custom continuing "to this day," and 28:15 refers to a story being
>>circulated "to this very day." These phrases imply the passing of
>>time, and yet not so much time that the Jewish customs had ceased.
>>Since church tradition has strongly advocated that the Gospel of
>>Matthew was the first Gospel account written, perhaps a date somewhere
>>around a.d. 50 would satisfy all the demands mentioned. It would also
>>be early enough to permit Matthew to be the first Gospel account.
>
>Matthew was clearly NOT the first gospel written. See below.
>>
>>The Bible knowledge commentary: An exposition of the scriptures
>>
>>Mark
>>
>>Nowhere does the New Testament have any explicit statement regarding
>>the date of Mark. The discourse centered around Jesus' prediction of
>>the destruction of the Jerusalem temple (cf. comments on 13:2, 14-23)
>>suggests that Mark's Gospel was written before a.d. 70, when the
>>temple was destroyed.
>
>True. And since Matthew obviously used a large part of Mark (as Did
>Luke), Matthew was obviously written AFTER Mark.
>
It is not "obvious" to many scholars.
I am sure there are those that agree with your statement, there are
also those that disagree with it. I am not saying that you are wrong,
only that there are other views, that I have not seen disproved.
>>Luke gave no clues as to the place where he wrote his Gospel. Thus any
>>statement on the matter would be mere speculation. Some suggest that
>>Luke wrote from either Caesarea or Rome.
>>
>>The Bible knowledge commentary: An exposition of the scriptures
>>
>>John
>>
>>The date for the Gospel of John was probably between a.d. 85 and 95.
>>Some critics have attempted to assign a date as late as a.d. 150 on
>>the basis of the book's alleged similarities to Gnostic writings or
>>because of a supposed long development of church theology.
>>Archeological finds supporting the authenticity of the text of John
>>(e.g., John 4:11; 5:2-3), word studies (e.g., synchr?ntai, 4:9),
>>manuscript discoveries (e.g., P52), and the Dead Sea Scrolls have
>>given powerful support to an early dating for John. So it is common
>>today to find nonconservative scholars arguing for a date as early as
>>a.d. 45-66. An early date is possible. But this Gospel has been known
>>in the church as the "Fourth" one, and the early church fathers
>>believed that it was written when John was an old man. Therefore a
>>date between 85 and 95 is best. John 21:18, 23 require the passing of
>>some time, with Peter becoming old and John outliving him.
>
>John indeed was written last.
>
Hey, we do not totally disagree then, eh?
>The Bible Knowledge Commentary appears to be a fringe publication. The
>authors believe in the complete inerrancy of the bible, and hold that
>there are no contradictions in the bible.
>
>That alone is highly suspect and hardly represents mainline biblical
>theology.
If you wish to believe that Dallas Theological Seminary is a "fringe
group", then so be it. Many other scholars agree with their
summation, such as, Dave Hunt, John Whitcomb, Jack Kelley, Chuck
Missler, Hal Lindsey, Josh McDowell and others.
If you do not believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and
contains errors, then who gets to determine what those
"contradictions" are? I have found that the supposedly
"contradictions" can be easily explained by people who are very
literate with the entire scriptures; unfortunately, I am not one of
them.
Have a great day.
Bear
Dan Listermann
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:rp2kb559dujfe3626...@4ax.com...
Abe Froman
>>True. And since Matthew obviously used a large part of Mark (as Did
>>Luke), Matthew was obviously written AFTER Mark.
>>
>It is not "obvious" to many scholars.
"many" is the keyword. Your "many" are in the minority.
We're done discussing this.
Bear
I understand completely.
Bear
RWKnapp
> RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >I would like to see where the four Gospels took that many
> >years for all of them. They were being written from the day they were
> >said and the things done, they took years to compile them, but they
> >were written by people that were there and heard what was said and
> >seen what was done. Nothing proves otherwise.
>
> You must depend on Usenet for your "education" about the Gospels.
> Visit a library, and do some real research.
I use the Internet and I go to the library files as well as I have 3
DVD's each with a library of most mayor which is wroth a few thousand
dollars such as the PC Study Bible by Bible Soft. Discover PC Study
Bible Version 5
Spend less time searching...and more time studying!
PC Study Bible's revolutionary SmartView™ with related Greek/Hebrew/
Aramaic Word Database, SmartReferences™ and CrossReferences
automatically find and display every piece of information in your
library that's related to the verse or topic you're studying, so you
never waste time with fruitless searching.
Unparalleled Ease of Use
Our completely redesigned desktop streamlines your Bible study by
providing simple, intuitive, consistent access to all aspects of your
library. When you go to any of your commentaries, a convenient Dual-
View option lets you select entering the commentary by a verse
reference or table of contents view.
Want to find all the related references to the passage you're
studying? PC Study Bible's Reference Chain feature displays all of the
biblical and topical references related to that verse in your entire
library.
Powerful Content
An entire library of timeless and most up-to-date, carefully selected
reference materials, as well as a continually expanding list of add-on
modules to keep your library growing.
Brand New Audio Support
The Biblesoft Audio/Video System, included with every PC Study Bible
library, lets you play specially formatted audio-video presentations
and helps you to pronounce any Greek lexical form word with a simple
click in the Complete, Advanced and Professional Reference libraries.
Not counting four years in classroom for just my Theology degree, so
please do not made up such silly excuses for your lacking, and
thinking such remarks make you seem intelligent, it doesn't. As well
as a few hundred book on most doctrines both Catholic, Protestant and
Full Gospel as well as 49 years in full time ministry.
>
> It is accepted by the vast majority of biblical scholars (Protestant
> or Catholic - maybe even Jewish for all I know) that the gospels were
> not written by eyewitnesses, that they were written between from 30-60
> (maybe 70) years after the Christ left this world.
Well who is this vast majority do you have a names of these so called
scholars, I dare say all Biblical scholars accept the Holy Bible and
that those who did report what they heard and seen knew it was done by
eye witness people on the seen. Then you bring in the Jewish groups
again no names, with out thinking as those Jewish scholars and
eyewitnesses are the ones that did write the New Testament and their
names are on the Gospels and letters of each book of the Bible, a few
would be Matthew, Mark, Dr. Luke, John as well as Peter etc. Those
scholars did accept the Gospels as well as wrote them. My searches
are great in number, you seem only make statements without facts.
I am not sure why you think I get my information from only the
Internet, I do get them from my computer as I have gigabytes of
research materials at my finger tip.
Enjoy, only would be nice to support your accusations with some kind
of facts, not just excuses for you lack of references.
RWKnapp
Old yes, wife's tales, nope, some did tell their story of what Jesus
did and their tale of truth is still good today and truth, is
something atheist as you are, could not understand, as you believe the
old atheist wives tales, that are nothing and not worth the time to
discuss.
>
> > 47 And all who heard Him were astonished at His
> > understanding and answers. 48 So when they saw Him, they were amazed;
> > and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You done this to us? Look,
> > Your father and I have sought You anxiously."
> > 49 And He said to them, "Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I
> > must be about My Father's business?" 50 But they did not understand
> > the statement which He spoke to them. NKJV
>
> Proof
You had is in your face, open your eyes and read, then you have
nothing to prove any of your statements, and when you read what does
not agree with your false ideas, only show your not knowledgeable of
these matters.
>
> > Acknowledgement to Hindu faith we would have over ten thousand gods,
> > and Buddhism sure have hundreds and so. Hindu religion even have a
> > three head trinity god.
> > Whats the point?
>
> The point, my friend, is that every one of man's gods is made up by man, the
> Christian one being no exception.
So what is your point, beside you can not read, man made gods are all
fake and that been my opinion so you just keep proving my points as if
they were yours, and you know that is not wisdom but stupidity on your
part.
>
> I have asked that question about nothing recorded about Jesus to many Christians,
> none of them ever reply. Your attept at answering is based on nothing other than
> stories written at any time that cannot be verified. THAT for the son of a god
> that created everything ?
Why would any Christian except maybe me, that look over your foolish
"god" and such remarks, when you know as I do "gods" are man made.
You try to get a believer to accept your "god" for the True God, and
they do not waste the time to reply to an atheist, I care about your
soul and pray you will get to feel the presents of God and see Jesus
loves you, and does not want you to be lost for eternity. Just
because you and atheist that do not have the Spirit of God, deny any
verification, is your problem, since we who know God, understand if
you did accept them. In doing so, all your atheist friends would mock
you and you would loose them. I know, I lost all my old friends and
was told by some if I did not deny Christ, I would lose them. So I
lost them and found the joy of knowing the Lord and the joy of being a
Christian that does have fellowship with God and millions of believers
of like faith.
>
> O dear
Sorry your wrong on that point also, I am not a dear, except my wife
at times call me that.
In Jesus,
Raymond
Abe Froman
>> It is accepted by the vast majority of biblical scholars (Protestant
>> or Catholic - maybe even Jewish for all I know) that the gospels were
>> not written by eyewitnesses, that they were written between from 30-60
>> (maybe 70) years after the Christ left this world.
>
>Well who is this vast majority do you have a names of these so called
>scholars, I dare say all Biblical scholars accept the Holy Bible and
>that those who did report what they heard and seen knew it was done by
>eye witness people on the seen. Then you bring in the Jewish groups
>again no names, with out thinking as those Jewish scholars and
>eyewitnesses are the ones that did write the New Testament and their
>names are on the Gospels and letters of each book of the Bible, a few
>would be Matthew, Mark, Dr. Luke, John as well as Peter etc. Those
>scholars did accept the Gospels as well as wrote them. My searches
>are great in number, you seem only make statements without facts.
You apparently are one who thinks that the Bible is totally without
error/contradiction. That it is totally and historically accurate.
I'm not one of those.
It is THEOLOGICALLY accurate, but it's not historically accurate.
We part here in this discussion.
bob young
RWKnapp wrote:
Nope - I believe that a goodly proportion of humanity cannot exist without silly
dogmas, from Hinduism, to Taoism, to Chrsitianism and all the other 'isms' that man in
his ignorance has dreamed up over the years
>
>
> >
> > > 47 And all who heard Him were astonished at His
> > > understanding and answers. 48 So when they saw Him, they were amazed;
> > > and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You done this to us? Look,
> > > Your father and I have sought You anxiously."
> > > 49 And He said to them, "Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I
> > > must be about My Father's business?" 50 But they did not understand
> > > the statement which He spoke to them. NKJV
> >
> > Proof
>
> You had is in your face, open your eyes and read, then you have
> nothing to prove any of your statements, and when you read what does
> not agree with your false ideas, only show your not knowledgeable of
> these matters.
IOW N O P R O O F
See my comment one para higher up !
>
> >
> > > Acknowledgement to Hindu faith we would have over ten thousand gods,
> > > and Buddhism sure have hundreds and so. Hindu religion even have a
> > > three head trinity god.
> > > Whats the point?
> >
>
> > The point, my friend, is that every one of man's gods is made up by man, the
> > Christian one being no exception.
>
> So what is your point, beside you can not read, man made gods are all
> fake and that been my opinion so you just keep proving my points as if
> they were yours, and you know that is not wisdom but stupidity on your
> part.
I am not the follower YOU ARE so the stupid one, if we have to descend to childish name
calling, is YOU
>
>
> >
> > I have asked that question about nothing recorded about Jesus to many Christians,
> > none of them ever reply. Your attept at answering is based on nothing other than
> > stories written at any time that cannot be verified. THAT for the son of a god
> > that created everything ?
>
> Why would any Christian except maybe me, that look over your foolish
> "god" and such remarks, when you know as I do "gods" are man made.
> You try to get a believer to accept your "god" for the True God, and
> they do not waste the time to reply to an atheist, I care about your
> soul and pray you will get to feel the presents of God and see Jesus
> loves you, and does not want you to be lost for eternity. Just
> because you and atheist that do not have the Spirit of God, deny any
> verification, is your problem, since we who know God, understand if
> you did accept them. In doing so, all your atheist friends would mock
> you and you would loose them. I know, I lost all my old friends and
> was told by some if I did not deny Christ, I would lose them. So I
> lost them and found the joy of knowing the Lord and the joy of being a
> Christian that does have fellowship with God and millions of believers
> of like faith.
> >
> > O dear
Well I could say automatically "OH God" but since I have no beliefs in them I say "OOH
Dear" when someone writes silly nonsense about 'gods' and the books humans write about
their gods
>
>
> Sorry your wrong on that point also, I am not a dear, except my wife
> at times call me that.
>
> In Jesus . . . . .
In-comprehensible . . .
>
>
> Raymond
duke
>Well who is this vast majority do you have a names of these so called
>scholars, I dare say all Biblical scholars accept the Holy Bible and
>that those who did report what they heard and seen knew it was done by
>eye witness people on the seen.
It's a fair statement that the reports do come in some cases by people on the
scene. It's accurate to day that the inspired writings of the gospel writers
represent the words, actions and religious practices of the new Christian
people, ie, Matthew wrote that Harry said that Joe said that he heard Jesus say.
Only John of the 4 personally knew Jesus, and his gospel was dated 60 years
after Christ. The others are stated some 30 years or so after Christ.
My Catholic study bible, in the intro to each book, gives date, subject,
audience, etc type information for whom each Gospel was written.
It would be nice to think we have videotape of Christ on earth, but we don't.
duke
Your knuckles dragging on the ground are very easy to see.
RWKnapp
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:02:55 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >Well who is this vast majority do you have a names of these so called
> >scholars, I dare say all Biblical scholars accept the Holy Bible and
> >that those who did report what they heard and seen knew it was done by
>
> It's a fair statement that the reports do come in some cases by people on the
> scene. It's accurate to day that the inspired writings of the gospel writers
> represent the words, actions and religious practices of the new Christian
> people, ie, Matthew wrote that Harry said that Joe said that he heard Jesus say.
>
> Only John of the 4 personally knew Jesus, and his gospel was dated 60 years
> after Christ. The others are stated some 30 years or so after Christ.
Again who did the dating of 60 or 30 years? I would think it is like
today, one takes notes and writes down what was said, and later
complies it into a document. It is not when the document was finished
so it could be read better, but the time of the notes and such that is
the date that should be used. I had a book printed and published
years ago, it covered more then 12 years but it was printed years
after it that facts. I wrote down notes for years and documented
everything with pictures, as it had to do with baptism, building,
youth, bible seminary and lots of things. It would be wrong to say
nothing was written down till it was printed or the date was after the
facts and the time such happen.
>
> My Catholic study bible, in the intro to each book, gives date, subject,
> audience, etc type information for whom each Gospel was written.
Most all bibles give such information which is just information, and
for the dates, over the years, they found problems and now most accept
that the dating done by a monk was off 4 to 6 years. which would put
the birth of Jesus back 5 years before he was born to Mary. So those
dates are just to help get the idea when such acts did happen.
> It would be nice to think we have videotape of Christ on earth, but we don't.
That would be nice only DVD would be more up to date for today. Lots
of movies did make movies some good and some not true at all. The
Holy Bible does give us peace and does not point to the human but the
Spiritual Christ and we can pray to Jesus and when we get to heaven,
they most likely will have all that for us to see. If there was any
such thing, people would be worshiping that videotape and building
temples to it. Even the Apostles wanted to build three temples after
seeing Jesus on the mountain with two prophets of the OT. I can wait
till I see Jesus eye to eye in Heaven.
Nice talking to you Duke.
Raymond.
duke
>On Sep 24, 6:59�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:02:55 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>> >Well who is this vast majority do you have a names of these so called
>> >scholars, �I dare say all Biblical scholars accept the Holy Bible and
>> >that those who did report what they heard and seen knew it was done by
>> >eye witness people on the scene.
>>
>> It's a fair statement that the reports do come in some cases by people on the
>> scene. �It's accurate to day that the inspired writings of the gospel writers
>> represent the words, actions and religious practices of the new Christian
>> people, ie, Matthew wrote that Harry said that Joe said that he heard Jesus say.
>>
>> Only John of the 4 personally knew Jesus, and his gospel was dated 60 years
>> after Christ. �The others are stated some 30 years or so after Christ. �
>Again who did the dating of 60 or 30 years?
Learned researchers who also are able to date events listed and knowledge
revealed in each book, as well as the "revealed" purpose of each book, the true
author if known, the time of, and a summary survey of each book.
Matthew: AD 80-90
Mark: AD 65-75
Luke: AD 65-75
John: AD 95-100
> I would think it is like
>today, one takes notes and writes down what was said, and later
>complies it into a document. It is not when the document was finished
>so it could be read better, but the time of the notes and such that is
>the date that should be used. I had a book printed and published
>years ago, it covered more then 12 years but it was printed years
>after it that facts. I wrote down notes for years and documented
>everything with pictures, as it had to do with baptism, building,
>youth, bible seminary and lots of things. It would be wrong to say
>nothing was written down till it was printed or the date was after the
>facts and the time such happen.
>> My Catholic study bible, in the intro to each book, gives date, subject,
>> audience, etc type information for whom each Gospel was written.
>Most all bibles give such information which is just information, and
>for the dates, over the years, they found problems and now most accept
>that the dating done by a monk was off 4 to 6 years. which would put
>the birth of Jesus back 5 years before he was born to Mary. So those
>dates are just to help get the idea when such acts did happen.
Yes, we all know that the year is really about AD2014 or so right now.
And of course we also have the non-canon gospels and non-bible writings of the
early Chruch Fathers following up behind the NT gospels.
It's not like there was nothing for 2000 years and then someone wrote a bible.
>> It would be nice to think we have videotape of Christ on earth, but we don't.
>That would be nice only DVD would be more up to date for today. Lots
>of movies did make movies some good and some not true at all. The
>Holy Bible does give us peace and does not point to the human but the
>Spiritual Christ and we can pray to Jesus and when we get to heaven,
>they most likely will have all that for us to see. If there was any
>such thing, people would be worshiping that videotape and building
>temples to it. Even the Apostles wanted to build three temples after
>seeing Jesus on the mountain with two prophets of the OT. I can wait
>till I see Jesus eye to eye in Heaven.
>
>Nice talking to you Duke.
>Raymond.
The Dukester, American-American
RWKnapp
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:34:27 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 24, 6:59 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:02:55 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >> >Well who is this vast majority do you have a names of these so called
> >> >scholars, I dare say all Biblical scholars accept the Holy Bible and
> >> >that those who did report what they heard and seen knew it was done by
> >> >eye witness people on the scene.
>
> >> It's a fair statement that the reports do come in some cases by people on the
> >> scene. It's accurate to day that the inspired writings of the gospel writers
> >> represent the words, actions and religious practices of the new Christian
> >> people, ie, Matthew wrote that Harry said that Joe said that he heard Jesus say.
>
> >> Only John of the 4 personally knew Jesus, and his gospel was dated 60 years
> >> after Christ. The others are stated some 30 years or so after Christ.
> >Again who did the dating of 60 or 30 years?
>
> Learned researchers who also are able to date events listed and knowledge
> revealed in each book, as well as the "revealed" purpose of each book, the true
> author if known, the time of, and a summary survey of each book.
>
> Matthew: AD 80-90
> Mark: AD 65-75
> Luke: AD 65-75
> John: AD 95-100
Like I pointed out such dates may or may not be correct as we can see
the dates are not real dates and have ten years between them. I find
that these dates do have a problem since the Roman goverment started a
WAR with the Jews and destored Jerlusalem so it is unlikely in a war
people would be writing at that time the Gospels. I believe since the
bible does say these reports were eye witness accounts. The miltary
in that day did not see a differance between Jewish and Christian and
did destory a books and anything they could to put down the those that
were opposed to Rome. The Christians would of had to hide any
documents or writing and after the Jews lost, such would be compailed
them. Still does not matter what date people put on this, the facts
are they were eye witness reports, and such in any court would be
enough to prove the statements are true. People that try to put such
late dates when they were put together and called a Gospel means
nothing as they can not provide any proof of the date, as they are
dated and there is nothing but the Bible today to support they were
writen by people that lived and were there.
1 Peter 5:1
5 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a
witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory
that shall be revealed: KJV
1 John 1:2
2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness,
and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and
was manifested unto us;) KJV
There are other verses that show these people were eye witness and so
it does not matter when they put it down and some person but it all
together with other witnesses to produce the story.
> > I would think it is like
> >today, one takes notes and writes down what was said, and later
> >complies it into a document. It is not when the document was finished
> >so it could be read better, but the time of the notes and such that is
> >the date that should be used. I had a book printed and published
> >years ago, it covered more then 12 years but it was printed years
> >after it that facts. I wrote down notes for years and documented
> >everything with pictures, as it had to do with baptism, building,
> >youth, bible seminary and lots of things. It would be wrong to say
> >nothing was written down till it was printed or the date was after the
> >facts and the time such happen.
> >> My Catholic study bible, in the intro to each book, gives date, subject,
> >> audience, etc type information for whom each Gospel was written.
> >Most all bibles give such information which is just information, and
> >for the dates, over the years, they found problems and now most accept
> >that the dating done by a monk was off 4 to 6 years. which would put
> >the birth of Jesus back 5 years before he was born to Mary. So those
> >dates are just to help get the idea when such acts did happen.
>
> Yes, we all know that the year is really about AD2014 or so right now.
About does not matter, then if one uses the Jewish calender or the
Roman calender that would of been correct then the christian
calender. Still does not matter since we have the Bible that does
date back to the time these folks lived or the children of those that
seen Jesus. John the writer of Revelation was alive at the time that
is listed for the date of the Gospels, so He is a witness and we do
not see any proof that John disagreed with the time line.
> And of course we also have the non-canon gospels and non-bible writings of the
> early Church Fathers following up behind the NT gospels.
Yes there is such proof only those that do not want to know God or
confess any god, it is more like the Devil saying there is no God so
worship him {Satan} God in Christ Jesus will come again to take His
church out and then the Judgement will come on such people. No matter
what they deny or what they say.
> It's not like there was nothing for 2000 years and then someone wrote a bible.
You got it right on that.
duke
Dates are estimated basis the knowledge of events discussed, or not discussed.
> I find
>that these dates do have a problem since the Roman goverment started a
>WAR with the Jews and destored Jerlusalem so it is unlikely in a war
>people would be writing at that time the Gospels.
Nobody said they were writing from Jerusalem. The war also started at the same
time as the release of the first gospels.
> I believe since the
>bible does say these reports were eye witness accounts.
Where is this stated categorically? Matthew, Mark and Luke never met Jesus.
You have 30-60 years to address the revelations of the bible gospels, which are
inspired/witnessed/verbally passed on/etc. In addition, the 30-60 years are the
years of preparation of the writings. I'm NOT saying that anything is not eye
witness, but that eye witness becomes the words, actions and religious practices
of the new Christian people which then in part or in total the writings called
the 4 Gospels.
> The miltary
>in that day did not see a differance between Jewish and Christian and
>did destory a books and anything they could to put down the those that
>were opposed to Rome. The Christians would of had to hide any
>documents or writing and after the Jews lost, such would be compailed
>them. Still does not matter what date people put on this, the facts
>are they were eye witness reports, and such in any court would be
>enough to prove the statements are true. People that try to put such
>late dates when they were put together and called a Gospel means
>nothing as they can not provide any proof of the date, as they are
>dated and there is nothing but the Bible today to support they were
>writen by people that lived and were there.
>1 Peter 5:1
>5 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a
>witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory
>that shall be revealed: KJV
Peter was.
>1 John 1:2
>2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness,
>and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and
>was manifested unto us;) KJV
>There are other verses that show these people were eye witness and so
>it does not matter when they put it down and some person but it all
>together with other witnesses to produce the story.
John was.
>> > �I would think it is like
The Dukester, American-American
Dan Listermann
Did peer review exist then?
Kent Morean
dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the
foundations of the Church." - Bishop Irenaeus, 180 A.D.
And Satan works in the eye of the beholder who sees statues in the
Catholic Church and then accepts his lie that Catholics are worshipping
them. Remamber Satan is the Accuser of the brethren. Don't let him
divide us! We no more worship these images than you worship the images
in your wallet of your family, or Protestants worship the images in the
stained glass windows of their Churches or their Nativity scenes.
Your images are only there to remind you of those whom you love and
admire. Give us the same credit we give you. Our images are only there
to remind us of those whom we love and admire!
Kent
duke
Absolutely.
bob young
duke wrote:
Which is unknown
duke
Just to you. The writings themselves time-line classify themselves basis the
historical facts they reflect.
RWKnapp
Well since the Apostles were living and pastoring etc from Jerusalem
and Paul said he went to Jersalem because that was were the Aposles
made their HQ. Acts 9:26-30
26 And when Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the
disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and did not believe that
he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him and brought him to the
apostles. And he declared to them how he had seen the Lord on the
road, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at
Damascus in the name of Jesus. 28 So he was with them at Jerusalem,
coming in and going out. 29 And he spoke boldly in the name of the
Lord Jesus and disputed against the Hellenists, but they attempted to
kill him. 30 When the brethren found out, they brought him down to
Caesarea and sent him out to Tarsus.
NKJV
I do not see any proof that at the time of the war the gospels were
released.
> > I believe since the
> >bible does say these reports were eye witness accounts.
>
> Where is this stated categorically? Matthew, Mark and Luke never met Jesus.
Who told you that, they walked and talked to Jesus so it is
impossiable to think they never met the one they followed as saviour.
>
> You have 30-60 years to address the revelations of the bible gospels, which are
> inspired/witnessed/verbally passed on/etc. In addition, the 30-60 years are the
> years of preparation of the writings. I'm NOT saying that anything is not eye
> witness, but that eye witness becomes the words, actions and religious practices
> of the new Christian people which then in part or in total the writings called
> the 4 Gospels.
1 Peter 5:1-2
5 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a
witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory
that will be revealed:
NKJV
1 John 1:1-4
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we
have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have
handled, concerning the Word of life — 2 the life was manifested, and
we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life
which was with the Father and was manifested to us — 3 that which we
have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have
fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and
with His Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things we write to you that
your joy may be full. NKJV
> *****- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
bob young
duke wrote:
Time-line classify ? ! Why do you people find it necessary to lean on ambiguities?
If you mean 'verified proof of the gospels as to who wrote them when they were written',
then you lose, as usual.
Advice
Before expounding with confidence all that you have been taught about gods, first do a
couple of days voluntary work in a crowded mental facility.
Then step back, take stock and think things through.
But I don't hold out much hope in your case Dook
bob young
RWKnapp wrote:
Not for me it isn't.
Your imaginary 'Savior' was badly needed in Manila yesterday and the day before.
The count is now well over two hundred lost, including many innocent children
washed away and drowned in flood waters.
A photo in SCMP this morning shows the interior if a church knee deep in mud
with all the pews piled up in one corner by the floodwater and with a statue of The Virgin
Mary gazing down at the mess. As they say, 'every picture tells a story'
A mother of four was filmed on BBC this morning, the voice over said she had lost
everything and wonders how she will now care for her kids. One three year old was
clutching her hand gazing at her mother and the expression in her eyes told us 'I don't
need to worry, my mother will care for me'. She will indeed try her best, more than can be
said for her god. It had me in tears.
Jesus is, to the faithful,
what Mickey mouse was to Walt Disney
. . . . . the means to an end [$]
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist Brit.
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor)
Man creates his gods in his own image,
then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content
R E L I G I O N - it is all in the mind,
an escape from life's realities and hardships,
sixty percent ritual, forty percent fantasy
duke
Zingo - right over your head. Not good for you.
Oh, you know. If one writes of the destruction of the temple, it's clear the
writings are after the destruction of the temple.
Simple minds need special attention.
>If you mean 'verified proof of the gospels as to who wrote them when they were written',
>then you lose, as usual.
They were written. End of story.
>Advice
>
>Before expounding with confidence all that you have been taught about gods, first do a
>couple of days voluntary work in a crowded mental facility.
>Then step back, take stock and think things through.
>But I don't hold out much hope in your case Dook
That's alright. I don't see any hope at all in your case.
duke
The conversion of Saul to Paul was 2 years after Christ's death, or 35AD. The
Apostles were preparing for their journey of bringing the good news to all
nations.
>26 And when Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the
>disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and did not believe that
>he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him and brought him to the
>apostles. And he declared to them how he had seen the Lord on the
>road, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at
>Damascus in the name of Jesus. 28 So he was with them at Jerusalem,
>coming in and going out. 29 And he spoke boldly in the name of the
>Lord Jesus and disputed against the Hellenists, but they attempted to
>kill him. 30 When the brethren found out, they brought him down to
>Caesarea and sent him out to Tarsus.
>NKJV
>
>I do not see any proof that at the time of the war the gospels were
>released.
The "war" was another 15 years away.
>> > �I believe since the
>> >bible does say these reports were eye witness accounts.
>> Where is this stated categorically? �Matthew, Mark and Luke never met Jesus.
>Who told you that, they walked and talked to Jesus so it is
>impossiable to think they never met the one they followed as saviour.
Wrong. Only John knew Jesus personally.
>> You have 30-60 years to address the revelations of the bible gospels, which are
>> inspired/witnessed/verbally passed on/etc. �In addition, the 30-60 years are the
>> years of preparation of the writings. �I'm NOT saying that anything is not eye
>> witness, but that eye witness becomes the words, actions and religious practices
>> of the new Christian people which then in part or in total the writings called
>> the 4 Gospels.
>1 Peter 5:1-2
>5 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a
>witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory
>that will be revealed:
>NKJV
Peter didn't write a gospel.
>1 John 1:1-4
>1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we
>have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have
>handled, concerning the Word of life � 2 the life was manifested, and
>we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life
>which was with the Father and was manifested to us � 3 that which we
>have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have
>fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and
>with His Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things we write to you that
>your joy may be full. NKJV
John did know Jesus.
duke
>> Who told you that, they walked and talked to Jesus so it is
>> impossiable to think they never met the one they followed as saviour.
>Not for me it isn't.
>Your imaginary 'Savior' was badly needed in Manila yesterday and the day before.
Our savior saves our souls, not our skins.
For it is destined for all men to die.
RWKnapp
> RWKnapp wrote:
> > > >> >> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:02:55 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> >Well who is this vast majority do you have a names of these so called
> > > >> >> >scholars, I dare say all Biblical scholars accept the Holy Bible and
> > > >> >> >that those who did report what they heard and seen knew it was done by
> > > >> >> >eye witness people on the scene.
>
> > > >> >> It's a fair statement that the reports do come in some cases by people on the
> > > >> >> scene. It's accurate to day that the inspired writings of the gospel writers
> > > >> >> represent the words, actions and religious practices of the new Christian
> > > >> >> people, ie, Matthew wrote that Harry said that Joe said that he heard Jesus say.
>
> > > >> >> Only John of the 4 personally knew Jesus, and his gospel was dated 60 years
> > > >> >> after Christ. The others are stated some 30 years or so after Christ.
> > > >> >Again who did the dating of 60 or 30 years?
>
> > > >> Learned researchers who also are able to date events listed and knowledge
> > > >> revealed in each book, as well as the "revealed" purpose of each book, the true
> > > >> author if known, the time of, and a summary survey of each book.
>
> > > >> Matthew: AD 80-90
> > > >> Mark: AD 65-75
> > > >> Luke: AD 65-75
> > > >> John: AD 95-100
>
> > > >Like I pointed out such dates may or may not be correct as we can see
> > > >the dates are not real dates and have ten years between them.
>
> > > Dates are estimated basis the knowledge of events discussed, or not discussed.
>
> > > > I find
> > > >WAR with the Jews and destroyed Jerusalem so it is unlikely in a war
> > > >people would be writing at that time the Gospels.
>
> > > Nobody said they were writing from Jerusalem. The war also started at the same
> > > time as the release of the first gospels.
>
> > Well since the Apostles were living and pastoring etc from Jerusalem
> > made their HQ. Acts 9:26-30
>
> > 26 And when Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the
> > disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and did not believe that
> > he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him and brought him to the
> > apostles. And he declared to them how he had seen the Lord on the
> > road, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at
> > Damascus in the name of Jesus. 28 So he was with them at Jerusalem,
> > coming in and going out. 29 And he spoke boldly in the name of the
> > Lord Jesus and disputed against the Hellenists, but they attempted to
> > kill him. 30 When the brethren found out, they brought him down to
> > Caesarea and sent him out to Tarsus.
> > NKJV
>
> > I do not see any proof that at the time of the war the gospels were
> > released.
>
> > > > I believe since the
> > > >bible does say these reports were eye witness accounts.
>
> > > Where is this stated categorically? Matthew, Mark and Luke never met Jesus.
>
> > Who told you that, they walked and talked to Jesus so it is
>
> Not for me it isn't.
For an atheist all what the Bible says is not for you, you are lost
and out of the loop, and really know nothing about these matters.
Just a heckler as someone who tries to embarrass you with gibes and
questions and objections.
> Your imaginary 'Savior' was badly needed in Manila yesterday and the day before.
Your imaginary false statements is really just pure stupidity, no
foundation. Then what is bad was that the people in Manila the
majority are not born again Believers they are like you are, just
members of some church, group or idea. God is needed everyday, then
God does not bless then that do evil or follow images, idols and such
as the RP Catholic Church teach or you atheist teach.
>
> The count is now well over two hundred lost, including many innocent children
> washed away and drowned in flood waters.
So what, everyone brings in the innocent children then innocent
children will end up in Heaven as they have no sin. Then others just
like you atheist die with out Christ as Saviour and death is just part
of life, we all will die, sooner of latter, why do you even think
being a believer in God would change that?
>
> A photo in SCMP this morning shows the interior if a church knee deep in mud
> with all the pews piled up in one corner by the floodwater and with a statue of The Virgin
> Mary gazing down at the mess. As they say, 'every picture tells a story'
They worship idols such as statues, which God told them not to do, and
honor false images and false gods, so they are judged and because they
turn against God like the atheist does, they sow and reap what they
sow. God is not obligated to help such people as in the end at the
Judgement all mankind will be held responsible for their sins, and
Hell will be wide open for them. They reject the Grace of God and so
send themselves to the death, and have no hope of a peaceful
hereafter.
>
> A mother of four was filmed on BBC this morning, the voice over said she had lost
> everything and wonders how she will now care for her kids. One three year old was
> clutching her hand gazing at her mother and the expression in her eyes told us 'I don't
> need to worry, my mother will care for me'. She will indeed try her best, more than can be
> said for her god. It had me in tears.
Her god is only a man made image that rejected the God that could of
saved her. Turn your back against the truth you pay the piper. I
would think you be laughing out of your seat instead of tears.
>
> Jesus is, to the faithful,
> what Mickey mouse was to Walt Disney
>
> . . . . . the means to an end [$]
Your blind and dumb about God and maybe Mickey mouse could earn you
some cash, only like that it will be wasted and in the end useless as
some $ seem to be now.
Raymond
>
> Bob
bob young
duke wrote:
By humans and that became the beginning of the story
- a huge con or a lie, if you like
>
>
> >Advice
> >
> >Before expounding with confidence all that you have been taught about gods, first do a
> >couple of days voluntary work in a crowded mental facility.
> >Then step back, take stock and think things through.
> >But I don't hold out much hope in your case Dook
>
> That's alright. I don't see any hope at all in your case.
trot out your god Dookie
bob young
duke wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2009 23:35:01 -0500, bob young <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>
> >> Who told you that, they walked and talked to Jesus so it is
> >> impossiable to think they never met the one they followed as saviour.
>
> >Not for me it isn't.
> >Your imaginary 'Savior' was badly needed in Manila yesterday and the day before.
>
> Our savior saves our souls, not our skins.
Indeed, you do not have much alternative but to say that do you ?
I thought your saviour created us ?
. . . . . . . . and then 'He' let's us be swept away by flood waters ? !
You are an idiot Dukie, you cant even define 'soul'
Until you can, please refrain from cheating by using the word.
Duke's definition of 'Soul' can be found here :
>
>
>
> For it is destined for all men to die.
Brilliant
bob young
RWKnapp wrote:
Purveyors of common sense, logic and intelligence, that is what we are Raymond
We reject gods at the same time we, unlike you, reject primitive superstitions
>
>
> > Your imaginary 'Savior' was badly needed in Manila yesterday and the day before.
>
> Your imaginary false statements is really just pure stupidity, no
> foundation. Then what is bad was that the people in Manila the
> majority are not born again Believers they are like you are, just
> members of some church, group or idea. God is needed everyday, then
> God does not bless then that do evil or follow images, idols and such
> as the RP Catholic Church teach or you atheist teach.
Sickening - no comment
>
>
> >
> > The count is now well over two hundred lost, including many innocent children
> > washed away and drowned in flood waters.
>
> So what, everyone brings in the innocent children then innocent
> children will end up in Heaven as they have no sin.
Garbage and you know it
> Then others just
> like you atheist die with out Christ as Saviour and death is just part
> of life, we all will die, sooner of latter, why do you even think
> being a believer in God would change that?
>
> >
> > A photo in SCMP this morning shows the interior if a church knee deep in mud
> > with all the pews piled up in one corner by the floodwater and with a statue of The Virgin
> > Mary gazing down at the mess. As they say, 'every picture tells a story'
>
> They worship idols such as statues, which God told them not to do, and
> honor false images and false gods, so they are judged and because they
> turn against God like the atheist does, they sow and reap what they
> sow. God is not obligated to help such people as in the end at the
> Judgement all mankind will be held responsible for their sins, and
> Hell will be wide open for them. They reject the Grace of God and so
> send themselves to the death, and have no hope of a peaceful
> hereafter.
>
> >
> > A mother of four was filmed on BBC this morning, the voice over said she had lost
> > everything and wonders how she will now care for her kids. One three year old was
> > clutching her hand gazing at her mother and the expression in her eyes told us 'I don't
> > need to worry, my mother will care for me'. She will indeed try her best, more than can be
> > said for her god. It had me in tears.
>
> Her god is only a man made image that rejected the God that could of
> saved her. Turn your back against the truth you pay the piper. I
> would think you be laughing out of your seat instead of tears.
Seems the heat of Asia has effected your brain.
Your posts and their reasoning are sickening to any humanist.
All those of your ilk [Priests] in The Philippines will now be telling their flocks right across
the land that god was testing them with these these terrible floods. [I have this first hand
already]
THAT is the level that religion descends to when the chips are down
The world you try to con people into believing was created by your god [not one of the thousands
of other gods] Well - He - made a huge cock up of the job, in the middle of the Pacific there
has just been a level 8 earthquake causing another tsunami that will doubtless wash more
innocent kids out to sea and all we will hear from you will be more revolting saccharine
nonsense. I have asked before if you have any pride -so I will not bother to ask agin this
time - - -let us leave other readers to judge for themselves
>
>
> >
> > Jesus is, to the faithful,
> > what Mickey mouse was to Walt Disney
> >
> > . . . . . the means to an end [$]
>
> Your blind and dumb about God
Right, you know all about 'Him' Eh? The one who creates children only to let them drown away
from their parents.
Don't worry, six months from now many will have forgotten, apaprt from the bereaved parents,
life will go no as usual and the priesthood will revert to their lies again and preach about a
loving god - and the almighty $ will reign supreme, or should that be the Peso !
"But I contend that the disgusting behavior of many of their alleged 'holy men' relieves us of
any intellectual obligation to take the stuff seriously. No amount of sanctimonious
rationalization can make such behavior anything but pathological."
[Robert Heinlein]
duke
>> >If you mean 'verified proof of the gospels as to who wrote them when they were written',
>> >then you lose, as usual.
>> They were written. End of story.
>By humans and that became the beginning of the story
>- a huge con or a lie, if you like
Can't be. It's what all the people were ......... DOING.
duke
>
>
>duke wrote:
>
>> On 28 Sep 2009 23:35:01 -0500, bob young <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Who told you that, they walked and talked to Jesus so it is
>> >> impossiable to think they never met the one they followed as saviour.
>>
>> >Not for me it isn't.
>> >Your imaginary 'Savior' was badly needed in Manila yesterday and the day before.
>>
>> Our savior saves our souls, not our skins.
>
>Indeed, you do not have much alternative but to say that do you ?
>I thought your saviour created us ?
Yes, he did.
> . . . . . . . . and then 'He' let's us be swept away by flood waters ? !
>You are an idiot Dukie, you cant even define 'soul'
>Until you can, please refrain from cheating by using the word.
I already defined the word soul to this ng.
>Duke's definition of 'Soul' can be found here :
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05749a.htm
>> For it is destined for all men to die.
>Brilliant
And then for all men to be judged by God, to include: Christians, atheists,
Jews, Muslims, Buddhas, Hindus, etc.
duke
>> A photo in SCMP this morning shows the interior if a church knee deep in mud
>> with all the pews piled up in one corner by the floodwater and with a statue of The Virgin
>> Mary gazing down at the mess. As they say, 'every picture tells a story'
>They worship idols such as statues, which God told them not to do, and
>honor false images and false gods, so they are judged and because they
>turn against God like the atheist does, they sow and reap what they
>sow.
Catholics don't worship Mary, or a statute of her.
RWKnapp
You just keep telling yourself that myth and maybe you can confidence
someone that is true, then I am not sure if that "we are" is suppose
to be for you and me.
> We reject gods at the same time we, unlike you, reject primitive superstitions
You can reject anything only that faith is in your word, really does
not make your statement change if there is god or God, only you said
so. I reject atheist does that mean you are not real and you can not
be an atheist because I do not accept a atheist? Strange logic.
> > > Your imaginary 'Savior' was badly needed in Manila yesterday and the day before.
>
> > Your imaginary false statements is really just pure stupidity, no
> > foundation. Then what is bad was that the people in Manila the
> > majority are not born again Believers they are like you are, just
> > members of some church, group or idea. God is needed everyday, then
> > God does not bless then that do evil or follow images, idols and such
> > as the RP Catholic Church teach or you atheist teach.
>
> Sickening - no comment
Yes your stand is sickening, one reason is because people want to
blame God for things they do, and do not even accept God or follow
God. Like me saying if there was no atheist we would not of had any
war and all the millions of people killed is all the fault of atheist,
and then point to the atheist communist, the old communist USSR and
pagan governments as well as Islam, as they also do not accept the God
I do believe in. They like a lot of SCAM folks do, say what ever they
have to and believe they are not responsible for their word. They
want God but do not accept Creator God, only use the term "god" or
"God" or in the case of Atheist "no god" that is sickening and no
comment only shows if you did, you could not prove anything you say,
as you would have to accept the Bible and their is a God and so that
God is responsible, but you can not as you do not believe in any god
or God. So I suppose no comment should of been in the beginning of
your reply, or not to reply at all.
>
> > > The count is now well over two hundred lost, including many innocent children
> > > washed away and drowned in flood waters.
>
> > So what, everyone brings in the innocent children then innocent
> > children will end up in Heaven as they have no sin.
>
> Garbage and you know it
What believe you think it is garbage since you do not believe in god
or God, to you all is garbage, show us from the bible that is garbage
and then I can reply, it is like a person telling someone something is
garbage only because you do not know anything about the matter.
People that sin will not go to Heaven, or a atheist go to Heaven, the
a God of Love and care for people that have not rejected God and are
innocent. That is up to God not you, then garbage just so happens to
be where the term hell or hades is was a place where the garbage was
burned outside the city. (Christianity) the abode of Satan and the
forces of evil; where sinners suffer eternal punishment.
If that be the case it would apply to you, as at these post, I am not
in Asia and the cold weather here only effects the need to put on a
coat. I am glad my post is sickening to you and any atheist, as I do
not believe you are a humanist just because you say your an atheist.
Of or pertaining to a philosophy asserting human dignity and man's
capacity for fulfillment through reason and scientific method and
often rejecting religion. That is sickening indeed.
>
> All those of your ilk [Priests] in The Philippines will now be telling their flocks right across
> the land that god was testing them with these these terrible floods. [I have this first hand
> already]
So you make it up, it does not matter what their priest say, and such
has nothing to do with God. The world and nature is what earth is
about, they do not ask God for where to live and what to do, they do
what they want and to live where they know floods can come and so one
is not God fault, but their own stupidity. I live in a town that is
far from any flood area, and also made sure it is not in a area that
earthquake as well as in a house that is made stronger and away from
such nature disasters, it would make no sense to blame such on God
that which I did myself.
> THAT is the level that religion descends to when the chips are down
What religion" there are thousands of them, you deny the actions of
Communist and the millions killed by them in the past as being the
same as you are. Your an atheist by your own confession and your own
testimonies, which is about the same as a religion. You get upset if
called a religion of atheist, and then try to put this trash on
other. You and them are in the same boat.
>
> The world you try to con people into believing was created by your god [not one of the thousands
> of other gods] Well - He - made a huge cock up of the job, in the middle of the Pacific there
> has just been a level 8 earthquake causing another tsunami that will doubtless wash more
> innocent kids out to sea and all we will hear from you will be more revolting saccharine
> nonsense. I have asked before if you have any pride -so I will not bother to ask agin this
> time - - -let us leave other readers to judge for themselves
I try to con who? Just because I prove atheist are just a group of
sinners that will end up in Hell and that just is not what you
doctrine is about, you reject anyone that you try to scan and con.
What you sow you reap. You teach innocent kids to believe the trash
God stuff and get upset when Christians show your true colors, and now
try to had that by saying it is someone else that is doing it. I have
no need for pride, then you are so silly you bring that us, and they
say you will not bring it up and you already did by saying such. It
seems you are not leaving this to anyone, and only see you can not
prove anything so hope the reader will not accept what others say, as
they see you have no pride in what you post, if you want pride in this
matter. "The trait of being spurred on by a dislike of falling below
your standards".
>
> > Your blind and dumb about God
>
> Right, you know all about 'Him' Eh? The one who creates children only to let them drown away
> from their parents.
You should not go down that road, do you have any children under your
care now, do you feed their kids and supply a home for them and pay
their car bills etc, if not they then you have nothing to prove, as
that is one thing parents do, let their kids go and make their own
mistakes, as they learn from them and grow. My parents let me go into
the military and I worked for my college fees, and I not my parents
purchase my car and paid for any errors I made, not my parents. I do
not fell my parents let me down. In fact I am glad they let me go on
my own, as I am a better man for it, and can point to my own success
and prove to my kids what can happen by my errors. On the job
training. A child that is under mom and dad all their life is a
slave, and one learns nothing on their own etc. Your statement would
bring my Eh!!!!!
> Don't worry, six months from now many will have forgotten, apaprt from the bereaved parents,
> life will go no as usual and the priesthood will revert to their lies again and preach about a
> loving god - and the almighty $ will reign supreme, or should that be the Peso !
I do not worry, as most people know that what happens never was
approved my God and they did not ask God for directions to start
with. Everyone seems to have to blame others for their own errors.
God is a loving God, but does not give love to them that tell God to
go to Hell, and dam every thing God has blessed. Like yourself you
deny God you mock people that do, and your kind when all "hell" comes
down on you, many will then point to God as not being there for them,
such Hippocrates.
>
> "But I contend that the disgusting behavior of many of their alleged 'holy men' relieves us of
> any intellectual obligation to take the stuff seriously. No amount of sanctimonious
> rationalization can make such behavior anything but pathological."
> [Robert Heinlein]
I agree with Robert Heinlein and the above statement and it is
pathological. Man being man, killing others, tricking others and
wanting things only for their good, not the other. They can not
understand a God that does not act like they do. We reject God and
God honors your wants, and what ever problem you run into, is of your
own doings.
Raymond
RWKnapp
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:39:29 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >> A photo in SCMP this morning shows the interior if a church knee deep in mud
> >> with all the pews piled up in one corner by the floodwater and with a statue of The Virgin
> >> Mary gazing down at the mess. As they say, 'every picture tells a story'
> >They worship idols such as statues, which God told them not to do, and
> >honor false images and false gods, so they are judged and because they
> >turn against God like the atheist does, they sow and reap what they
> >sow.
>
> Catholics don't worship Mary, or a statute of her.
When people pray to a statute what do you call that? Break the
statute that someone is praying in and see if you walk away with out a
broken leg or beat up for doing so. I have been in a catholic nation
for years, and the Santa Nino statue of the baby Jesus, people falling
all over each other just to touch it, I known priest that have to
change the statute of Mary and Jesus and some of the Saints that
people can reach and touch, some every six months. The feet or hand
the head etc. are worn out if that is not worship with is? They can
call it what they want, but as the old saying goes if it looks like a
duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck it is a duck.
Raymond
duke
>On Sep 30, 8:11�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:39:29 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>> >> A photo in SCMP this morning shows the interior if a church knee deep in mud
>> >> with all the pews piled up in one corner by the floodwater and with a statue of The Virgin
>> >> Mary gazing down at the mess. As they say, 'every picture tells a story'
>> >They worship idols such as statues, which God told them not to do, and
>> >honor false images and false gods, so they are judged and because they
>> >turn against God like the atheist does, they sow and reap what they
>> >sow.
>>
>> Catholics don't worship Mary, or a statute of her.
>
>When people pray to a statute what do you call that?
An easy answer - we don't pray to the statue, or a statute. Any more than you
and I talk to a photo of our loved ones.
Elijahovah
> > > "RWKnapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote ..
>
> > > "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
> > > > "old man joe" <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > > > > here we have a denomination making great claims that it's head is
> > > > > speaking infallibly in matter's of doctrine as though the Bible is not
> > > > > completed to be written as
> > > > > God say's it is. Rev.22:18,19. other such denominations claim this,
> > > > > also.
>
> > > > You think the bible is the only and complete word of God?
> > > > You need to read John where he says all of the Words of Jesus
> > > > were not written down.
>
> > > Please show me where in the words of John he says the Words of Jesus
> > > were not written down? I ran word search on those words and nothing
> > > turned up that match such a statement. So please post the location of
> > > what John said if he ever did.
>
> > > Patrick... OK... I'll help you out in a minute.
> > > ------------------------
> > > Poor Ray said:
> > > It is kind of plain someone did write what Jesus said and even in the
> > > book of John where pointed out what Jesus said was not written down.
> > > All the verses in John below listed all say "Jesus said" so how can
> > > you say it is not written when it is clear that JESUS SAID, and it is
> > > as clear someone did write them down and they are the Words of JESUS.
>
> > > Patrick:
> > > Read John 21: 24-25John 21:25
>
> > 25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they
> > were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could
> > not contain the books that would be written. Amen.NKJV
>
> > Jesus had so many of his words written down thousands of them , and if
> > all could of been no book could of held them.
>
> Proof please. Hearsay and wishful thinking does not count in the real world.
> Ooooops forgot, we are not dealing with the real world are we ? !!!!
>
> > Just the opposite of
> > what he wanted. The point was Jesus never had his words written down,
> > and your verse only show he did and lots of them. So there is no poor
> > Ray here only someone like Patrick that does not understand what he
> > posted.
>
> Jesus never had a single word recorded about his first eighteen years from the
> cradle either. I wonder why ?
>
> Sons-of-Gods Saviors who came to Earth and died for our sins:
>
> Krishna--- 1200 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Sakia--- 600 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Thammuz--- 400 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Wittoba--- 552 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Iao--- 622 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Hesus--- 834 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Quexalcote--- 587 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Quirinus--- 506 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Prometheus--- 547 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Thulis--- 1700 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Indra--- 725 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Alcestos--- 600 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Atys--- 1170 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Crite--- 1200 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Bali--- 725 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Mithra--- 600 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Jesus--- 6 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
I quoted this before, so where is my post.
It is gone once again proving a Devil exists within you people who
post here.
Elijahovah
> Jesus never had a single word recorded about his first eighteen years from the
> cradle either. I wonder why ?
What do you call age of 12 at the temple, does 12 come
after 20? Perhaps after 30?
> Sons-of-Gods Saviors who came to Earth and died for our sins:
> Krishna--- 1200 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Sakia--- 600 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Thammuz--- 400 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Wittoba--- 552 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Iao--- 622 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Hesus--- 834 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Quexalcote--- 587 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Quirinus--- 506 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Prometheus--- 547 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Thulis--- 1700 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Indra--- 725 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Alcestos--- 600 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Atys--- 1170 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Crite--- 1200 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Bali--- 725 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Mithra--- 600 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
> Jesus--- 6 years before Jesus was said to have lived.
And I reiterate my deleted post.
These are al astral units of time for planets.
RWKnapp
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:27:31 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 30, 8:11 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:39:29 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >> >> A photo in SCMP this morning shows the interior if a church knee deep in mud
> >> >> with all the pews piled up in one corner by the floodwater and with a statue of The Virgin
> >> >> Mary gazing down at the mess. As they say, 'every picture tells a story'
> >> >They worship idols such as statues, which God told them not to do, and
> >> >honor false images and false gods, so they are judged and because they
> >> >turn against God like the atheist does, they sow and reap what they
> >> >sow.
>
> >> Catholics don't worship Mary, or a statute of her.
>
> >When people pray to a statute what do you call that?
>
> An easy answer - we don't pray to the statue, or a statute. Any more than you
> and I talk to a photo of our loved ones.
Maybe you do not, only I been in the Philippines for 19 years and seen
people craw on their knees for over fifty feet from out side the Cebu
City largest Catholic church to the image of Mary, while praying to
her and kissing a icon that was infront of the glass enclosed statue.
I have seen them beg the image of Mary for help and seen them touch
other Statutes of her as well as to the statue of Jesus till their
feet or hands had to be replaced. Oh by the way, you do not know me
as I do not take to pictures of Jesus or photos of my love ones. I
can not understand why the Catholic that know the statute of Mary is
not Mary as there is no picture or drawing of Mary or Jesus they are
images of some woman and man, but not Mary or Jesus. I wonder who
ever the used for the image of them feel when they did see the
statures. I wonder if they were not believers, if they just laugh at
all the foolish people bowing to them. I have no problem with people
praying to God, Jesus, as God hears them, but statues and images are
seen as idols in the bible. The bible shows what a idol is how they
are made of wood, stone and such, the RCC can say what they want but
they really are breaking the Commandments and how can such that do
which the bible says is to idols and just say they are not. Please
what is the difference?
Raymond
RWKnapp
Nope it means you posted to too many links, as Google newsgroups only
allow 5 links so if you post to more to that, one has to delete them
and select the five group. This post is only to five so all of them
will receive your post if the newsgroup reader you use has the same
links as Google or the ISP has the same links. Nothing to do with a
Devil if it was, the whole newsgroup would be gone not just a posted
message in one group.
duke
>On Oct 1, 7:11�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:27:31 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>> >On Sep 30, 8:11�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:39:29 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>> >> >> A photo in SCMP this morning shows the interior if a church knee deep in mud
>> >> >> with all the pews piled up in one corner by the floodwater and with a statue of The Virgin
>> >> >> Mary gazing down at the mess. As they say, 'every picture tells a story'
>> >> >They worship idols such as statues, which God told them not to do, and
>> >> >honor false images and false gods, so they are judged and because they
>> >> >turn against God like the atheist does, they sow and reap what they
>> >> >sow.
>>
>> >> Catholics don't worship Mary, or a statute of her.
>>
>> >When people pray to a statute what do you call that?
>>
>> An easy answer - we don't pray to the statue, or a statute. � Any more than you
>> and I talk to a photo of our loved ones.
>Maybe you do not, only I been in the Philippines for 19 years and seen
>people craw on their knees for over fifty feet from out side the Cebu
>City largest Catholic church to the image of Mary, while praying to
>her and kissing a icon that was infront of the glass enclosed statue.
Catholics understand the Mary brings Jesus to us.
>I have seen them beg the image of Mary for help and seen them touch
>other Statutes of her as well as to the statue of Jesus till their
>feet or hands had to be replaced.
She's a powerful woman, but the statue of her isn't.
> Oh by the way, you do not know me
>as I do not take to pictures of Jesus or photos of my love ones.
A meaningless statement. The world over does.
>I can not understand why the Catholic that know the statute of Mary is
>not Mary as there is no picture or drawing of Mary or Jesus they are
>images of some woman and man, but not Mary or Jesus.
I concur fully, and is the reason that I believe that they do *not* believe that
the statue is truly Mary is any way.
I've seen some Philippinoes in Church spend a lot of time in front of the statue
of Mary, touching it, praying, but I can't see into their heads.
I've also seen protest_ants treat their bibles special. But it's only a book.
One can only imagine that those that do so appear to feel that poor treatment of
the book would be seen as poor treatment of God himself.
I suspect the statue of Mary is seen in the same way. Be kind to the statue of
Mary, or Mary herself will see it as poor treatment directed at her.
RWKnapp
> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 15:59:51 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 1, 7:11 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:27:31 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 30, 8:11 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:39:29 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> A photo in SCMP this morning shows the interior if a church knee deep in mud
> >> >> >> with all the pews piled up in one corner by the floodwater and with a statue of The Virgin
> >> >> >> Mary gazing down at the mess. As they say, 'every picture tells a story'
> >> >> >They worship idols such as statues, which God told them not to do, and
> >> >> >honor false images and false gods, so they are judged and because they
> >> >> >turn against God like the atheist does, they sow and reap what they
> >> >> >sow.
>
> >> >> Catholics don't worship Mary, or a statute of her.
>
> >> >When people pray to a statute what do you call that?
>
> >> An easy answer - we don't pray to the statue, or a statute. Any more than you
> >> and I talk to a photo of our loved ones.
> >Maybe you do not, only I been in the Philippines for 19 years and seen
> >people craw on their knees for over fifty feet from out side the Cebu
> >City largest Catholic church to the image of Mary, while praying to
> >her and kissing a icon that was infront of the glass enclosed statue.
>
> Catholics understand the Mary brings Jesus to us.
Why it is not found in the Bible, Jesus was at the wedding and made
the water in to wine, He was there already and the Holy Spirit is what
brings Jesus to people, no matter what the Catholic wants it to be, it
is what the bible says it is.
Luke 11:13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to
your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy
Spirit to those who ask Him!" NKJV
John 14:26-27
26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My
name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all
things that I said to you. NKJV
>
> >I have seen them beg the image of Mary for help and seen them touch
> >other Statutes of her as well as to the statue of Jesus till their
> >feet or hands had to be replaced.
>
> She's a powerful woman, but the statue of her isn't.
Where do you see Mary as a powerful woman, she needed John to care for
her. There is nothing that says she was powerful she only like any
woman had a baby nothing more and she is not even mention by the
Apostles after the day of Pentecost, not a word. The statue means
nothing, but they are praying and holding on to that statue of Mary as
they pray. It is easy to proof if one looks at the picture books of
the Philippines and the Catholic church. I believe even Life
Magazine had a picture write up on that, as well as most any RCC in
Mexico.
>
> > Oh by the way, you do not know me
> >as I do not take to pictures of Jesus or photos of my love ones.
>
> A meaningless statement. The world over does.
It was a meaningless statement by you saying I take to a picture of
Jesus like the Catholic do. My statement is meaningless when you hide
the statement you made and the above was a reply to that statement.
Kind of hiding stuff when it shows your wrong, is not smart when
others can read the message in the one you posted and still is in this
newsgroup.
> >I can not understand why the Catholic that know the statute of Mary is
> >not Mary as there is no picture or drawing of Mary or Jesus they are
> >images of some woman and man, but not Mary or Jesus.
>
> I concur fully, and is the reason that I believe that they do *not* believe that
> the statue is truly Mary is any way.
Oh you got to be hiding your pointing out that all Catholics that pray
and touch images and statues are fools, or lying. I would really
think anyone that would think a statue is the real person has mental
problems, only in the Catholic church they teach that the body and
blood of Christ when blessed is the real blood and the real body and
anyone taking them knows it is only bread and wine the taste of it
shows that. So why would they not believe in a miracle and that
statue is really some how Mary and it will relay their prayers to
Jesus? One can pray without a image, when the image is only that of
someone idea not even a true likeness of the person they are wanting
to hear them. I have seen Catholics cry and get into fights if the
Santa Nino falls out of the arm of the one holding it, they act just
like it is the real person and will fight over it.
> I've seen some Philippinoes in Church spend a lot of time in front of the statue
> of Mary, touching it, praying, but I can't see into their heads.
But you can by their actions and what they are doing, are they normal
people of mentally ill people? Mexicans and Spanish people millions
of them do the same. Why not just go up and ask them why or what they
are doing?
>
> I've also seen protest_ants treat their bibles special. But it's only a book.
> One can only imagine that those that do so appear to feel that poor treatment of
> the book would be seen as poor treatment of God himself.
No question as some hold the Bible they have in reference. I mark my
bible to find a point or a verse later, and had some tell me they
would never deface a bible and that was sin, so you have a point. To
me, I just buy another one when the old is falling apart. They hold
the Bible as the Word and honor the Word of God. They do not pray to
it. Then like the Jews it is holy while Mary is not and the images of
Saints none hold the written word like the Bible has in it. The bible
is the word of God, the image is the picture of some guy or woman that
got money or favour for letting their image be that of a Mary, Jesus
etc.
> I suspect the statue of Mary is seen in the same way. Be kind to the statue of
> Mary, or Mary herself will see it as poor treatment directed at her.
As is my lazy boy chair and my Car, and if you break them, it would be
seen to be against me as I like them. Then I would just go out and by
a replace me for it. The image or Statue is not the same, they want
the one they purchased and if not, who knows what will happen to you.
Nice talking to you, thanks you for your input, always good to hear
another view on these matters.
Raymond
duke
Mary carried Jesus for 9 months and gave birth to him. The Holy Spirit didn't
do that.
>He was there already and the Holy Spirit is what
>brings Jesus to people, no matter what the Catholic wants it to be, it
>is what the bible says it is.
No, the Holy Spirit does not bring Jesus to us.
>Luke 11:13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to
>your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy
>Spirit to those who ask Him!" NKJV
See, the Father gives us the Holy Spirit, and Jesus sent the Holy Spirit.
>John 14:26-27
> 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My
>name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all
>things that I said to you. NKJV
That's what I said. The Father and Jesus give us the Holy Spirit, not vice
versa.
>> >I have seen them beg the image of Mary for help and seen them touch
>> >other Statutes of her as well as to the statue of Jesus till their
>> >feet or hands had to be replaced.
>> She's a powerful woman, but the statue of her isn't. �
>Where do you see Mary as a powerful woman, she needed John to care for
>her.
No, she didn't. That was a monumental statement by Jesus hanging from the cross
advising mankind that his Mother is our Mother too. After all, we are his
brother, are we not.
Besides, this is where I usually tell protest_ants that if Jesus had all those
brothers and sisters, why did Mary need a place to live?
> There is nothing that says she was powerful
Well, I didn't mean power as in divine. She has no divinity. But she brings
Jesus to us, and her statue doesn't.
> she only like any woman had a baby nothing more
Sure there's more. She was selected by God to carry Jesus for 9 months,
exchanging bodily fluids with him, nourishing him with her body, etc.
> and she is not even mention by the Apostles after the day of Pentecost, not a word.
And?? Scripture is about Jesus, not Mary.
> The statue means
>nothing, but they are praying and holding on to that statue of Mary as
>they pray.
It's nothing more than a modern day photo that people use to remind themselves
of a loved one.
>> > �Oh by the way, you do not know me
>> >as I do not take to pictures of Jesus or photos of my love ones.
>> A meaningless statement. �The world over does.
>It was a meaningless statement by you saying I take to a picture of
>Jesus like the Catholic do.
You don't understand what I said above, so I'm not surprised.
>> >I can not understand why the Catholic that know the statute of Mary is
>> >not Mary as there is no picture or drawing of Mary or Jesus they are
>> >images of some woman and man, but not Mary or Jesus.
>> I concur fully, and is the reason that I believe that they do *not* believe that
>> the statue is truly Mary is any way. �
>Oh you got to be hiding your pointing out that all Catholics that pray
>and touch images and statues are fools, or lying.
They're praying to the real Mother of God and Queen of heaven, not to a statue
of her.
>> I've seen some Philippinoes in Church spend a lot of time in front of the statue
>> of Mary, touching it, praying, but I can't see into their heads. �
>But you can by their actions and what they are doing, are they normal
>people of mentally ill people? Mexicans and Spanish people millions
>of them do the same. Why not just go up and ask them why or what they
>are doing?
They're praying to the Blessed Mother, not to a statue of her.
>> I suspect the statue of Mary is seen in the same way. �Be kind to the statue of
>> Mary, or Mary herself will see it as poor treatment directed at her.
>As is my lazy boy chair and my Car, and if you break them, it would be
>seen to be against me as I like them.
There you go.
>Nice talking to you, thanks you for your input, always good to hear
>another view on these matters.
>
>Raymond
The Dukester, American-American
RWKnapp
So did my mother carry me for nine months as does billions of mother
world widen then since the Baby that Mary did have was the Spirit of
God in that baby how can you say the Holy Spirit did not do that. It
was the Holy Spirit that gave her that baby and the Holy Spirit never
leaves the children of God. No never. So your logic means what? You
are near to sinning against the Holy Spirit and that sin is not
forgivable.
>
> >He was there already and the Holy Spirit is what
> >brings Jesus to people, no matter what the Catholic wants it to be, it
> >is what the bible says it is.
>
> No, the Holy Spirit does not bring Jesus to us.
You need to read the verses I shown you, it sure is not Mary bring
people to Jesus, all believers are to bring people to Jesus everyone
so that does not make Mary any better or any. or more needed then any
and all Christians.
>
> >Luke 11:13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to
> >your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy
> >Spirit to those who ask Him!" NKJV
>
> See, the Father gives us the Holy Spirit, and Jesus sent the Holy Spirit.
NOT MARY you lost your point, then I would think you believe in ONE
God or are you a pagan. One God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
use what other name you want in the godhead, it still ends up without
Mary bringing anyone to Jesus. She even misplaced Jesus when He was a
boy in the Temple.
>
> >John 14:26-27
> > 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My
> >name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all
> >things that I said to you. NKJV
>
> That's what I said. The Father and Jesus give us the Holy Spirit, not vice versa.
BUT NOT MARY and tha is what I said and the bible supports. The
Father if you read that verse sent the HOLY SPIRIT that was sent in
His name, not Mary.
>
> >> >I have seen them beg the image of Mary for help and seen them touch
> >> >other Statutes of her as well as to the statue of Jesus till their
> >> >feet or hands had to be replaced.
> >> She's a powerful woman, but the statue of her isn't.
> >Where do you see Mary as a powerful woman, she needed John to care for
> >her.
>
> No, she didn't. That was a monumental statement by Jesus hanging from the cross
> advising mankind that his Mother is our Mother too. After all, we are his
> brother, are we not.
Nope he gave her to that disciple not one else, She was accepted by
John as his mother like a person adopted a person and they become part
of their family. We do not adopted Mary, she was never given to
anyone but one person. The word brother or sister and in the RCC
Father is just a term for a person that we honor in a religious way,
it does not make them a blood relation. A close friend who
accompanies his buddies in their activities, A male with the same
parents as someone else or A male person who is a fellow member (of a
fraternity or religion or other group). Look it up.
> Besides, this is where I usually tell protest_ants that if Jesus had all those
> brothers and sisters, why did Mary need a place to live?
Again I have lots of sisters and brothers, and I live in my own
house. Why would Jesus not have a place to live when he just happen
to be away from His home town and on a trip. Again same logic when I
go on a trip no matter how many members I have in my family, when away
I have to rent a hotel or motel for the night, I can say just what
Jesus said, I have no place to lay my head, Meaning I need a place,
even Mary and Joseph the Bible says tried to rent the night in the INN
when Jesus was going to be born. I would think Mary must of had
brothers and sisters even Joseph so you have noting to make your point
be it to a Catholic or a protestant or a atheist.
>
> > There is nothing that says she was powerful
>
> Well, I didn't mean power as in divine. She has no divinity. But she brings
> Jesus to us, and her statue doesn't.
Well since she is dead and buried and even had to wait in the upper
room with the other men and woman on the Day of Pentecost, she brought
nothing to Jesus the Holy Spirit came on them all. She is not divine
but the Pope and many Catholics are sure trying to put her in to the
godhead, as she is suppose to be the Mother of God, which would mean
divine. That has been all over the Internet then that is another
doctrine that the RCC is trying to use to keep people from turning to
the Protestant like Martin Luther did and millions of others over the
years.
>
> > she only like any woman had a baby nothing more
>
> Sure there's more. She was selected by God to carry Jesus for 9 months,
> exchanging bodily fluids with him, nourishing him with her body, etc.
You sound sick. God did not need bodily fluids from her, if that was
a need then Jesus would not be God. Then after nine months she was
not needed any more, and little is said about her, till she forgot
Jesus in the Temple and Jesus rebuked her, and told Mary that He had
to be about His Fathers business not his step dad or Her body fluids
or had any need for her at all. Nothing then is said about Mary for
almost twenty years till Jesus showed up at the Baptism of John the
Baptist. Mary had nothing at all to do with the Church who was the
Apostles or the order or rule of the Church not a thing.
>
> > and she is not even mention by the Apostles after the day of Pentecost, not a word.
>
> And?? Scripture is about Jesus, not Mary.
Correct so why is that, because Mary had nothing more to do with Jesus
after He was born. If we use your logic, Peter, Luke, John, and all
the writers of the Bible are mention and what they did and where they
went and so on, not Mary, nothing at all. Why would those people get
their story told and not this so called important woman the Mother of
Jesus, have nothing to say, noting to be taken down and put into the
Bible.
Acts 1:14
14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication,
with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
NKJV
Acts 12:12
12 So, when he had considered this, he came to the house of Mary, the
mother of John whose surname was Mark, where many were gathered
together praying. NKJV
> > The statue means
> >nothing, but they are praying and holding on to that statue of Mary as
> >they pray.
>
> It's nothing more than a modern day photo that people use to remind themselves of a loved one.
Only no photo of image of Mary was ever made in Jesus day. So it is
like a photo of your mother or your girl friend or any woman, would
you think it right for people to have your the picture of such people
and use if to help pray to Mary with. One may sue a picture of
someone to remember to pray for their healing or heath, but not to
pray to it and use it for the Mother of Jesus. Since it is not a
photo or a likeness of Mary that would be sin. Ex 20:4-6
4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image — any likeness of
anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them
nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting
the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth
generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to
those who love Me and keep My commandments. NKJV
The Lord our God said not to do such things a photo, a image a idol or
a statue. Exodus 20:4-6 very plain and easy to read.
> You don't understand what I said above, so I'm not surprised.
Since what you do say is not what the Lord agrees with and is not
scripture, I really do not need to understand as it just wrong as you
seem not to understand what God said, let alone what I said either. I
am surprised but can see why you where taught such things and did not
question them, as the Priest in those days told the Catholics they
could not understand and to trust the priest to know what the Bible
said and only follow the teachings of the RCC. I spent a lot of years
with the teaching of the RCC and knew many of the Priest and Nuns that
ran the schools in city I lived in.
Raymond
duke
?? Do you know what commas and periods are? I thought we were discussing why
Mary could be called the Mother of God. And the reason is that her son is
called Son of God, and no other mother in history can claim that.
>Iit was the Holy Spirit that gave her that baby and the Holy Spirit never
>leaves the children of God.
The Holy Spirit guides us, not protects us.
> No never. So your logic means what? You
>are near to sinning against the Holy Spirit and that sin is not
>forgivable.
You came real close yourself a couple of times above.
>> >He was there already and the Holy Spirit is what
>> >brings Jesus to people, no matter what the Catholic wants it to be, it
>> >is what the bible says it is.
>> No, the Holy Spirit does not bring Jesus to us. �
>You need to read the verses I shown you, it sure is not Mary bring
>people to Jesus, all believers are to bring people to Jesus everyone
>so that does not make Mary any better or any. or more needed then any
>and all Christians.
Read my lips: Mary gave/brought Jesus to us. Eve said no. Mary said yes.
>> >Luke 11:13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to
>> >your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy
>> >Spirit to those who ask Him!" NKJV
>> See, the Father gives us the Holy Spirit, and Jesus sent the Holy Spirit.
>NOT MARY you lost your point, then I would think you believe in ONE
>God or are you a pagan.
I never said that Mary sends the Holy Spirit.
> One God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
>use what other name you want in the godhead, it still ends up without
>Mary bringing anyone to Jesus. She even misplaced Jesus when He was a
>boy in the Temple.
And you still pretend to ignore that Mary brought Jesus to us, the only woman to
do such a thing. And she continues to do. You're overplaying Mary's role in
salvation.
>> >John 14:26-27
>> > 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My
>> >name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all
>> >things that I said to you. �NKJV
>> That's what I said. �The Father and Jesus give us the Holy Spirit, not vice versa.
>BUT NOT MARY
Yet I never said Mary gives us the Holy Spirit. She gave us Jesus.
>> >> >I have seen them beg the image of Mary for help and seen them touch
>> >> >other Statutes of her as well as to the statue of Jesus till their
>> >> >feet or hands had to be replaced.
>> >> She's a powerful woman, but the statue of her isn't. �
>> >Where do you see Mary as a powerful woman, she needed John to care for
>> >her.
>> No, she didn't. �That was a monumental statement by Jesus hanging from the cross
>> advising mankind that his Mother is our Mother too. �After all, we are his
>> brother, are we not.
>Nope he gave her to that disciple not one else, She was accepted by
>John as his mother like a person adopted a person and they become part
>of their family.
Thank God you're wrong.
> We do not adopted Mary, she was never given to
>anyone but one person. The word brother or sister and in the RCC
>Father is just a term for a person that we honor in a religious way,
>it does not make them a blood relation. A close friend who
>accompanies his buddies in their activities, A male with the same
>parents as someone else or A male person who is a fellow member (of a
>fraternity or religion or other group). Look it up.
Sounds like you're been reading some bad information.
>> Besides, this is where I usually tell protest_ants that if Jesus had all those
>> brothers and sisters, why did Mary need a place to live?
>Again I have lots of sisters and brothers, and I live in my own
>house. Why would Jesus not have a place to live when he just happen
>to be away from His home town and on a trip.
Jesus made it clear as he hung from the cross that His mother is mother to us
all.
>> > �There is nothing that says she was powerful
>> Well, I didn't mean power as in divine. �She has no divinity. �But she brings
>> Jesus to us, and her statue doesn't.
>Well since she is dead and buried
And of course we believe, basis the leading of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus
elevated his Mother to heaven.
>> > she only like any woman had a baby nothing more
>> Sure there's more. � She was selected by God to carry Jesus for 9 months,
>> exchanging bodily fluids with him, nourishing him with her body, etc.
>You sound sick. God did not need bodily fluids from her, if that was
>a need then Jesus would not be God.
But you fail to understand that Jesus HAD to be fully human in his relationship
to mankind. What he did for us was as a man, not a divine person.
>> > and she is not even mention by the Apostles after the day of Pentecost, not a word.
>> And?? �Scripture is about Jesus, not Mary.
>Correct so why is that, because Mary had nothing more to do with Jesus
>after He was born.
But that one thing was a magnanimous "yes" to God, where Eve said no.
> If we use your logic, Peter, Luke, John, and all
>the writers of the Bible are mention and what they did and where they
>went and so on, not Mary, nothing at all.
That's because their books were selected by the RCC to be the canon scripture in
the AD300's.
>> It's nothing more than a modern day photo that people use to remind themselves of a loved one.
>Only no photo of image of Mary was ever made in Jesus day.
No photo was ever made of anybody in those days.
>4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image � any likeness of
>anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
>that is in the water under the earth;
That's OT for the Jews, who had no idea what God looked like. They subsequently
made a golden calf thinking that such beauty would draw God to them as their
sole possession.
>> You don't understand what I said above, so I'm not surprised.
>I am surprised but can see why you where taught such things and did not
>question them, as the Priest in those days told the Catholics they
>could not understand and to trust the priest to know what the Bible
>said and only follow the teachings of the RCC.
The man on the street couldn't even read and write until a hundred years or so
ago. Besides, true knowledge of God means that one has taken the entirety of
Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture into study. It's virtually impossible for one
man to do so. It's only thru the millions of man hours of research that one
can glean God's words. The rest of us are reduced to turning to this one
statement or that one statement, which is deadly when we think we understand
God's desires.
mani deli
constitutionality of an Alabama statute prohibiting the sale of "any
device designed ... primarily for the stimulation of human genital
organs"
More News:
Alabama Vibrator Works moves factory to Georgia, great job losses,
investors furious.
Police bust, find three and half tons of black market vibrators in
underground factory.
Outraged Alabama citizen arrested for holding sigh reading �I got guns
they took my vibrator.�
In unrelated news: Alabama leads the nation in cucumber sales!
So now when you tell someone in Alabama to go and fuck themselves,
they'd have to go to Georgia to do it?
RWKnapp
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 19:22:16 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 3, 1:08 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:29:09 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 2, 7:54 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 15:59:51 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Oct 1, 7:11 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:27:31 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Sep 30, 8:11 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:39:29 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> A photo in SCMP this morning shows the interior if a church knee deep in mud
> >> >> >> >> >> with all the pews piled up in one corner by the floodwater and with a statue of The Virgin
> >> >> >> >> >> Mary gazing down at the mess. As they say, 'every picture tells a story'
> >> >> >> >> >They worship idols such as statues, which God told them not to do, and
> >> >> >> >> >honor false images and false gods, so they are judged and because they
> >> >> >> >> >turn against God like the atheist does, they sow and reap what they
> >> >> >> >> >sow.
>
> >> >> >> >> Catholics don't worship Mary, or a statute of her.
>
> >> >> >> >When people pray to a statute what do you call that?
>
> >> >> >> An easy answer - we don't pray to the statue, or a statute. Any more than you
> >> >> >> and I talk to a photo of our loved ones.
> >> >> >Maybe you do not, only I been in the Philippines for 19 years and seen
> >> >> >people craw on their knees for over fifty feet from out side the Cebu
> >> >> >City largest Catholic church to the image of Mary, while praying to
> >> >> Catholics understand the Mary brings Jesus to us.
> >> >Why it is not found in the Bible, Jesus was at the wedding and made
> >> >the water in to wine,
>
> >> Mary carried Jesus for 9 months and gave birth to him. The Holy Spirit didn't
> >> do that.
> >So did my mother carry me for nine months as does billions of mother
> >world widen then since the Baby that Mary did have was the Spirit of
> >God in that baby how can you say the Holy Spirit did not do that.
>
> ?? Do you know what commas and periods are? I thought we were discussing why
> Mary could be called the Mother of God. And the reason is that her son is
> called Son of God, and no other mother in history can claim that.
>
> >Iit was the Holy Spirit that gave her that baby and the Holy Spirit never
> >leaves the children of God.
>
> The Holy Spirit guides us, not protects us.
May your holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit I have from God does guide me
so I do not need to have protection, He protects me by letting me know
where to go and when to go and what to say and do. So the Holy
Spirits work in me, is to protect by information so I do not get into
a place where I would need protection. The past fifty years of my
life as a believer in Jesus as Lord and Saviour has shown me that is
so.
>
> > No never. So your logic means what? You
> >are near to sinning against the Holy Spirit and that sin is not
> >forgivable.
>
> You came real close yourself a couple of times above.
Oh I am sure I have, but thanks to God, I have not crossed that line
and with Gods help never will.
> >> >He was there already and the Holy Spirit is what
> >> >brings Jesus to people, no matter what the Catholic wants it to be, it
> >> >is what the bible says it is.
> >> No, the Holy Spirit does not bring Jesus to us.
> >You need to read the verses I shown you, it sure is not Mary bring
> >people to Jesus, all believers are to bring people to Jesus everyone
> >so that does not make Mary any better or any. or more needed then any
> >and all Christians.
>
> Read my lips: Mary gave/brought Jesus to us. Eve said no. Mary said yes.
Read what I wrote, Eve said no to what, God never told Eve He wanted
her to have a His child. What Bible are you reading?
>
> >> >Luke 11:13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to
> >> >your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy
> >> >Spirit to those who ask Him!" NKJV
> >> See, the Father gives us the Holy Spirit, and Jesus sent the Holy Spirit.
> >NOT MARY you lost your point, then I would think you believe in ONE
> >God or are you a pagan.
>
> I never said that Mary sends the Holy Spirit.
That is correct she sends nothing and as you did bring out Mary leads
people to Jesus, so send, lead both end up with one meeting Jesus in
the end. Bless Her, but she has nothing to do with Salvation and to
pray to her as the Hail Mary points out, shows the RCC would disagree
with you. One can talk and pray to Jesus as Jesus points out that all
must come unto him, no middle person as the RCC has made Mary to be.
That is a lie and how can one trust a Church if they make up what the
Bible does not say?
>
> > One God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
> >use what other name you want in the godhead, it still ends up without
> >Mary bringing anyone to Jesus. She even misplaced Jesus when He was a
> >boy in the Temple.
>
> And you still pretend to ignore that Mary brought Jesus to us, the only woman to
> do such a thing. And she continues to do. You're overplaying Mary's role in
> salvation.
You must be pretending as nothing I say is pretend, I mean all I say
and have the Bible to support me when it comes to these matters. God
not Mary brought Jesus into this world, Mary was just the surrogate
body that birth the Son of God. Then just because she was the only
woman that did such a thing she also died and is in the ground
someplace like all woman that die. She can not continue to do
anything she is not alive on earth and her soul is in Heaven as all
believers will be or are if they die. She is just a number, Jesus
gave her away to another to take care of. I am not the one
overplaying Mary's role the Roman Catholic Church is, and she has no
role in the salvation of anyone. She has NO role at all, so all this
that you bring out here is what the Catholic church has done, not I.
>
> >> >John 14:26-27
> >> > 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My
> >> >name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all
> >> >things that I said to you. NKJV
> >> That's what I said. The Father and Jesus give us the Holy Spirit, not vice versa.
> >BUT NOT MARY
>
> Yet I never said Mary gives us the Holy Spirit. She gave us Jesus.
You did bring out we need Mary to get to Jesus, and the bible does not
teach that it is the Holy Spirit that does that, and that has been my
point every time I bring it up and you seem to be blind or just can
not understand it is the HOLY SPIRIT that is important not the mother
of the body of Jesus.
>
> >> >> >I have seen them beg the image of Mary for help and seen them touch
> >> >> >other Statutes of her as well as to the statue of Jesus till their
> >> >> >feet or hands had to be replaced.
> >> >> She's a powerful woman, but the statue of her isn't.
> >> >Where do you see Mary as a powerful woman, she needed John to care for
> >> >her.
> >> No, she didn't. That was a monumental statement by Jesus hanging from the cross
> >> advising mankind that his Mother is our Mother too. After all, we are his
> >> brother, are we not.
> >Nope he gave her to that disciple not one else, She was accepted by
> >John as his mother like a person adopted a person and they become part
> >of their family.
>
> Thank God you're wrong.
I not sure what God you think your talking to, but the bible is
correct and what I posted is not what I think, it is what the Bible
said.
I also posted that verse which says the same. So if you thank your
God it is wrong then you are not a Christian, and I dare say you would
not agree with that, so thank God someone has shown you the truth and
the Bible is the Word of God our rule book as one has said.
>
> > We do not adopted Mary, she was never given to
> >anyone but one person. The word brother or sister and in the RCC
> >Father is just a term for a person that we honor in a religious way,
> >it does not make them a blood relation. A close friend who
> >accompanies his buddies in their activities, A male with the same
> >parents as someone else or A male person who is a fellow member (of a
> >fraternity or religion or other group). Look it up.
>
> Sounds like you're been reading some bad information.
Could be since I do read a lot from the Vatican and know many priest
and some bishops over the years. Then that Bad information you point
to was copy and paste from the dictionary that most people do look up
to find the meanings of terms.
>
> >> Besides, this is where I usually tell protest_ants that if Jesus had all those
> >> brothers and sisters, why did Mary need a place to live?
> >Again I have lots of sisters and brothers, and I live in my own
> >house. Why would Jesus not have a place to live when he just happen
> >to be away from His home town and on a trip.
>
> Jesus made it clear as he hung from the cross that His mother is mother to us all.
Jesus never said such. He told his mother and called her no longer
his Mother but "Woman" and told another she was to be seen as his
mother, no one else, and not your mother or mine of the mother of us
all, her kids, no one else. That verse I also posted and it seems you
cut out, so others would not see it.
>
> >> > There is nothing that says she was powerful
> >> Well, I didn't mean power as in divine. She has no divinity. But she brings
> >> Jesus to us, and her statue doesn't.
> >Well since she is dead and buried
>
> And of course we believe, basis the leading of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus
> elevated his Mother to heaven.
Who is this "we believe" suppose to be? Nope that was what a Pope
said in what 1987 or so? A thousand years plus after she died. Jesus
did nothing like that.
A lie of a Pope.
>
> >> > she only like any woman had a baby nothing more
> >> Sure there's more. She was selected by God to carry Jesus for 9 months,
> >> exchanging bodily fluids with him, nourishing him with her body, etc.
> >You sound sick. God did not need bodily fluids from her, if that was
> >a need then Jesus would not be God.
>
> But you fail to understand that Jesus HAD to be fully human in his relationship
> to mankind. What he did for us was as a man, not a divine person.
I do not fail to understand the truth, If you think of what you just
wrote, it be one more reason Mary could not be seen as the Mother of
God, since you just said he was only a man and not a divine
person..... You can not have it both ways, the more you try to make
a point, the more you prove that do not believe Mary was is or ever
will be the "Mother of God" the Pope could have you kicked out of his
church for that statement.
>
> >> > and she is not even mention by the Apostles after the day of Pentecost, not a word.
> >> And?? Scripture is about Jesus, not Mary.
> >Correct so why is that, because Mary had nothing more to do with Jesus
> >after He was born.
>
> But that one thing was a magnanimous "yes" to God, where Eve said no.
So now you have a place that says Eve said no, please provide that
reference and verse, I like to see that Eve said NO.
>
> > If we use your logic, Peter, Luke, John, and all
> >the writers of the Bible are mention and what they did and where they
> >went and so on, not Mary, nothing at all.
>
> That's because their books were selected by the RCC to be the canon scripture in
> the AD300's.
You are way behind the time, as in the past one hundred years
documents found and show that St. John wrote in his Gospel date to
95-105 AD and is on record in the museum. Hundreds of years before
the Roman cannon was made. It had nothing to say about Mary, or Mary
going up to heaven.
>
> >> It's nothing more than a modern day photo that people use to remind themselves of a loved one.
> >Only no photo of image of Mary was ever made in Jesus day.
>
> No photo was ever made of anybody in those days.
So why do you think someone can pray to a image of Mary as you point
out there is none and no one knows what she or Jesus or any of the
Catholic Saints look like. You prove by your statement these images
of saints are not the real saint or even looked like them. Maybe some
will make a image of your mother or girlfriend and say that it is Mary
or a saint, would you bless them for making Mary or a saint look like
your folks? How many others would want a part of that.
>
> >4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image — any likeness of
> >anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
> >that is in the water under the earth;
>
> That's OT for the Jews, who had no idea what God looked like. They subsequently
> made a golden calf thinking that such beauty would draw God to them as their
> sole possession.
Same a the Catholic church does today with images some even of gold.
>
> >> You don't understand what I said above, so I'm not surprised.
> >I am surprised but can see why you where taught such things and did not
> >question them, as the Priest in those days told the Catholics they
> >could not understand and to trust the priest to know what the Bible
> >said and only follow the teachings of the RCC.
>
> The man on the street couldn't even read and write until a hundred years or so
> ago. Besides, true knowledge of God means that one has taken the entirety of
> Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture into study. It's virtually impossible for one
> man to do so. It's only thru the millions of man hours of research that one
> can glean God's words. The rest of us are reduced to turning to this one
> statement or that one statement, which is deadly when we think we understand
> God's desires.
That is strange thing to day, we find tombs in Egypt full of writings
that date back four thousand years, and find cave writings all over
the world that show people wrote and could read. Nothing deadly about
following and knowing God's desires as God has made them know since
day one. I know whole villages that only had one person that could
read and write, and that person was the one that read all documents so
others would know and understand what was written.
It is deadly when people tell others they can not understand what God
said, and so have to have a church or a priest tell them, and for
thousand years and more the RCC had the bible under chain and locked
away so the people could not read it, or see it, it became so holy to
them they still kiss it in the MSS which can be seen on the Catholic
TV broadcast or cable even today.
The Lesbians
Benedict XVI told about 40,000 of the faithful on Monday that the collapse
of the Communist system had shown the price paid by those who chase power
and deny God.
"The last century - as this land of yours can bear witness - saw the fall of
a number of powerful figures who had apparently risen to almost unattainable
heights," Benedict, 82, said during an open-air Mass in Stara Boleslav, a
town about 15 miles northeast of Prague where the Czech patron St. Wenceslas
was slain in the 10th century.
"Suddenly they found themselves stripped of their power," he added, in an
allusion to the fall of Communism in 1989.
The pope came to this decidedly skeptical nation as part of a Continentwide
mission to urge the unbelieving out of their collective apathy.
But while Benedict's visit has been warmly received by the country's Roman
Catholics, the pope has been faced with the overwhelming indifference of a
nation unmoved by religion. According to the latest census, fewer than 3
million of the country's 10.5 million people identify themselves as Roman
Catholics.
During his visit to the Czech Republic, where civil unions between gay men
and lesbians have been legal since 2006 and abortion has been permissible
for decades, the pope avoided delicate social issues.
Yet many Czechs said his mission here had been futile. "Catholicism is not
going to catch on here where cynicism and 'What's the point?' are the
national ideology," said Dominik Jun, 31, a filmmaker. "More Czechs believe
in infomercials on television than they do in religion."
The pope had been expected to broach the issue of church property
confiscated under Communism and given to the state, which church officials
value at about $15 billion. Prime Minister Jan Fischer said over the weekend
that both sides had agreed to put aside the issue for now.
--
"We are of that generation that so changed the world that future days and
nights can never be the same."
duke
>> > �No never. �So your logic means what? �You
>> >are near to sinning against the Holy Spirit and that sin is not
>> >forgivable.
>> You came real close yourself a couple of times above.
>Oh I am sure I have, but thanks to God, I have not crossed that line
>and with Gods help never will.
Yet a couple of statements in the bible disagree with that statement.
Hebrews 4:15 (New International Version)
15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our
weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we
are�yet was without sin.
1 John 1:10 (New International Version)
10If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has
no place in our lives.
Note: Jesus is the only non-sinner. You and I ARE sinners.
>> >> >He was there already and the Holy Spirit is what
>> >> >brings Jesus to people, no matter what the Catholic wants it to be, it
>> >> >is what the bible says it is.
>> >> No, the Holy Spirit does not bring Jesus to us. �
>> >You need to read the verses I shown you, it sure is not Mary bring
>> >people to Jesus, all believers are to bring people to Jesus everyone
>> >so that does not make Mary any better or any. or more needed then any
>> >and all Christians.
>>
>> Read my lips: �Mary gave/brought Jesus to us. �Eve said no. �Mary said yes.
>
>Read what I wrote, Eve said no to what, God never told Eve He wanted
>her to have a His child. What Bible are you reading?
God said "do not eat......", and she immediately said "I'll decide, not God".
Eve said "no", and Mary said "let it be done to me in accordance with God's
will".
>> I never said that Mary sends the Holy Spirit.
>One can talk and pray to Jesus as Jesus points out that all
>must come unto him,
Jesus is no longer with us. The Holy Spirit is.
>Mary was just the surrogate body that birth the Son of God.
Yes, the Son of God.
>> Yet I never said Mary gives us the Holy Spirit. �She gave us Jesus.
>You did bring out we need Mary to get to Jesus, and the bible does not
>teach that it is the Holy Spirit that does that
Why would the Holy Spirit, the equal to Jesus, bring us to Jesus.
>> Jesus made it clear as he hung from the cross that His mother is mother to us all.
>Jesus never said such. He told his mother and called her no longer
>his Mother but "Woman"
"Woman" is a high honor. It was God's exact name for the female in creation.
> and told another she was to be seen as his
>mother, no one else, and not your mother or mine of the mother of us
>all, her kids, no one else.
She is the spiritual mother to us all.
>> And of course we believe, basis the leading of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus
>> elevated his Mother to heaven.
>Who is this "we believe" suppose to be?
It comes from Holy Tradition.
>> But you fail to understand that Jesus HAD to be fully human in his relationship
>> to mankind. �What he did for us was as a man, not a divine person. �
>I do not fail to understand the truth, If you think of what you just
>wrote, it be one more reason Mary could not be seen as the Mother of
>God, since you just said he was only a man and not a divine
>person..... You can not have it both ways
Jesus was both - fully man and fully divine.
>> But that one thing was a magnanimous "yes" to God, where Eve said no.
>So now you have a place that says Eve said no, please provide that
>reference and verse, I like to see that Eve said NO.
Then read Genesis chapter 3.
>> > �If we use your logic, Peter, Luke, John, and all
>> >the writers of the Bible are mention and what they did and where they
>> >went and so on, not Mary, nothing at all.
>> That's because their books were selected by the RCC to be the canon scripture in
>> the AD300's.
>You are way behind the time, as in the past one hundred years
>documents found and show that St. John wrote in his Gospel date to
>95-105 AD and is on record in the museum.
The Gospels writers did "release" their writings as you say, but 1) said
writings were not available to the public for 150-300 years after Christ, and 2)
in the AD300's the Catholic Church decided which books would be canon scripture
and which ones were not.
>Hundreds of years before
>the Roman cannon was made. It had nothing to say about Mary, or Mary
>going up to heaven.
If you don't think Mary could be in heaven compliments of God, that you don't
have faith in God.
>> >> It's nothing more than a modern day photo that people use to remind themselves of a loved one.
>> >Only no photo of image of Mary was ever made in Jesus day.
>
>> No photo was ever made of anybody in those days.
>So why do you think someone can pray to a image of Mary as you point
>out there is none and no one knows what she or Jesus or any of the
>Catholic Saints look like.
NOBODY prays **TO** a statue or a photo. They are praying to the person whose
image is depicted before them in their prayer.
>> >4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image � any likeness of
>> >anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
>> >that is in the water under the earth;
>> That's OT for the Jews, who had no idea what God looked like. �They subsequently
>> made a golden calf thinking that such beauty would draw God to them as their
>> sole possession.
>Same a the Catholic church does today with images some even of gold.
No image or statue is anything other than a piece of gold or wood or plaster.
>> The man on the street couldn't even read and write until a hundred years or so
>> ago. �Besides, true knowledge of God means that one has taken the entirety of
>> Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture into study. �It's virtually impossible for one
>> man to do so.
�
>That is strange thing to day, we find tombs in Egypt full of writings
>that date back four thousand years, and find cave writings all over
>the world that show people wrote and could read.
That's only the most highly learned doing the writing and reading.
>Nothing deadly about
>following and knowing God's desires as God has made them know since
>day one.
But "they" couldn't know God's desires unless someone else told them.
bob young
RWKnapp wrote:
Nothing could be stranger, weirder, or funnier than groups of people denigrating themselves by
following some god they cannot produce.
>
>
> > > > Your imaginary 'Savior' was badly needed in Manila yesterday and the day before.
> >
> > > Your imaginary false statements is really just pure stupidity, no
> > > foundation. Then what is bad was that the people in Manila the
> > > majority are not born again Believers they are like you are, just
> > > members of some church, group or idea. God is needed everyday, then
> > > God does not bless then that do evil or follow images, idols and such
> > > as the RP Catholic Church teach or you atheist teach.
> >
> > Sickening - no comment
>
> Yes your stand is sickening, one reason is because people want to
> blame God for things they do, and do not even accept God or follow
> God.
Proof ?
> Like me saying if there was no atheist we would not of had any
> war and all the millions of people killed is all the fault of atheist,
> and then point to the atheist communist, the old communist USSR and
> pagan governments as well as Islam, as they also do not accept the God
> I do believe in.
If you said that folks would laugh at you again. In W.W.II nearly all the protagonists were
Christians and that war killed 20 million people
> They like a lot of SCAM folks do, say what ever they
> have to and believe they are not responsible for their word. They
> want God but do not accept Creator God, only use the term "god" or
> "God" or in the case of Atheist "no god" that is sickening and no
> comment only shows if you did, you could not prove anything you say,
If you claim to follow some god then the onus in on you to provide the proof of it's existence, not
us.
>
> as you would have to accept the Bible and their is a God and so that
> God is responsible, but you can not as you do not believe in any god
> or God.
Correct
> So I suppose no comment should of been in the beginning of
> your reply, or not to reply at all.
>
> >
> > > > The count is now well over two hundred lost, including many innocent children
> > > > washed away and drowned in flood waters.
> >
> > > So what, everyone brings in the innocent children then innocent
> > > children will end up in Heaven as they have no sin.
> >
> > Garbage and you know it
>
> What believe you think it is garbage since you do not believe in god
> or God, to you all is garbage, show us from the bible that is garbage
> and then I can reply,
I have no interest in the bible. the bible is no different from a sales pamphlet trying to sell a
product, it is there for a purpose, to promote a god that early man invented.
> it is like a person telling someone something is
> garbage only because you do not know anything about the matter.
> People that sin will not go to Heaven, or a atheist go to Heaven, the
> a God of Love and care for people that have not rejected God and are
> innocent.
Heaven, like the gods is a myth. EVERY religion more or less has a heaven. Which one is right ?
Trot out the proof and before you do you need to prove your god first
> you reject anyone that you try to scan and con.
> What you sow you reap. You teach innocent kids to believe the trash
> God stuff and get upset when Christians show your true colors, and now
> try to had that by saying it is someone else that is doing it. I have
> no need for pride, then you are so silly you bring that us, and they
> say you will not bring it up and you already did by saying such. It
> seems you are not leaving this to anyone, and only see you can not
> prove anything so hope the reader will not accept what others say, as
> they see you have no pride in what you post, if you want pride in this
> matter. "The trait of being spurred on by a dislike of falling below
> your standards".
>
> >
> > > Your blind and dumb about God
> >
> > Right, you know all about 'Him' Eh? The one who creates children only to let them drown away
> > from their parents.
>
> You should not go down that road, do you have any children under your
> care now, do you feed their kids and supply a home for them and pay
> their car bills etc, if not they then you have nothing to prove, as
> that is one thing parents do, let their kids go and make their own
> mistakes, as they learn from them and grow.
I have and what I do with my children has nothing to do with your god failing to prevent floods and
landslides to bury them - remember He is all powerful, all knowing, or at least that is the lie you
tell to your listeners
> My parents let me go into
> the military and I worked for my college fees, and I not my parents
> purchase my car and paid for any errors I made, not my parents. I do
> not fell my parents let me down. In fact I am glad they let me go on
> my own, as I am a better man for it, and can point to my own success
> and prove to my kids what can happen by my errors. On the job
> training. A child that is under mom and dad all their life is a
> slave, and one learns nothing on their own etc. Your statement would
> bring my Eh!!!!!
>
> > Don't worry, six months from now many will have forgotten, apaprt from the bereaved parents,
> > life will go no as usual and the priesthood will revert to their lies again and preach about a
> > loving god - and the almighty $ will reign supreme, or should that be the Peso !
>
> I do not worry, as most people know that what happens never was
> approved my God and they did not ask God for directions to start
> with.
They know it would be a waste of time
bob young
duke wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:39:29 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> >> A photo in SCMP this morning shows the interior if a church knee deep in mud
> >> with all the pews piled up in one corner by the floodwater and with a statue of The Virgin
> >> Mary gazing down at the mess. As they say, 'every picture tells a story'
>
> >They worship idols such as statues, which God told them not to do, and
> >honor false images and false gods, so they are judged and because they
> >turn against God like the atheist does, they sow and reap what they
> >sow.
>
> Catholics don't worship Mary, or a statute of her.
Indeed, they are like all other worshippers, they worship myths.
Terribly terribly sad isn't it ?
bob young
RWKnapp wrote:
Every religious book is fearful of other religious books since they challenge
the belief and fill the followers with fear.
Not a problem that we atheists have to suffer from, thank god. [smile]
> The bible shows what a idol is how they
> are made of wood, stone and such, the RCC can say what they want but
> they really are breaking the Commandments and how can such that do
> which the bible says is to idols and just say they are not. Please
> what is the difference?
Man's first ever gods were likely to have been roughly carved out of drift wood. More intelligent
godbots, much later on realised that a god we cannot see will last longer, since they can do whatever
they like with it, at least they could until the first atheist said -
"Hey look here, there's something wrong, why should I have to bow down to something just because some
other human tells me to; produce the god and I will then think about it"
That was thousands of years ago . . . . . . . . . . . . . and we are still waiting !
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist Brit.
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor)
Man creates his gods in his own image,
then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content
R E L I G I O N - it is all in the mind,
an escape from life's realities and hardships,
sixty percent ritual, forty percent fantasy
>
>
RWKnapp
Oh yes there is, it is the atheist that can not produce any proof that
there is no God. That is funny in a sick way and they degrate
themselves into only mockery.
>
> > > > > Your imaginary 'Savior' was badly needed in Manila yesterday and the day before.
>
> > > > Your imaginary false statements is really just pure stupidity, no
> > > > foundation. Then what is bad was that the people in Manila the
> > > > majority are not born again Believers they are like you are, just
> > > > members of some church, group or idea. God is needed everyday, then
> > > > God does not bless then that do evil or follow images, idols and such
> > > > as the RP Catholic Church teach or you atheist teach.
>
> > > Sickening - no comment
>
> > Yes your stand is sickening, one reason is because people want to
> > blame God for things they do, and do not even accept God or follow
> > God.
>
> Proof ?
You are the proof!!!!
>
> > Like me saying if there was no atheist we would not of had any
> > war and all the millions of people killed is all the fault of atheist,
> > and then point to the atheist communist, the old communist USSR and
> > pagan governments as well as Islam, as they also do not accept the God
> > I do believe in.
>
> If you said that folks would laugh at you again. In W.W.II nearly all the protagonists were
> Christians and that war killed 20 million people
So you did not fight in W.W.II that would make you a coward are you
one. Then to fight and kill the enimy is a good thing, maybe if they
would of killed more, we would not have all the killings that were
done by the atheist communist that sure did more then just 20
million. Like a doctor, when someone is sick they cure them or cut
the sickness out, so they may live. Because of the few million that
were killed, a billion could live. In fact it could be the reason you
are alive today. Thanks be to God and the fighers of such sickness
that killed innocents by the thousands.
>
> > They like a lot of SCAM folks do, say what ever they
> > have to and believe they are not responsible for their word. They
> > want God but do not accept Creator God, only use the term "god" or
> > "God" or in the case of Atheist "no god" that is sickening and no
> > comment only shows if you did, you could not prove anything you say,
>
> If you claim to follow some god then the onus in on you to provide the proof of it's existence, not us.
I do not claim to follow some god, infact I try to turn people from
such idols and man made gods, oh we do proved the proof of the
existence of God and God does the same daily to them that will seek
Him. Just because you live in a dark room without and view to the
outside, does not mean there is no Sun or Moon, or Stars or even other
people outside your closed atheist room.
> > as you would have to accept the Bible and their is a God and so that
> > God is responsible, but you can not as you do not believe in any god
> > or God.
>
> Correct
I am most always correct, but thanks for saying so.
>
> > > Garbage and you know it
>
> > What believe you think it is garbage since you do not believe in god
> > or God, to you all is garbage, show us from the bible that is garbage
> > and then I can reply,
>
> I have no interest in the bible. the bible is no different from a sales pamphlet trying to sell a
> product, it is there for a purpose, to promote a god that early man invented.
It does not matter as the Bible is only a book that could lead one to
safety, like a book on cooking could lead someone to bake a cake or
cook a meal. Many do not cook as they do not know how, now if they
did have such a interest, they may be blessed with some good home
cooked meals. Instead of fast-food and forzen meals for the
mirowave. You got it wrong, God invented man not the other way,
unless you god is made of wood and you made it yourself.
Raymond
bob young
RWKnapp wrote:
Not I nor you. we are both descended from a branch of an early ape whether you like it or not.
>
>
> >
> > > Like me saying if there was no atheist we would not of had any
> > > war and all the millions of people killed is all the fault of atheist,
> > > and then point to the atheist communist, the old communist USSR and
> > > pagan governments as well as Islam, as they also do not accept the God
> > > I do believe in.
> >
> > If you said that folks would laugh at you again. In W.W.II nearly all the protagonists were
> > Christians and that war killed 20 million people
>
> So you did not fight in W.W.II that would make you a coward are you
> one.
Totally irrelevant, veering towards insulting bhavioius because you cannot counter the observation.
I am used to it, my skin is thick a bit like toy befuddled brain
> Then to fight and kill the enimy is a good thing, maybe if they
> would of killed more, we would not have all the killings that were
> done by the atheist communist that sure did more then just 20
> million. Like a doctor, when someone is sick they cure them or cut
> the sickness out, so they may live. Because of the few million that
> were killed, a billion could live. In fact it could be the reason you
> are alive today. Thanks be to God and the fighers of such sickness
> that killed innocents by the thousands.
I think you got my point, which is that humans kill regardless of which imaginary god they follow or not
follow.
You will find a large proportion of athsisdts are also pacifists.
>
>
> >
> > > They like a lot of SCAM folks do, say what ever they
> > > have to and believe they are not responsible for their word. They
> > > want God but do not accept Creator God, only use the term "god" or
> > > "God" or in the case of Atheist "no god" that is sickening and no
> > > comment only shows if you did, you could not prove anything you say,
> >
> > If you claim to follow some god then the onus in on you to provide the proof of it's existence, not us.
>
> I do not claim to follow some god, infact I try to turn people from
> such idols and man made gods, oh we do proved the proof of the
> existence of God and God does the same daily to them that will seek
> Him. Just because you live in a dark room without and view to the
> outside, does not mean there is no Sun or Moon, or Stars or even other
> people outside your closed atheist room.
>
> > > as you would have to accept the Bible and their is a God and so that
> > > God is responsible, but you can not as you do not believe in any god
> > > or God.
> >
> > Correct
>
> I am most always correct, but thanks for saying so.
Yes it is a well established fact that arrogance is needed when trying to propagate propagate imaginary gods
duke
>
>
>duke wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:39:29 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> A photo in SCMP this morning shows the interior if a church knee deep in mud
>> >> with all the pews piled up in one corner by the floodwater and with a statue of The Virgin
>> >> Mary gazing down at the mess. As they say, 'every picture tells a story'
>>
>> >They worship idols such as statues, which God told them not to do, and
>> >honor false images and false gods, so they are judged and because they
>> >turn against God like the atheist does, they sow and reap what they
>> >sow.
>>
>> Catholics don't worship Mary, or a statute of her.
>
>Indeed, they are like all other worshippers, they worship myths.
>
>Terribly terribly sad isn't it ?
Failure to comprehend, yep, but it's your thing.
RWKnapp
> RWKnapp wrote:
> > On Oct 25, 9:49 pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> > > RWKnapp wrote:
> > > > > > Your imaginary false statements is really just pure stupidity, no
> > > > > > foundation. Then what is bad was that the people in Manila the
> > > > > > majority are not born again Believers they are like you are, just
> > > > > > members of some church, group or idea. God is needed everyday, then
> > > > > > God does not bless then that do evil or follow images, idols and such
> > > > > > as the RP Catholic Church teach or you atheist teach.
>
> > > > > Sickening - no comment
>
> > > > Yes your stand is sickening, one reason is because people want to
> > > > blame God for things they do, and do not even accept God or follow
> > > > God.
>
> > > Proof ?
>
> > You are the proof!!!!
>
> Not I nor you. we are both descended from a branch of an early ape whether you like it or not.
There is no proof that mankind came from any kind of branch of early
ape or the Ape at all, you can go to the Zoo and check that out. I
like it, you don't. You accept such myths and then try to say that
God is a myth, Bob you do have a problem. It is said that the PIG is
near then any Ape to the human being. At least in medical ways. It
is no wonder you have a problem with God you can not even talk to a
Ape and get a intelligent answer, maybe the atheist god is the ape,
you just do not call it such?
> > > > Like me saying if there was no atheist we would not of had any
> > > > war and all the millions of people killed is all the fault of atheist,
> > > > and then point to the atheist communist, the old communist USSR and
> > > > pagan governments as well as Islam, as they also do not accept the God
> > > > I do believe in.
>
> > > If you said that folks would laugh at you again. In W.W.II nearly all the protagonists were
> > > Christians and that war killed 20 million people
>
> > So you did not fight in W.W.II that would make you a coward are you
> > one.
>
> Totally irrelevant, veering towards insulting bhavioius because you cannot counter the observation.
So is your irrelevant ape silly statements. Your observation is like
a child that thinks a ape is from his family. Seems like the ape it
did not fight in WW II either. Get to close to that Ape and it could
ripe your head off.
> I am used to it, my skin is thick a bit like toy befuddled brain
Like an ape skin, I suppose, your skin is thick alright but has
nothing to do with your brain then playing with a toy, only you know.
> > Then to fight and kill the enemy is a good thing, maybe if they
> > would of killed more, we would not have all the killings that were
> > done by the atheist communist that sure did more then just 20
> > million. Like a doctor, when someone is sick they cure them or cut
> > the sickness out, so they may live. Because of the few million that
> > were killed, a billion could live. In fact it could be the reason you
> > are alive today. Thanks be to God and the fighters of such sickness
> > that killed innocents by the thousands.
>
> I think you got my point, which is that humans kill regardless of which imaginary god they follow or not follow.
I never killed anyone, so that proved that is false, then an ape could
do such, and they could have more smarts about God then we never will
know, as they do not speak a language the simple human being
understands.
>
> You will find a large proportion of athsisdts are also pacifists.
For one thing, I never talked to a "athsisdts" then the ape is not a
pacifist that kind of messes you proof your family comes from the ape
group.
> > > > as you would have to accept the Bible and their is a God and so that
> > > > God is responsible, but you can not as you do not believe in any god
> > > > or God.
>
> > > Correct
>
> > I am most always correct, but thanks for saying so.
>
> Yes it is a well established fact that arrogance is needed when trying to propagate propagate imaginary gods
It is well established that atheist are the arrogant ones and you
posting in a newsgroup that does believe in a living, GOD shows that
is fact. You are trying to propagate your false "no-god" imaginary no
god foolishness.
Raymond
bob young
RWKnapp wrote:
> On Oct 26, 5:41 am, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> > RWKnapp wrote:
> > > On Oct 25, 9:49 pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> > > > RWKnapp wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Your imaginary false statements is really just pure stupidity, no
> > > > > > > foundation. Then what is bad was that the people in Manila the
> > > > > > > majority are not born again Believers they are like you are, just
> > > > > > > members of some church, group or idea. God is needed everyday, then
> > > > > > > God does not bless then that do evil or follow images, idols and such
> > > > > > > as the RP Catholic Church teach or you atheist teach.
> >
> > > > > > Sickening - no comment
> >
> > > > > Yes your stand is sickening, one reason is because people want to
> > > > > blame God for things they do, and do not even accept God or follow
> > > > > God.
> >
> > > > Proof ?
> >
> > > You are the proof!!!!
> >
> > Not I nor you. we are both descended from a branch of an early ape whether you like it or not.
>
> There is no proof that mankind came from any kind of branch of early
> ape or the Ape at all, you can go to the Zoo and check that out.
Every indication by way of ongoing and increasing scientific discovery
> I
> like it, you don't. You accept such myths
Just watching humans and apes and making comparisons is all the evidence any sane person needs. They make poo poo
just like we do, they make their babies the same way as we do, their limbs are very close, we walked on all fours and
then became up right, fully covered by scientific reasoning and evidence.
> and then try to say that
> God is a myth, Bob you do have a problem.
I have no problem calling all gods myths every god damn one of 'em
> It is said that the PIG is
> near then any Ape to the human being.
Pigs have many similarities with us, some of their internals are interchangeable.
Not surprising since we all hail from water born living creatures billions of years ago which, over time ventured
onto dry land and very slowly evolved in order to accommodate a new style of existence. By a quirk of nature we got
a freak brain, and then "Hey Presto" along come gods !
> At least in medical ways. It
> is no wonder you have a problem with God you can not even talk to a
> Ape and get a intelligent answer, maybe the atheist god is the ape,
> you just do not call it such?
We have no gods, we laugh at them and get no reaction. The only reaction we get is from humans who love their
imaginary 'gods' the same humans who, when asked to produce them, fail dismally.
I never said you did, I refer to the human race in general - just read your TV news tonight, a lot of killing going
on in the Middle East right now, all of which has stong religious undertones.
> so that proved that is false, then an ape could
> do such, and they could have more smarts about God then we never will
> know, as they do not speak a language the simple human being
> understands.
No they do not and go back far enough neither did we, and at that time we had no gods either, we made up our gods
AFTER we learned to talk; as any church sermon will clearly demonstrate.
>
> >
> > You will find a large proportion of athsisdts are also pacifists.
>
> For one thing, I never talked to a "athsisdts" then the ape is not a
> pacifist that kind of messes you proof your family comes from the ape
> group.
No - all it shows is you prefer to play with my typos because you cannot prove your god
>
>
> > > > > as you would have to accept the Bible and their is a God and so that
> > > > > God is responsible, but you can not as you do not believe in any god
> > > > > or God.
> >
> > > > Correct
> >
> > > I am most always correct, but thanks for saying so.
> >
> > Yes it is a well established fact that arrogance is needed when trying to propagate propagate imaginary gods
>
> It is well established that atheist are the arrogant ones
Read the bible, the arrogance is on every page
> and you
> posting in a newsgroup that does believe in a living, GOD shows that
> is fact. You are trying to propagate your false "no-god" imaginary no
> god foolishness.
Well you are welcome to prove me wrong, but you cannot, so you posture.
Hey HK is lovely today, clear blue sky - 26C - long overdue.
Oh . . . . God has arranged yet another typhoon for the north east coast of the Phillipines, more innocent kids are
about to die methinks ! It arrives in about four days.
'He' moves in verey mysterious ways, a bit like you do !
Cheers
Bob
bob young
duke wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2009 21:16:01 -0500, bob young <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >duke wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:39:29 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> A photo in SCMP this morning shows the interior if a church knee deep in mud
> >> >> with all the pews piled up in one corner by the floodwater and with a statue of The Virgin
> >> >> Mary gazing down at the mess. As they say, 'every picture tells a story'
> >>
> >> >They worship idols such as statues, which God told them not to do, and
> >> >honor false images and false gods, so they are judged and because they
> >> >turn against God like the atheist does, they sow and reap what they
> >> >sow.
> >>
> >> Catholics don't worship Mary, or a statute of her.
> >
> >Indeed, they are like all other worshippers, they worship myths.
> >
> >Terribly terribly sad isn't it ?
>
> Failure to comprehend, yep, but it's your thing.
If I swallowed your mythology i would be as sad as you Doook
duke
>
>
>duke wrote:
>
>> On 25 Oct 2009 21:16:01 -0500, bob young <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >duke wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:39:29 -0700 (PDT), RWKnapp <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> A photo in SCMP this morning shows the interior if a church knee deep in mud
>> >> >> with all the pews piled up in one corner by the floodwater and with a statue of The Virgin
>> >> >> Mary gazing down at the mess. As they say, 'every picture tells a story'
>> >>
>> >> >They worship idols such as statues, which God told them not to do, and
>> >> >honor false images and false gods, so they are judged and because they
>> >> >turn against God like the atheist does, they sow and reap what they
>> >> >sow.
>> >>
>> >> Catholics don't worship Mary, or a statute of her.
>> >
>> >Indeed, they are like all other worshippers, they worship myths.
>> >
>> >Terribly terribly sad isn't it ?
>>
>> Failure to comprehend, yep, but it's your thing.
>
>If I swallowed your mythology i would be as sad as you Doook
It's a good thing I don't swallow mythology, isn't it.