Bible vs Tradition
IKnowHimDoYou
In all the examination of the RCC and the EOx religions we continue to
come up to the contrast between God's Word, the Bible and men's
traditions. While those who support these false religions tell us that
both the Bible and their traditons are on the same footing we actually see
that "when in doubt choose the traditions". This is nothing more than
giving lip service to God's Word.
Those who practice these traditions have been lead into all sorts of
violations of God's Word resulting in supersitions, confusion, dichotomies
and downright evil practices. Of course the leaders of these cultic
religions must keep the members ignorant and unschooled in God's Word for
if any find the truth they leave on the next bus and that puts a dent in
the cult's income.
Only one verse from God's Word is sufficient to show the falsity of these cults:
"Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I
thee; In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk". Acts 3:6
The Popes and Metropolitans can not say, nor do, what Peter did can they?
Therefore, why follow them into the lake of fire?
Jerry Patterson
JP
It is astounding that this issue keeps being raised in spite of the
clear origins of traditions.
How do you define tradition? What do you call the manner by which Cain
and Able knew that they were to offer sacrifices? How did they know
what proper and non proper sacrifices were?
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
Bill Litchfield
"Jerry Patterson" <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:6rcp401civojtsqpa...@4ax.com...
IKHDY is the big troll on this NG. He actually does serve a useful purpose.
Since nearly every one of his posts are erroneous and/or messed up in
countless other ways, someone always comes behind him and sets the record
straight, thereby giving other members of the group a more correct picture.
Shalom,
Bill
steve
what if religion is entirely based on conjecture that supports and binds a
culture? religion is itself a tradition evolving from the moment mankind was
successful enough to have large portions of free time to think about himself
and the circumstances in which he found himself. if the word "evolve"
offends you, then i suggest looking at the first recorded religions. were
they mono or pan theistic? which came first, gilgamesh or noah (chick/egg)?
if the reference to religion being more supportive of social contracts
within a culture, you have no further to look than any history book.
religious tradition can be described as "relitics" and "poligion" - where
the advancement of one is achieved through the veil of the other. the
crusades, witch hunts, the inquesition, etc. we see this scenario played
out, historically, more than any evidence that any religion has the market
cornered on god's thoughts or intentions...much less that any writing was
divined from such origins. i'd rather follow the hammurabi than the
bible...at least everyone agrees it was written by men. in that case, i
won't need to question that mens' social contract has needs change in order
to benefit those who are under its influence. i have no explanation, outside
of those i know will be difficult for you to come to terms with, as the many
changes in "law" throughout the torah, the entire old testament, following
through the new testament...and especially what is permissible today. need
more...the fact that you call other religions "false" should provide your
audience sufficient need for pause. enough time to consider that that
statement is a definition of a cultural value and that it's preservation
ensures a longer lifespan for the social contract of your
culture...everything is culture...culture over time is tradition.
relitics and poligion - the most far reaching, dated, and "downright evil
practice[s]" ever to avail itself under mans truest cultural intent;
selfishness.
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKno...@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IKnowHim-080...@pm3-21.kalama.com...
Alberich
wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 08:11:09 -0800, IKno...@leavingsoon.com
>(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
>
>>Bible vs Tradition
>>
>>In all the examination of the RCC and the EOx religions we continue to
>>come up to the contrast between God's Word, the Bible and men's
>>traditions. While those who support these false religions tell us that
>>both the Bible and their traditons are on the same footing we actually see
>>that "when in doubt choose the traditions". This is nothing more than
>>giving lip service to God's Word.
>
>IKH, I repent. Forgive me. My attack on you "spamming" was unfounded.
>Post away. You need to serve as you feel led, as I do.
I suppose, then, that you will no longer complain when Catholics who
feel compelled to serve post in the other newsgroups, correct?
Alberich
walksalone
inability to get people to be nice to him pretended to know of what he
speaks with the following new claim to fame. Real good effort, but I
suspect for the majority, no sale was made by him.
BTW, follow ups set to trollas home [self confessed] group, arcb &
alt.talk.creationism
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 10:03:11 -0800, Jerry Patterson
> <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 08:11:09 -0800, IKno...@leavingsoon.com
>>(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Hope you don't mind the intrusion Jerry?
>>JP
>>It is astounding that this issue keeps being raised in spite of the
>>clear origins of traditions.
>>How do you define tradition?
> Excellent question on one hand, but it begs the question on the other.
> Apparently you are not a trained scholar (student).
Not much of a question if you take it head on, tradition, the teaching of
the ancients, normally by way of legend or elders.
So how do you intend to muddy the waters today jw?
As to a scholar, that you are not even by popular definition, so if Jerry
is not a scholar, he is not alone in this message.
> There are a number of approaches to Bible study. One I like, as a
None based on critical examination nor history, so that leaves legend.
> journalist, is called "The 5 W's and the H". "Who", What, "Why, "When,
> "When", and "How."
Not restricted to journalists, & based on your posting history, you are not
a journalist. That does not mean that on occasion, if you want to BS others
you can't make the effort, nor does it mean you can't copy a professional
apologetics work & substitute your wording for it. A thing it would
surprise no one that I communicate with.
> We Christians must then add some more qualifiers, "Who was he talking
> to, When? Where? Why? About what?"
Which is where begging the question comes in. You see, xians assume that
the claimed individual exists, even when historically they leave no trace
at all. Especially as described/claimed.
David & Goliath could never have happened as described, but there are still
those that believe it did. Ever try wearing armor of gold? Good luck.
Historically, as common, the equipment does not match the claimed time era.
Which is fine for tradition, especially if that tradition is being used to
give a tribe social cohesion, or power to the priesthood that was the
guardian of that tradition.
> We have the prophets (the Old Testament, which WAS originally oral,
> and then was written down/completed by the time of Christ. ) When the
Who came after the Torah, & after the traditional writings. Or do you not
know of the testaments of the Patriarchs? The testament of Adam, the list
is long indeed, & all tradition which helped form the OT with the exception
of the Torah.
> Old Testament was in its formative years, and was being handed down
> word-of-mouth, that was called "the traditions our fathers handed
No, it was called commentary. Only the Torah had official standing. & yes,
there is a section of the ot that is called the books of wisdom, the J
books, the D books, the E books, but I leave those that enjoy studying
such, by their arrival most of the gods of the Israelite had been
identified & named. Even the goddess had been hinted at, but the
confirmation of those goddess had to wait until around -545 Gr..
> down." Yet not ALL the traditions were acceptable." Jesus accused the
> Pharisees (scholars) of loving tradition and men's laws more than God,
Here is where begging the question comes in. Jesus who, as described such a
person never existed on the stage of history. As described a christ, yet no
priest anointed him.
As described, a messiah, a deliver that was anointed.
Well, Israel lost the fight, no earthly kingdom was established, & they
were kicked out of their homeland again. Some say 1948 was a vindication of
this claim that he would return Israel to its home, but the house of Judea.
Everything a messiah was supposed to prevent failed came to pass.
Everything a messiah was to accomplish failed to be done.
> God's laws, or God's children even.
Which god, in the OT alone, there are over 200 separate identifiable gods
of Israel.
Course, you have to have studied gods & how they came to be associated with
human society to realise that, which leaves jw at the least out.
> So, we have the prophets, and now we have "tradition" IOW, the Old
Which prophet's, a messiah as claimed by xianity is not biblical, your
claims not withstanding.
That messiah never was a part of Jewish tradition, & still isn't.
> Testament.
Now which version, the one where yaweh cut off adding to his book, or your
version. His book is the Torah & does not forward the concept of him ever
interacting with humanity until judgment day, if there is a Torah scholar
out there that is inclined, can you verify or deny that as a point of
information. My study of gods does not need that supplemental information,
& it could be I am wrong about when yaweh will start to interact with
humans again. For some reason the time span of 10000 years from Abraham,
seems about right, but an oath on that I will not make.
> The next ingredient was the teachings of Christ, those the Holy Spirit
Again the begging of the question. A holy spirit is a xian concept.
> committed to paper, in what we now call the New Testament. Who chose
Which is a direct violation of yaweh's law. Or have you not read your
**bible**[tm]? Actually, hat is likely a rhetorical question in the case of
jw.
> the New Testament books? First, the apostles did. When we figured out
Nope, the original writings associated with the xian grimorie were penned
by Paul according to those that make their living studying such things.
You've had that pointed out to you before jw, & not by me.
AS to the gospels, here again is begging the question.
Unknown in the original format [autographs] we are supposed to blithely
assume they are accurate when they historically are not. Try the
genealogy's for the lad, who if sired by a god could not be of the house of
David as understood by Jewish tradition, not to mention being a blasphemy.
According to the OT, it to is impossible due to a particular branch being
forbidden from talking the throne ever again.
Not to mention the xian myth is based on Greek writing, which is to be
expected, it was the Greek speaking population it was being peddled to.
So you see, xian tradition is heavy on begging the question.
> the rules THEY used, we applied the same rules. The apostles were WELL
No you don't, for you don't know what, if any, rules were involved until
the Catholic church showed up & formalized the mythology based on books
they approved. After all, its not like there was a Baptist church, the term
hadn't been coined. & you can forget trying to claim a link with a John the
Baptist, though you can make a good argument, well, maybe you can't jw, for
a John the Immerser or John the Baptizer. But a John the Baptist is a xian
fabrication used to give credence to their mythology, sort of artificial
credentials one might say.
> aware of how the prophets chose the Old Testament canon. The apostles
> were all schooled jews. Paul was a rabbi.
Not according to those that study such things, Seems his claims don't match
the history they should match, but then, he is/was/maybe an admitted liar.
> The final ingredient was the teachings of the apostles (read mainly St
> Paul here) who amplified upon the writings of Christ. But both Paul
Ya know jw, I just used to figure you were 99% bull shit, now I know it. In
spite of your claims & question begging, the earliest known gospel, Mark,
is not believed by scholars, which you aint even by popular definition, to
have been started being penned prior to +70-85 Gr., & I suspect that I
erred on the low side.
The gospels are not even a strictly late 1st. Cen. effort, they were
written as late as the 2nd. cent.
Paul never quotes them, nor is his lad a physical entity, but a atemporal
one. The gospels attempt to put flesh to the myth, & fail.
> and John indicated that there had to be an "end" to the prophesy
Several century's late, after all, yaweh had already stoped speaking to
humanity, & an avatar was not scheduled.
> sometime, as instructed by the Holy Spirit. That "end", that line in
> the sand, was the apostles' writings themselves.
So you say, yet that begs the question still,even more.
But I've wasted enough time, & you would be unable to respond in an
intelligent manner so I won't bring those questions up. I am certain any
readers still with us will appreciate that.
> Galatians 1, ANY TEACHING that did NOT come from the prophets (Old
So then, the question is now, did anything yaweh, or his father el, mean
anything. Apparently not according to jw.
> Testament/tradition), Christ (the writings preserved by the Holy
> Spirit through the apostles), and the apostles (the NT ), is
> extra-biblical and false.
More question begging
First of all, you need to establish your claims as made actually are real.
Historically they are not.
That being the case, you need to establish there is/was a need for an
atemporal avatar, when the primary god said there would not be any due to
his sealing the book. True, the IPU[BBHUHHH]won't forgive you your screw
ups & lies, if she even allows you onto the eternal green pastures, it will
be to eat the holy horse apples she leaves for those like you.
> Good for history and customs, perhaps, but NOT divinely inspired.
And the final begging the question, if the history never happened, & there
were enough writers around that it should have, why believe any of it if
you don't have to.
In answer to that,as one writer said, he is a product of his society, he
had no choice & now he can not, or would have a very hard time, walk away
from it. IIRC, he was a canuk,but I could be wrong.
> And I lose NOTHING by rejecting the A.
You lose nothing for according to this post, you never had anything.
Sounds about right & in line with your posting history.
Course, that no archive request in your headers indicates that you know
google is not your friend. & don't waste the electrons pretending you want
to use them in a book & leaving them on google would make you violate
copyright laws again.
> jw
JW, which one today, jw the whiner isn't quite right this time, jw the liar
seems to always be in style, but jw the pompous ass that claims knowledge
he can't display is probably more like it.
> What do you call the manner by which Cain
>>and Able knew that they were to offer sacrifices? How did they know
>>what proper and non proper sacrifices were?
Established social custom, sometimes called tradition.
snip
walksalone who does hope that Jerry realises the above was in response to
jw & not him. I do understand tradition & its place in the development of
society's & mythology.
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 10:03:11 -0800, Jerry Patterson
><je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>Excellent question on one hand, but it begs the question on the other.
>Apparently you are not a trained scholar (student).
>
>There are a number of approaches to Bible study. One I like, as a
>journalist, is called "The 5 W's and the H". "Who", What, "Why, "When,
>"When", and "How."
>
>We Christians must then add some more qualifiers, "Who was he talking
>to, When? Where? Why? About what?"
>
>In the case of Galatians 1, Paul tells us,
>
>We have the prophets (the Old Testament, which WAS originally oral,
>and then was written down/completed by the time of Christ. ) When the
>Old Testament was in its formative years, and was being handed down
>word-of-mouth, that was called "the traditions our fathers handed
>down." Yet not ALL the traditions were acceptable." Jesus accused the
>Pharisees (scholars) of loving tradition and men's laws more than God,
>God's laws, or God's children even.
>
>So, we have the prophets, and now we have "tradition" IOW, the Old
>Testament.
>The next ingredient was the teachings of Christ, those the Holy Spirit
>committed to paper, in what we now call the New Testament. Who chose
>the New Testament books? First, the apostles did. When we figured out
>the rules THEY used, we applied the same rules. The apostles were WELL
>aware of how the prophets chose the Old Testament canon. The apostles
>were all schooled jews. Paul was a rabbi.
>The final ingredient was the teachings of the apostles (read mainly St
>Paul here) who amplified upon the writings of Christ. But both Paul
>and John indicated that there had to be an "end" to the prophesy
>sometime, as instructed by the Holy Spirit. That "end", that line in
>the sand, was the apostles' writings themselves.
>
>Galatians 1, ANY TEACHING that did NOT come from the prophets (Old
>Testament/tradition), Christ (the writings preserved by the Holy
>Spirit through the apostles), and the apostles (the NT ), is
>extra-biblical and false.
>
>Good for history and customs, perhaps, but NOT divinely inspired.
>
>And I lose NOTHING by rejecting the A.
>
>
>jw
JP
Cutting and pasting:
***************
>>>Bible vs Tradition
***************
What is meant by "Tradition" as used above?
>> What do you call the manner by which Cain
>>and Able knew that they were to offer sacrifices? How did they know
>>what proper and non proper sacrifices were?
JP
You did not answer the above question. Are you able?
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
>
>God bless,
>
>
>jw
>
>_______________________________________________________________________________
>Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
>
. . .
Kindest personal regards,
Jerry
Jerry Patterson
<walks...@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc> wrote:
>On 8 Mar 2004 20:32:04 GMT, j w in a fit of desperation due to his
>inability to get people to be nice to him pretended to know of what he
>speaks with the following new claim to fame. Real good effort, but I
>suspect for the majority, no sale was made by him.
>
>BTW, follow ups set to trollas home [self confessed] group, arcb &
>alt.talk.creationism
>
>> x-no-archive: yes
>> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 10:03:11 -0800, Jerry Patterson
>> <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 08:11:09 -0800, IKno...@leavingsoon.com
>>>(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
>
>Hope you don't mind the intrusion Jerry?
JP
Don't be concerned. You are in no way intruding.
. . .
Kindest personal regards,
Jerry
E Goldstein
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Jesus said God will judge you by your own judgments. So it's better
not to take God's judgments into your own hands.
--
It's a beautiful world - for you. It's for not me.
- Devo, Rage
Roger L. Martin
was by no mean ignorant of what they taught and how, he knew what they
taught, thought, believed etc. with a great deal of exactness.
True he was a great teacher, and even at the age of 12 was answering
questions for the great scholars at the temple.
The point being he was well aware of what was being taught but he was taught
on HIGH, from the father which put his level of truth and correctness far
above any thing that was currently being taught by the learned traditions of
men, did it have truth in it, yes but it had become corrupt, just as men
have become corrupt, by sins of their life and by false doctrines taught
through tradtitions as truth, only pure truth will save any of use, and
unless we can by revelation that is also pure get it from the source of the
father, just like christ did, we are apt to repeat history and follow the
false tradtions taught as truth, like the scholars of christ day, and our
day. For the same reasons they were taught then, they are currently being
taught today.
Christ showed us how to correct the false teachings of his day, but we need
to do the same today, through out biblical history god had continually had
to raise up true prophets and correct us on our false traditions, today is
not exception, and even more so, because God has to prepare for his second
coming of his son, and to do so has to start his true kingdom here on earth
through real prophets and help people over come a world of false tradtions.
The true followers will hear these prophets and the rest of the world will
want to ignore them or stone them!
So historically nothing has changed but the time, and the shortness to the
second coming, only it will be much worse for us than was his first coming!
Roger L. Martin
ps. Truth over false tradtions any day, if the tradition is true great
accept it, if it is false reject it, but only if you can discern between the
two, and you better be backed up by a true living prophet, just as the
apostles were in christ day!
"walksalone" <walks...@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc> wrote in
message news:1wym3ey28hblr.1...@40tude.net...
Tiger
news:104ugdl...@corp.supernews.com:
> The true followers will hear these prophets and the rest of the
> world will want to ignore them or stone them!
IOW, you set yourself up in a self-fulfilling role whereby you are
automagically a prophet. That's good...now everyone can be a prophet.
--
Tiger
[Insert humorous, clever or profound quote here]
walksalone
<yi2z...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>"j w @yahoo.com>" <john_weatherly47<no> wrote in message
>news:4v6s40du68ffdeilk...@4ax.com...
>> So you need to address those issues with IKH "cross-posting" to IKH.
>> He assures me his ISP and USENET have both given him permission to
>> post to not over 6 groups at one time.
>So how does one go about contacting USENET to get permission to post?
One doesn't, there are no hard & fast instructions. However, there are
[you knew this was coming didn't you?] FAQ's.
http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html
An excellent site for a wide range of FAQ's
Giganews version
http://www.giganews.com/?OVRAW=faq%20usenet&OVKEY=faq%20usenet&OVMTC=standard
&
http://www.ibiblio.org/usenet-i/usenet-help.html
As a few minor sources will indicate, there are no hard & fast rules.
So anyone claiming they are in compliance with usenet guidelines is
lieing. Not a very nice thing to do.
walksalone who used to believe there was one standard set of rules,
plumb embarassing.
As the caterpiller chooses the fairest leaves to lay her eggs
on, so the priest lays his curse on the fairest joys.
[William Blake, from Proverbs of Hell ]
Silver Blaze
<Ti...@box.invalid> wrote:
How about a bit of Bob Dylan:
Well, they'll stone ya when you're trying to be so good,
They'll stone ya just a-like they said they would.
They'll stone ya when you're tryin' to go home.
Then they'll stone ya when you're there all alone.
But I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.
Well, they'll stone ya when you're walkin' 'long the street.
They'll stone ya when you're tryin' to keep your seat.
They'll stone ya when you're walkin' on the floor.
They'll stone ya when you're walkin' to the door.
But I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.
They'll stone ya when you're at the breakfast table.
They'll stone ya when you are young and able.
They'll stone ya when you're tryin' to make a buck.
They'll stone ya and then they'll say, "good luck."
Tell ya what, I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.
Well, they'll stone you and say that it's the end.
Then they'll stone you and then they'll come back again.
They'll stone you when you're riding in your car.
They'll stone you when you're playing your guitar.
Yes, but I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.
Well, they'll stone you when you walk all alone.
They'll stone you when you are walking home.
They'll stone you and then say you are brave.
They'll stone you when you are set down in your grave.
But I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.
Copyright © 1966; renewed 1994 Dwarf Music
walksalone
<je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 19:37:02 -0600, walksalone
><walks...@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc> wrote:
>
>>On 8 Mar 2004 20:32:04 GMT, j w in a fit of desperation due to his
>>inability to get people to be nice to him pretended to know of what he
>>speaks with the following new claim to fame. Real good effort, but I
>>suspect for the majority, no sale was made by him.
>>
>>BTW, follow ups set to trollas home [self confessed] group, arcb &
>>alt.talk.creationism
>>
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 10:03:11 -0800, Jerry Patterson
>>> <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 08:11:09 -0800, IKno...@leavingsoon.com
>>>>(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
>>
>>Hope you don't mind the intrusion Jerry?
>
>JP
>Don't be concerned. You are in no way intruding.
Good to know that, the concern I have is that I accidentally derail
someones train of thought when I show up out of nowhere.
snip
>>> What do you call the manner by which Cain
>>>>and Able knew that they were to offer sacrifices? How did they know
>>>>what proper and non proper sacrifices were?
>>
>>Established social custom, sometimes called tradition.
>>
>>snip
>>
>>walksalone who does hope that Jerry realises the above was in response to
>>jw & not him. I do understand tradition & its place in the development of
>>society's & mythology.
>
>. . .
>Kindest personal regards,
>Jerry
Appreciated, take care & may you god[s] hold you in the palm of their
hands.
walksalone who is not hunting jws, but the scent is int he air.
walksalone
<goo...@be.quik.com> wrote:
Roger, a small point of information, it is considered rude to top
post. Even jw has quit top posting mostly. He's taken
up bitching about others doing it.
If you want to start a new message, feel free to do so. Your
privilege.
However, when you respond to individuals, try to insert your comments
where they are applicable. Feel free to remove any text you are not
responding to, but by all the gods that never were, indicate it.
In this way, if you have an intended audience, they can place your
comments in context instead of having to scroll through a 500 line
text to simply say, I do not agree.
IKnasmuch as there are no formal rules [beyond your ISP/news servers]
TOS, or AUP, you can do as you will. But don't be surprised if
replies die down if you top post only.
>Christ was not a learned scholar or even taught in the rabbical ways, but he
Which christ, he one claimed by the xian pantheon could not have been
one, for that one was not a messiah of the Jewish tradition, nor was
he anointed by the high priest. The only one I've seen indicated that
had that authority. & BTW, 1st. cen. Gr. was loaded with christs [most
senior Govt. Officials, Harod, for sure, etc]. I don't claim that as
rock solid, my study is gods, & that is but antimedical evidence
against the xian claims.
>was by no mean ignorant of what they taught and how, he knew what they
>taught, thought, believed etc. with a great deal of exactness.
First of all, you are begging the question. Where is evidence for this
claim.
Secondly, you are doing the special p;leading thing.
In spite of a glaring lack of evidence for any such person, you expect
that others should grant acceptance of your assertions.
Nope, evidence, Share?
BYTW, the xian grimorie & apologetic works that assume their
conc;usions [every one I've encountered so far] are not evidence.
>True he was a great teacher, and even at the age of 12 was answering
>questions for the great scholars at the temple.
Er, no. Several reasons based on Jewish law.
Mama being p;reggers, by a god yet, would not have lived.
Should she have escaped the righteous wrath of the Jews, her son would
not have been permitted into the temple. At beast he would have been a
bastard, born out of wedlock, at worst, a son of a foreign god. Yaweh
isn't due back for around another 8000 years according to the
supporting documents of the Jewish mythology. Can you imagine the
fuss?? It would have been deadly.
Now, its been some time since I read those legends, so my time frame
may be off some, but 2000 years ago he would not have even been
considering returning in any form. Especially since he closed direct
interaction with humans. You may find that information in the Torah.
>The point being he was well aware of what was being taught but he was taught
>on HIGH, from the father which put his level of truth and correctness far
Er, no, not at all. Your assumption being as you claim. Historically &
theologically there is no reason to assume that.
>above any thing that was currently being taught by the learned traditions of
>men, did it have truth in it, yes but it had become corrupt, just as men
>have become corrupt, by sins of their life and by false doctrines taught
Sin is a xian concept, don't have it myself. Decided the xians had so
much fun with it I ought not deprive them of my share.
Now, before you assume that I believe in your golds, don't. Before you
assume you can speak for me, don't.
Been speaking for myself the better part of 60 years, I suspect I know
my own mind better than you ever will be capable of.
Not to mention I have actually studied the xian pantheon & realised it
is not as claimed.
>through tradtitions as truth, only pure truth will save any of use, and
Traditions are hardly ever true.
Who was Abraham's father?
What king did Abraham [for a while] & his father serve?
Tradition says one thing, the evidence? Well, you can try to find it,
or you can actually research & see what th evidence says.
>unless we can by revelation that is also pure get it from the source of the
>father, just like christ did, we are apt to repeat history and follow the
Non sequitur
>false tradtions taught as truth, like the scholars of christ day, and our
>day. For the same reasons they were taught then, they are currently being
>taught today.
non sequitur.
You need to establish you know what you are talking about if you
expect to be taken seriously.
I can, as well as others, demonstrate that yaweh had nothing to do
with the claimed events of the xian myth. So you have your work cut
out for you.
>Christ showed us how to correct the false teachings of his day, but we need
Really, have his autograph then. Christ is a title, the Greek version
of the Jewish messiah.
Care to discuss the history of the messiah, when it went from plain
anointed to anointed & deliverer?
>to do the same today, through out biblical history god had continually had
What biblical history, Geneses, none there, Exodus, none there, the
divided monarchy, none there, the full term slavery in Babylon, nope.
They got kicked out in a little over half the term they were supposed
to serve. & yes, I did state kicked out. Seems Marduk wanted it that
way.
>to raise up true prophets and correct us on our false traditions, today is
Prophets are supposedly real time in the Jewish tradition. None were
made about the xian claim, for the very concept was alien to them
Yaweh had closed the book on any activity of that nature.
For a Jewish prophesy, try Isaiah,& the young woman with child.
Or Tyre, which was not supposed to wait on Alexander the Great. Even
he did not do the job as described. Babylon, still around, & no
dragons live there.
IOW, ther is not one verified prophesy.
It might help you to recall the whole myth was re-written & recorded
after the Jewish return from Babylon, IIRC.
Not a myth that interests me even though the Jewish pantheon had over
200 distinct gods, & 2 goddesses.
>not exception, and even more so, because God has to prepare for his second
Which god, Daogn [Dagan of Canaan], El, the father god of Canaan, Ba
'el of the covenant, Baal Biblyos?
I don't have the full list handy, but there are rather a lot of the
buggers. Add to that & no xian god is the creator. But they don't
teach that in bible camp.
>coming of his son, and to do so has to start his true kingdom here on earth
>through real prophets and help people over come a world of false tradtions.
Again, your claims are in direct violation of the Torah & Jewish
custom. Are you sure you know what you are talking about. Not what you
believe, what you are talking about.
Two different animals there.
>The true followers will hear these prophets and the rest of the world will
>want to ignore them or stone them!
Right, so only those your gods whimper into the ears of get to go to
heaven & praise their gods all day. I doubt you even know which one of
the seven heavens that would be.
>So historically nothing has changed but the time, and the shortness to the
Historically there is no el, the creation myth is a rip off of the
Sumerian myth.
There is no Exodus, there is no JC, whose tale parallels several other
world saviours that die for humanity's evil ways.
Even your resurrection claim, without the saving grace of proving to
humanity it was a god, was ripped from the Summerians. Ever hear of
Inanna's descent into the underworld, & how all life almost p;erished
until the Goddess of the underworld was tricked into releasing her.
You may be familiar with the Akkadian version, it substitutes Ishtar.
In either case, these goddesses had more p;ower kin their absence than
your claimed lad, for all life on earth was dieing until their return.
>second coming, only it will be much worse for us than was his first coming!
[peak for yourself, your fears do not influence me.
Evidence, share? No, thought not.
Let me refresh your memory of the way it was.
DESCENT OF THE GODDESS ISHTAR INTO THE LOWER WORLD
[From The Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria, M. Jastrow, 1915]
To the land of no return, the land of darkness,
Ishtar, the daughter of Sin directed her thought,
Directed her thought, Ishtar, the daughter of Sin,
To the house of shadows, the dwelling, of Irkalla,
To the house without exit for him who enters therein,
To the road, whence there is no turning,
To the house without light for him who enters therein,
The place where dust is their nourishment, clay their food.'
They have no light, in darkness they dwell.
Clothed like birds, with wings as garments,
Over door and bolt, dust has gathered.
Ishtar on arriving at the gate of the land of no return,
To the gatekeeper thus addressed herself:
"Gatekeeper, ho, open thy gate!
Open thy gate that I may enter!
If thou openest not the gate to let me enter,
I will break the door, I will wrench the lock,
I will smash the door-posts, I will force the doors.
I will bring up the dead to eat the living.
And the dead will outnumber the living."
The gatekeeper opened his mouth and spoke,
Spoke to the lady Ishtar:
"Desist, O lady, do not destroy it.
I will go and announce thy name to my queen Erysipelas."
The gatekeeper entered and spoke to Erysipelas:
"Ho! here is thy sister, Ishtar ...
Hostility of the great powers ...
When Ereshkigal heard this,
As when one hews down a tamarisk she trembled,
As when one cuts a reed, she shook:
"What has moved her heart [seat of the intellect] what has stirred her
liver [seat of the emotions]?
Ho there, does this one wish to dwell with me?
To eat clay as food, to drink dust as wine?
I weep for the men who have left their wives.
I weep for the wives torn from the embrace of their husbands;
For the little ones cut off before their time.
Go, gatekeeper, open thy gate for her,
Deal with her according to the ancient decree."
The gatekeeper went and opened his gate to her:
Enter, O lady, let Cuthah greet thee.
HTH
BTW, anyone needs the full version, let me know & I will post it to
them in a separate message.
>Roger L. Martin
>ps. Truth over false tradtions any day, if the tradition is true great
Well, that left the xian traditions right out then, according to
yahweh, they are false for he didn't authorize them.
& Inanna & Ishtar verify that they are false traditions.
>accept it, if it is false reject it, but only if you can discern between the
>two, and you better be backed up by a true living prophet, just as the
>apostles were in christ day!
The false prophets of the xian mythology hold no fascination for me,
for I have studied the claims made, & found them to be so much dust.
Now, if you have evidence, not claims, not assertions, I would be
interested in hearing it. But inasmuch as I doubt you do, I would ask
that you don't make assertions you can't provide evidence for.
There is already enough xian spam to feed the starving of the world if
it had any substance to it.
walksalone who has bothered to research, even learned a few new
things.
Alberich
wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 20:27:55 GMT, Alberich <Albe...@NoSpam.com>
>wrote:
> and jw replied
>Apples and 10 penny nails.
>
>IKH is posting to half-a-dozen groups he believes are appropriate in
>what he believes is his God-appointed ministry to Catholics.
>
>I have no such "God-given" ministry to Catholics. My ministry is to
>all non-believers, be they Roman Catholic atheists or Mormons.
>
>So you need to address those issues with IKH "cross-posting" to IKH.
>He assures me his ISP and USENET have both given him permission to
>post to not over 6 groups at one time. And if you calculate, they're
>related. All involve some aspect of religion, whether observing or
>rejecting.
>
>If YOU wish to cleanse the world of all non-Roman Catholic thought,
>like I said before, stay away from MY front door.
>
>Here's a thought! If you truly don't like IKH's post, feel free to
>ignore them.
Not my question. My question is this: If IKH's spamming is allowed
because he "needs to serve as he feels led," than clearly you have no
qualms about a Catholic spamming the Baptist group because he "needs
to serve as he feels led." After all, the Catholic would only be
posting to "half-a-dozen gropus he believes appropriate in what he
believes is his God-appointed ministry to save God's true Church."
>You and IKH and I are opposing armies; we're attempting to save lost
>Roman Catholics (I, RCCs among others); you're attempting to
>convert/rid the world of, all non-Roman Catholics.
It's too bad you feel that way. I would think that we might be
different battalions under the banner of the same army, fighting for
Christ against atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, &c. But if you continue
to see the world as you against everyone that isn't 99.9999% in
agreement with you, you'll see non-existant demons in the best of
people.
(And for what it's worth, I don't care to convert/rid the world of all
non-RCCs. I just don't want them to spread false information about
the RCC.)
Alberich
walksalone
with the following.
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:26:31 -0800, "Roger L. Martin"
> <goo...@be.quik.com> wrote:
>>Christ was not a learned scholar or even taught in the rabbical ways, but he
>>was by no mean ignorant of what they taught and how, he knew what they
>>taught, thought, believed etc. with a great deal of exactness.
> May I politely disagree? Jesus WAS a trained scholar, since most boys
Feel free, but you are begging the question.
Who was Jesus & which one is he from those recorded by history.?
[Yes jw, history does record at least one real time Jesus]
Who was his teacher & is that teacher verified by history?
> would have both a job with the family business (Joseph's/Jesus' was
> carpentry), as well as Temple school. And do not forget that he HAD
The temple school, what tomfoolery are you trying to run up the flag pole
now.
The temple was only located at Jerusalem.
It could not be located anywhere else.
Now you are going to assume that yaweh, in spite of his saying he would be
back much later than this Jesus [about 9,400 years later IAW the people he
made a covenant with IIRC], is going to whisk him through the air, with or
without broomstick, from Nazareth, which could have existed as described at
the time claimed,
The title rabbi had restrictions, something about a wife & being at least
30 years old.
But what would the Jews know, they only defined the word to start with.
> earned the title "rabbi". He was called "rabbi" MANY times in the New
Yes, but there is no indication he was, nor, IIRC, did he teach in any way
that could be identified with a Rabbbanical[sp]
school, such as that of rabbi Hillel.
> Testament, and that was not a title tossed around. That meant that He
It was by the Greeks, their continued misuse of the word, applying it to a
fictitious character, as opposed to a character that has supporting
evidence of existence, is indicative of that. But, they always were myth
makers.
> was bi-vocational. Although obviously, being God in flesh, He had a
Nowhere is there any evidence to support your claims. Evidence, not
assertions, not apologetic claims.
> more profound knowledge of the Law and Divine Love than any mere
> human.
& you wonder why your version is referred to as a fractured fairy tale.
Most don't.
>>True he was a great teacher, and even at the age of 12 was answering
>>questions for the great scholars at the temple.
> If you study the techniques from a
> scholar/teacher/mentor/philosopher/Omniscient POV, His teaching was
> profound beyond words.
In as much as no known teachings of his are around, that is a desperate
grasp at a straw as I've seen in some time. Even from you.
Now, if you accept what it is claimed it is said, you still have none of
his teachings, just recycled mythology that predates your pantheon by
century's, & perchance, eon's.
>>The point being he was well aware of what was being taught but he was taught
>>on HIGH, from the father which put his level of truth and correctness far
>>above any thing that was currently being taught by the learned traditions of
>>men,
> True. Whatever man touches, man corrupts. And God has had to come and
Yet, man is, IAW the revealed desert mythology's, a product of god. Takes a
piss poor craftsman to blame his product for its own faults.
> correct mankind cataclysmically twice now.
> He destroyed the 1st creation. Adam was the prince of the 2nd
> creation;
So, who did he destroy prior to Adam? Lilith?
> He destroyed Adam's race with the flood, and started again with Noah.
So, Adam was what then? According to you, the Prince of the second
creation.
snip
>>The true followers will hear these prophets and the rest of the world will
>>want to ignore them or stone them!
> Maybe that's why I've been dodging rocks and hearing stony silence
> lately.
No, you are hearing that due to your puffery, attempting to denigrate
others, & lieing. It is there for all to see, if they can. The problem for
you is most can.
As to dodging rocks, it is just those you have attempted to sling at others
coming back to you.
>>So historically nothing has changed but the time, and the shortness to the
>>second coming, only it will be much worse for us than was his first coming!
> Yes, we may be martyred before He returns. If you missed it, and if
A sickening thought, the likes of you being martyred. That would be an
insult to the word, & the word is insulting to humanity.
> you have access to the last 2 years of tape at your local media video
> rental, go back and listen to Osama right after 9-11-01, when he
> threatened jihad on Christianity.
Poor baby, as if xianity doesn't have enough blood on its hands. So now
someone has offered to return the favor, & you have to wear your brown
pants.
> jw
snip remnant out of an act of random kindness that have to pay per
download, the bleater jw does not have to be courteous, for he is one step
above the gods in his holiness & infallibility, according to him.
After all, actions speak louder than words.
walksalone who notes, per usual, jw displays his lack of courtesy to others
in the misconception that he really does not have anything but a captive
audience.
Alberich
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:07:07 GMT, Alberich <Albe...@NoSpam.com>
>wrote:
>On the contrary. IKH has proved to me that he is a born again
>Christian. You can not make such a claim, and in fact you have dodged
>the question numerous times by feigning ignorance. A non-Christian
>has no such "freedom in Christ" or compulsion. And (not necessarily
>you) I don't work in Satan's corner. I work in Christ's corner.
>
>And if IKH's belief statements conform to mine 99.9999999 % thus far,
>and you and I see eye to eye .0005 %, who am I going to back up?
I think you exaggerate. Regardless, I don't think you should "back
up" anybody, but approach all with a clear mind.
>>>You and IKH and I are opposing armies; we're attempting to save lost
>>>Roman Catholics (I, RCCs among others); you're attempting to
>>>convert/rid the world of, all non-Roman Catholics.
>>
>>It's too bad you feel that way. I would think that we might be
>>different battalions under the banner of the same army, fighting for
>>Christ against atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, &c.
>
>I could wish. The fact is, you are diametrically opposed to
>essentially every belief I hold dear as a born-again Christian.
Let's see. Here's what I believe: (1) In the Lord God the Father, (2)
In Jesus, His Only Son, (3) Who sacrificed His Life so that all might
be saved, and (4) With the Father sent the Holy Ghost among the
people.
Do you mean to tell me that you are diametrically opposed to these
beliefs?
> I
>can't even get you to defend your statements that you are "born
>again." And those who HAVE defended that they are "born again" didn't
>fulfill the criteria, which doesn't include being baptized as an
>infant.
I do sincerely hope that a person's viewpoint about exactly what it
means to be "born again" isn't a core tenet of how you evaluate other
Christians.
> But if you continue
>>to see the world as you against everyone that isn't 99.9999% in
>>agreement with you, you'll see non-existant demons in the best of
>>people.
>
>And since you seem also now to be denying another very important
>teaching from the Bible, the existence of demons/hence you don't
>believe in a real Satan, either, you continue to deny the contents of
>the Holy Bible I hold so dear.
I didn't say that I don't believe in demons or Satan--just that it is
very easy to see them where they aren't, given the right mindset.
>Since Jesus personally dealt with demons frequently-- or claimed to--
>you call our Lord a liar. or merely "ignorant/superstitious."
No...see above.
>>(And for what it's worth, I don't care to convert/rid the world of all
>>non-RCCs. I just don't want them to spread false information about
>>the RCC.)
>
>And those I've observed in here don't. Perhaps the Roman cult is lying
>to YOU!!!
IKHDY does quite well at attempting to spread false information. It's
only through the dedication of many Catholics (and some Orthodox and,
yes!--even some Protestants who see him for what he's worth!) that his
lies (yes John, lies) are exposed.
But be logical--what good would it be for the RCC to lie to its
members? If that were the case, we *wouldn't* believe all these
things that you accuse of believing, anyway!
>Does the devil have to wear a red jump suit and a horned cap for you
>to recognize him?
No, but he should at least have a tail and goatee. :-)
Alberich
Peter LaDow
news:r302505koqjsaas8d...@4ax.com...
> >Let's see. Here's what I believe: (1) In the Lord God the Father, (2)
> >In Jesus, His Only Son, (3) Who sacrificed His Life so that all might
> >be saved, and (4) With the Father sent the Holy Ghost among the
> >people.
> >
> >Do you mean to tell me that you are diametrically opposed to these
> >beliefs?
>
> essence, you have made her the 4th person of the Trinity. A Trinity
> can only be 3. Oops! And I've asked a DOZEN Roman Catholics if they
> consider Mary SUPERIOR to Christ in the Trinity. They all said, "Of
> COURSE!!! She's His MOTH ER, isn't she?
WHAT?!?! I've _never_ heard another Catholic say such a thing. And the
concept of theotokos is nothing new.
And, BTW, we don't "worship" Mary, we venerate her. There's a huge
difference.
> That is called "heresy."
Worship of anyone other than God, true. But not veneration.
> You create saints/gods-goddesses.
>
> And thereby, you have destroyed the very Godhead from two sides.
Sigh.
Pete
Alberich
>>>>>You and IKH and I are opposing armies; we're attempting to save lost
>>>>>Roman Catholics (I, RCCs among others); you're attempting to
>>>>>convert/rid the world of, all non-Roman Catholics.
>>>>
>>>>It's too bad you feel that way. I would think that we might be
>>>>different battalions under the banner of the same army, fighting for
>>>>Christ against atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, &c.
>>>
>>>I could wish. The fact is, you are diametrically opposed to
>>>essentially every belief I hold dear as a born-again Christian.
>>
>>Let's see. Here's what I believe: (1) In the Lord God the Father, (2)
>>In Jesus, His Only Son, (3) Who sacrificed His Life so that all might
>>be saved, and (4) With the Father sent the Holy Ghost among the
>>people.
>>
>>Do you mean to tell me that you are diametrically opposed to these
>>beliefs?
>
>You believe that Mary is the Mother of God,
Yes, I do. Don't you?
>and worthy of worship; in
>essence, you have made her the 4th person of the Trinity. A Trinity
>can only be 3. Oops! And I've asked a DOZEN Roman Catholics if they
>consider Mary SUPERIOR to Christ in the Trinity. They all said, "Of
>COURSE!!! She's His MOTH ER, isn't she?
>
>That is called "heresy."
We do no such thing. And I'd be surprised to find one Catholic that
says such a thing, placing Mary above Christ.
>You create saints/gods-goddesses.
No, we don't.
>>> I
>>>can't even get you to defend your statements that you are "born
>>>again." And those who HAVE defended that they are "born again" didn't
>>>fulfill the criteria, which doesn't include being baptized as an
>>>infant.
>>
>>I do sincerely hope that a person's viewpoint about exactly what it
>>means to be "born again" isn't a core tenet of how you evaluate other
>>Christians.
>
>It is. Jesus said, "you MUST be born again to enter the Kingdom of
>Heaven. He defined it. You defy the concept of being born again; you
>cannot even define it, and when I define it for you 5 times or more,
>you don't even relate to the terms.
Jesus defined it? I'd like to see *that* passage! I sincerely do not
recall that.
>>> But if you continue
>>>>to see the world as you against everyone that isn't 99.9999% in
>>>>agreement with you, you'll see non-existant demons in the best of
>>>>people.
>>>
>>>And since you seem also now to be denying another very important
>>>teaching from the Bible, the existence of demons/hence you don't
>>>believe in a real Satan, either, you continue to deny the contents of
>>>the Holy Bible I hold so dear.
>>
>>I didn't say that I don't believe in demons or Satan--just that it is
>>very easy to see them where they aren't, given the right mindset.
>
>I have seen enough real demons to last me a lifetime. Have you seen
>even ONE yet? I have probably seen a dozen thus far, and if I never
>in my life ever saw ANOTHER demon or demoniac, it couldn't come too
>soon. It is scary. And if you don't know what you are doing, you can
>be injured, possessed, or even killed.
No, I haven't.
>>>Since Jesus personally dealt with demons frequently-- or claimed to--
>>>you call our Lord a liar. or merely "ignorant/superstitious."
>>
>>No...see above.
>>
>>
>>>>(And for what it's worth, I don't care to convert/rid the world of all
>>>>non-RCCs. I just don't want them to spread false information about
>>>>the RCC.)
>>>
>>>And those I've observed in here don't. Perhaps the Roman cult is lying
>>>to YOU!!!
>>
>>IKHDY does quite well at attempting to spread false information.
>
>I'm sure you think so.
Not only myself, but other Catholics, Orthodox, and some Protestants
believe so, as well.
> It's
>>only through the dedication of many Catholics (and some Orthodox and,
>>yes!--even some Protestants who see him for what he's worth!) that his
>>lies (yes John, lies) are exposed.
>
>He's merely being opposed by those who love Rome.
Gee, who'd have figured? The ones that oppose him are the ones that
he lies about? That's like saying that the Boston Red Sox and the New
York Yankees are some sort of rivals...
>>But be logical--what good would it be for the RCC to lie to its
>>members? If that were the case, we *wouldn't* believe all these
>>things that you accuse of believing, anyway!
>>
>Apparently you have not yet been exposed to the concept of The Big Lie
>which Hitler used to conquer Germany.
But what *good* does it do the Church??? To what end is it done?
Alberich
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
>On 9 Mar 2004 19:36:33 GMT, j w <john_weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com>
JP
A fine response, Alberich. Some folks entertain confused notions.
peter_is_the_rock
:"jw @yahoo.com>" <john_<no> wrote in message
:news:r302505koqjsaas8d...@4ax.com...
:> You believe that Mary is the Mother of God, and worthy of worship; in
:> essence, you have made her the 4th person of the Trinity. A Trinity
:> can only be 3. Oops! And I've asked a DOZEN Roman Catholics if they
:> consider Mary SUPERIOR to Christ in the Trinity. They all said, "Of
:> COURSE!!! She's His MOTH ER, isn't she?
:
:WHAT?!?! I've _never_ heard another Catholic say such a thing. And th
:e
:concept of theotokos is nothing new.
:
:And, BTW, we don't "worship" Mary, we venerate her. There's a huge
:difference.
:
:> That is called "heresy."
:
:Worship of anyone other than God, true. But not veneration.
:
:> You create saints/gods-goddesses.
:>
:> And thereby, you have destroyed the very Godhead from two sides.
:
:Sigh.
:
:Pete
Give it up, Pete. As this type picks and chooses their individual versions of God's Truth, they also decide and lie what you believe in very vain attempts to justify themselves.