Someone Asked, What are the Christians Waiting For?

[Dietrich]

Here was the original query:

And the Christians Keep Waiting….
I don’t know about you but if someone I’ve seen and heard told me
that they’ll be coming back soon, I’d begin to have my doubts after a
few months of no show.
Now this is a case of millions waiting after 20 centuries for someone
they’ve never seen or heard who may or may not have told others
they’ve also never seen or heard that he’ll be coming back soon.
One has to presume that the word “soon” was literally meant for
human ears and is to be interpreted from a human perspective of time.
So it couldn’t mean 2000 years, could it?
Then what on earth keeps them waiting? This is the mystery of human
faith in something with no concrete evidence of existence.
If the truth be told, I deem it probable that it’s more a “faith in
hope itself” rather than any waiting for a deified human form to
materialize out of thin air.
Well, here’s to believing you are waiting…..and not in vain.

[Trance Gemini]

Welcome to AvC Dietrich and interesting post.

--
“You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)

[Walt]

If 6 days in Bible time is equivalent to 4 billion years in secular
time, "soon" in Bible time could be a very long time in secular time.

[Medusa]

On Jul 3, 6:24 pm, Dietrich <devalless...@shadango.com> wrote:

>    Here was the original query:
>
>             And the Christians Keep Waiting….
>    I don’t know about you but if someone I’ve seen and heard told me
> that they’ll be coming back soon, I’d begin to have my doubts after a
> few months of no show.

Yep. Makes zero sense to me, either.

> Now this is a case of millions waiting after 20 centuries for someone
> they’ve never seen or heard who may or may not have told others
> they’ve also never seen or heard that he’ll be coming back soon.
>    One has to presume that the word “soon” was literally meant for
> human ears and is to be interpreted from a human perspective of time.
> So it couldn’t mean 2000 years, could it?
>    Then what on earth keeps them waiting? This is the mystery of human
> faith in something with no concrete evidence of existence.
>    If the truth be told, I deem it probable that it’s more a “faith in
> hope itself” rather than any waiting for a deified human form to
> materialize out of thin air.
>    Well, here’s to believing you are waiting…..and not in vain.

They are waiting in vain. . .

Medusa

[khurramclive@gmail.com]

There are another billion Muslims waiting too.

A lot of people are waiting for Jesus to come flying back to Earth!



--------------------------------------------------
From: "Medusa" <Medus...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 6:38 AM
To: "Atheism vs Christianity" <Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [AvC] Re: Someone Asked, What are the Christians Waiting For?

[Observer]

On Jul 3, 5:58 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If 6 days in Bible time is equivalent to 4 billion years in secular
> time, "soon" in Bible time could be a very long time in secular time.

Observer
Not to worry no such equivocation is necessary the whole of the buy
bull is simply bullshit, that never happened. No ghosts, no demons, no
angels Oh my ! Just a load of shit for shit eaters ,the morons, the
intellectualy lazy, the dullards and the psychotics of a very sick
world. Step right up and get your snake oil , just keep feeding the
god merchants ant they will tell you anything to keep the cash flow
going.

Psychonomist

[Les]

Hi Dietrich.
First let me ask you some things, don't you think that the thought
just might have occurred to one or two Christians before?
Did you actually try to Google for an answer?

Ok if you are reffering to the text in Rev 22: 12 then it says

Revelation 22:12 "And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is
with Me, to give to every one according to his work."

That is the NKJV translation of the Greek text where the Greek word
used is listed in strongs as '
Quote
5035 tacu tachu takh-oo’
neuter singular of 5036 (as adverb); ; adv

AV-quickly 12, lightly 1; 13

1) quickly, speedily (without delay)
End Quote
So you see the concept can mean sudden not just 'within a short time'.

But even the early Christians had already thought about your question
even one of the apostles (Peter) touched on it in 2 Pet.

Quote
2 Pet 8 But you must not forget, dear friends, that a day is like a
thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day.
2 Pet 9 The Lord isn’t really being slow about his promise to return,
as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does
not want anyone to perish, so he is giving more time for everyone to
repent.
End Quote

So you see from God's perspective not even a week has passed and the
reason he is waiting is so that people like yourself get a chance to
change their minds.

You have raised an issue that many Christians have resolved in the
first week of attending an Alpha Course.

[hucktunes]

Les, the Bible says such things as:

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not
taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."
-- Matthew16:28
"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall
not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." -- Luke 9:27
"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this
generation." -- Matthew 23:36
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these
things be fulfilled." -- Matthew 24:34
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all
be fulfilled." -- Luke 21:32
"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that
antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we
know that it is the last time." -- 1 John 2:18

[Les]

Hi Hucktunes it appears that you also do not know how to use Google.
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=matthew+16:28&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

Not 1 but 656,000 hits.
Some articles by better theologians than I will ever be.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Matthew+24:34&btnG=Search&meta=

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Luke+21:32&btnG=Search&meta=

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=1+John+2:18&btnG=Search&meta=

So there you go answers to the seemingly un-aswerable questions and
all that was needed was the will to search.

[hucktunes]

Les, you didn't post the verses that Dietrich was referring to but
tried to steer the thread towards some malarkey in Revelations. As for
the lame apologist links, that is more malarkey. Any reasonable person
that reads the passages I posted should reach the conclusion that
Jesus ain't coming.

On Jul 4, 7:07 am, Les <m...@leslieey.com> wrote:
> Hi Hucktunes it appears that you also do not know how to use Google.http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=matthew+16:28&btnG=Google+Sea...

[khurramclive@gmail.com]

and if I may add, it can also be questioned whether jesus ever existed in
the first place.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "hucktunes" <bob....@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 7:21 PM

To: "Atheism vs Christianity" <Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [AvC] Re: Someone Asked, What are the Christians Waiting For?

>

[Les]

On Jul 4, 11:21 pm, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Les, you didn't post the verses that Dietrich was referring to but
> tried to steer the thread towards some malarkey in Revelations. As for
> the lame apologist links, that is more malarkey. Any reasonable person
> that reads the passages I posted should reach the conclusion that
> Jesus ain't coming.

Looks like you are in for q shock

[a query]

By all means, if you want to try and dispute one of the most well
attested facts in the ancient historical record (Jesus' existence), be
my guest... you won't get far

On Jul 5, 1:42 am, <khurramcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> and if I may add, it can also be questioned whether jesus ever existed in
> the first place.
>
> --------------------------------------------------

> From: "hucktunes" <bob.h...@gmail.com>

[Observer]

On Jul 3, 11:03 pm, Les <m...@leslieey.com> wrote:

> Hi Dietrich.
> First let me ask you some things, don't you think that the thought
> just might have occurred to one or two Christians before?
> Did you actually try to Google for an answer?

Observer
Thought, is not on of the faculties used by christians, were it so
they would not be christians. The ultimate stupidity of worshiping a
criminal who was, according to their own book of myths executed for
crimes against the state, and for whom no scientifically verifiable
substantiating data exists for either it's existence nor any act there
of is profound.

>
> Ok if you are reffering to the text in Rev 22: 12 then it says
>
> Revelation 22:12  "And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is
> with Me, to give to every one according to his work."
>
> That is the NKJV translation of the  Greek text where the Greek word
> used is listed in strongs as '
> Quote
> 5035 tacu tachu takh-oo’
> neuter singular of 5036 (as adverb); ; adv
>
> AV-quickly 12, lightly 1; 13
>
> 1) quickly, speedily (without delay)
> End Quote
> So you see the concept can mean sudden not just 'within a short time'.
>
> But even the early Christians had already thought about your question
> even one of the apostles (Peter) touched on it in 2 Pet.
>
> Quote
> 2 Pet 8 But you must not forget, dear friends, that a day is like a
> thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day.
> 2 Pet 9 The Lord isn’t really being slow about his promise to return,
> as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does
> not want anyone to perish, so he is giving more time for everyone to
> repent.
> End Quote

Observer
Why should any one care in the least what your primitive ,
superstuitious text says about anything? It is all nonsense and you
can not prove otherwise.

>
> So you see from God's perspective not even a week has passed and the
> reason he is waiting is so that people like yourself get a chance to
> change their minds.

Observer
What a load of shit!

>
> You have raised an issue that many Christians have resolved in the
> first week of attending an Alpha Course.

Observer
How about resolving this there is no reason to believe in your
superstitious filth any mote than there is to believe that any of a
thousand or more gods and their accompanying myths are equally as
valid/invalid.

They are listed here.

http://plato.stanford.edu/symbols/septop.jpg

[Observer]

On Jul 4, 7:07 am, Les <m...@leslieey.com> wrote:

> Hi Hucktunes it appears that you also do not know how to use

Observer
It appears that you don't know what to look fore using Google.


Welcome to the EvilBible.com Web Site

This web site is designed to spread the vicious truth about the
Bible. For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored
the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes. The so called
“God” of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. This
God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-
murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing,
not to mention the killing of unborn children. I have included
references to the Biblical passages, so grab your Bible and follow
along. You can also follow along with on-line Bibles such as
BibleStudyTools.net or SkepticsAnnotatedBible.com.

It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of
innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said “Thou shall not
kill”. For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David
ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the
destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He
orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city,
and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another
attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men
and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua
6). In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-
gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly
raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to
hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap
her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! Just about every
other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings
10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different
god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people
directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.

The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your
own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges
11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea
13:16 & Psalms 137:9).

This type of criminal behavior should shock any moral person.
Murder, rape, pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be
justified by saying that some god says it’s OK. If more people would
actually sit down and read the Bible there would be a lot more
atheists like myself.

Jesus also promoted the idea that all men should castrate
themselves to go to heaven: "For there are eunuchs, that were so born
from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made
eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs
for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let
him receive it." (Matthew 19:12 ASV) I don't know why anyone would
follow the teachings of someone who literally tells all men to cut off
their privates.

The God of the Bible also was a big fan of ritual human sacrifice
and animal sacrifice.

And just in case you are thinking that the evil and immoral laws
of the Old Testament are no longer in effect, perhaps you should read
where Jesus makes it perfectly clear: "It is easier for Heaven and
Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law
to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB) There are many more quotes on
this topic at my "Do Not Ignore the Old Testament" web page.

I know that most Christians believe that God is a good and loving
god, and wants people to do good things. I believe that most people
want to do good things and behave morally. I also believe that many
Christians haven’t really read the Bible, or just read certain
passages in church. This is understandable, as the Bible is hard to
read due to its archaic language and obscure references. Also many
priests and preachers don’t like to read certain passages in the Bible
because they present a message of hate not love.

If you follow the links on the left side of this page you will
learn about all the nasty things in the Bible that are usually not
talked about by priests and preachers. You can also discuss things
related to this web site or religion and atheism in general at the
EvilBible.com Discussion Forum.


http://www.evilbible.com/

Psychonomist

[Observer]

On Jul 4, 8:41 am, Les <m...@leslieey.com> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 11:21 pm, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Les, you didn't post the verses that Dietrich was referring to but
> > tried to steer the thread towards some malarkey in Revelations. As for
> > the lame apologist links, that is more malarkey. Any reasonable person
> > that reads the passages I posted should reach the conclusion that
> > Jesus ain't coming.
>
> Looks like you are in for q shock

Observer
Prove it !!

Psychonomist

[khurramclive@gmail.com]

I have not mentioned my dispute. I am simply stating that it is questioned
by experts.

I do not have to dispute a thing to express disbelief.

Ciao!

--------------------------------------------------
From: "a query" <djb...@uow.edu.au>
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 8:44 PM

[Observer]

On Jul 4, 8:44 am, a query <djb...@uow.edu.au> wrote:
> By all means, if you want to try and dispute one of the most well
> attested facts in the ancient historical record (Jesus' existence), be
> my guest... you won't get far

Observer
MAJOR SECTIONS


Do you really think it all began with a sanctimonious Jewish wonder-
worker, strolling about 1st century Palestine? Prepare to be
enlightened.

Jesus – The Imaginary Friend

Christianity was the ultimate product of religious syncretism in the
ancient world. Its emergence owed nothing to a holy carpenter. There
were many Jesuses but the fable was a cultural construct. Nazareth did
not exist in the 1st century AD – the area was a burial ground of rock-
cut tombs. Following a star would lead you in circles. The 12
disciples are as fictitious as their master, invented to legitimise
the claims of the early churches. The original Mary was not a virgin.
That idea was borrowed from pagan goddesses.

Scholars have known all this for more than 200 years but priestcraft
is a highly profitable business and finances an industry of deceit to
keep the show on the road. "Jesus better documented than any other
ancient figure" ? Don't believe a word of it. Unlike the mythical
Jesus, a real historical figure like Julius Caesar has a mass of
mutually supporting evidence.




Still holding to the idea that some sort of holy man lies behind the
legend? Better check out

Godman – Gestation of a Superhero

It is intuitively satisfying to think that someone was behind the
towering legend. Yet like the worship of Horus or Mithras a human life
was neither necessary nor helpful. Nothing in the 'Christian message'
was original. Brotherly love and compassion had been taught by the
Stoics for centuries. The Christian faith was a vulgarised paganism,
set to the theme of the Jewish prophets and debased by religious
intolerance. The early Christian sects attacked each other as
energetically as they attacked pagans. 1st century Palestine had
rabbis, radicals and rebels in abundance. But a 'life' conjured up
from mystical fantasy, a mass of borrowed quotations, copied story
elements and a corpus of self-serving speculation, does not constitute
an historical reality. The final defeat of militant Jewish nationalism
and the eradication of the Jewish kingdom gave the incipient Christian
churches the final uplift they required.




A closer look at the glib assertion that the Jesus story "got off the
ground quickly and spread rapidly."

What DID the Early Christians Believe?

There never was just one Christianity. Out of the milieu of
religiosity that infected the Roman world, dozens of competing and
conflicting Jesus/Sun-god/Mystery cults emerged. The first believers
in Jesus maintained he was an ethereal spirit, much like other sky/sun-
gods. Only later did he acquire a human death, a human life and
finally a human birth. The composite 'Jesus Christ' character – god,
man, king, carpenter, conqueror, peace-maker, dispenser of justice,
advocate of love – was assembled to try and unify a fragmented and
fractious messianic religious movement. In the mid-2nd century the
Jewishness of the faith was purged but apologists had little to say
about a human Jesus. They took comfort in noting similarities between
their own ideas and pagan myths. The Christians remained a minority
until well after one particular faction formed a political alliance
with the Roman State. The orthodox creed remained unpopular for
centuries and persecution was necessary to impose its will.










Many currents fed the Jesus myth, like streams and tributaries joining
to form a major river.

Sourcing the legend – The Syncretic Heritage of Christianity

Through the centuries, the Christian godman has been made and remade.
Egypt provided many of the themes and much of the detail. From the age
of the Ptolemies, Alexandria was the ancient cooking pot of religious
fusion. Here, Hellenised Judaism influenced the early Christians. From
Egypt, Catholicism copied its rituals and ceremonies, including
relics, demonology, and monasticism. The Patriarchs of Alexandria
wrote much of Catholic theology and it was probably in Alexandria that
a profound and detailed Buddhist influence impressed itself upon the
faith. From Persia, too, came a Saviour God and notions of rebirth, a
Mithraic dress rehearsal for Christianity, triumphant in Rome but
fatally weakened by its exclusion of women. In Judaea itself, hatred
for the Roman conquerors bred a genre of apocalyptic curses,
anticipating an end of the world.

Read Much much more @

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

Psychonomist

[hucktunes]

On Jul 4, 8:44 am, a query <djb...@uow.edu.au> wrote:

> By all means, if you want to try and dispute one of the most well
> attested facts in the ancient historical record (Jesus' existence), be
> my guest... you won't get far

Just because it has been much attested by many chumps does not make it
fact. The Bible is the grandest lie ever told.

On Jul 4, 8:44 am, a query <djb...@uow.edu.au> wrote:

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 3, 7:24 pm, Dietrich <devalless...@shadango.com> wrote:
>    Here was the original query:
>
>             And the Christians Keep Waiting….
>    I don’t know about you but if someone I’ve seen and heard told me
> that they’ll be coming back soon,

Where does Jesus say he'll be coming back soon?

[hucktunes]

Matthew16:27-28:
27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his
angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not

taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Those that were standing there have long since died.

On Jul 4, 2:04 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 4, 5:18 pm, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Matthew16:27-28:
> 27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his
> angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
>
>  28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not
> taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
>
> Those that were standing there have long since died.

Jesus hasn't left or given any indication that he's leaving, so how
can his audience understand from this that he'll be leaving and coming
back? There was a Son of Man concept before Jesus was born; what the
audience can understand from this claim is that THAT Son of Man, not
Jesus, will be coming soon. BTW, Matthew copied from Mark and expanded
it; look at the original context (in Mark).

[hucktunes]

Jesus called himself the son of man in many of the gospels. Luke
18:31-34, Matthew 26:64, many more. It was his claim to fame, as well
as that of being the anointed one, that led folks to believe that he
was the prophesied savior.

On Jul 4, 2:47 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 4, 6:23 pm, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jesus called himself the son of man in many of the gospels.

There is no definite article in Aramaic, so it has to be determined
from context as to which instances imply "the son of man" as opposed
to "a son of man". In addition, there are two expressions translated
as "son of man" - "bar nasha" and "bar enosh", unless these two are
the same expression transliterated differently. If they are different
expressions, then they might not have the same meaning. "bar nasha"
can just mean "a guy" - "bar nasha has nowhere to rest his head" can
just mean "a guy has nowhere to rest his head". Lastly, the "bar
enosh" in Daniel is "one like a son of man" which might just mean "an
athropomorphic figure" - one who looks like a man.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

Meaning of Son of Man:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/meta_jesus.htm

On Jul 4, 6:23 pm, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 4, 8:10 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man

This one is gratingly strident:

[hucktunes]

If what you say is true than passages such as Matthew 26:64 make no
sense at all.
"Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you,
Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of
power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

On Jul 4, 5:15 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

[a query]

I think you'll find that the "experts" that you are referring to are
on the radical fringe of New Testament scholarship. The overwhelming
majority of New Testament scholars, both theist and atheist, are
convinced of the existence of Jesus.

Therefore, your 'disbelief' is based on very shaky ground.

[a query]

Wow. Your ignorance of historical method astounds me. There are a
myriad of well-established 'facts' of ancient history that have been
accepted and supported by the vast majority of scholarship. The
existence of Jesus is one of them. If you chose to take a position
that stands opposed to such scholarship, then you need to come up with
justification for that position. If you have none, and it is rather
your atheistic predispositions that are dictating your attitude toward
the historical record, then you are acting exceedingly irrationally.

[a query]

Observer, copying and pasting from an extremely radical and unreliable
website in no way turns the tables in your favour on this one. Such
preposterous assertions require justification, especially when they
are markedly outside the accepted body of scholarly knowledge. What is
it about Kenneth Humphrey's assertions that make them closer to the
truth than those facts in the existing historical record?

> ...
>
> read more »

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 4, 10:25 pm, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If what you say is true than passages such as Matthew 26:64 make no
> sense at all.
> "Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you,
> Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of
> power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

Try translating "the son of man" as "me" and see if it makes sense.

[Observer]

On Jul 5, 4:40 am, a query <djb...@uow.edu.au> wrote:
> Observer, copying and pasting from an extremely radical and unreliable
> website in no way turns the tables in your favour on this one. Such
> preposterous assertions require justification, especially when they
> are markedly outside the accepted body of scholarly knowledge.

Observer
And the trap slams on the foot of the prevaricator . I read somewhere
that as ye judge so shall ye be judged.

Now my ,phony friend ,where is the Scholarly knowledge in claiming
that there exists a god for which there is no scientifically
verifiable substantiating data showing its EXISTENCE of any ACT
thereof? Nor indeed for any of the purely imaginary angels, a devil,
demons and all such nonsense as is described as metaphysical?

You non thinking sociopaths and your anti human superstition which
consists in belief in magic, the inherent evil of human kind, a
reverence for sadomasochism, the utter stupidity of a conceptualized
resurrection, and in life after death are just too stupid to remain
consistent as to what is and is not science/organized knowledge.

Science / organized knowledge and scientific method is purposeful for
approaching the nearness of truth through constantly traversing from
greater to lesser ignorance . Those of you who wish to mold such into
a tool for supporting superstitious filth fail at every turn to do so.
I recommend that you leave science/organized knowledge and scientific
method in the hands of those qualified to understand that science
answers all questions albeit as often no( in the sense of no
supporting data) as well as yes data substantiating data exists in
relation to hypothesizes which are then to be rejected as not tending
to edification and accurate prognostications or transforming them
into valued theories such as in the theory of gravity.

What is
> it about Kenneth Humphrey's assertions that make them closer to the
> truth than those facts in the existing historical record?

Observer
I reject completely your alleged "history " as relates to the Jesus of
the bible existing at all, but more importantly any one who is capable
of critical thought must reject the utter nonsense of the mystical,
the magical, and the manacle as is put forth in the most stupid story
ever told. The "New Testament"

Poor Jesus , at best , if he ever existed ,had a mind eaten alive by
naivete at best and profound stupidity at worst. In either case he
would have been a quintisential looser.

He became an unwitting god fraud as the psychotic Paul (or who ever
actually wrote that filth) adapted superstitious myths from even more
ancient and less enlightened times in order to sell the concept of
deity as being embodied in this poor, hapless moron and insugnificent
criminal who was (according to legend) executed for crimes against the
state as was the psychotic Paul.

Psychonomist

> ...
>
> read more »

[Dietrich]

When you get mired in the muck of comparative translations,it all
seems a dead end of endless conjecture and speculation.All I know is
that Jesus used the word "soon" when he told them he would be leaving
them.This event took place in Jerusalem just a few weeks hence.
My problem is that I know I read the word "soon" in an earlier
Jesus quote when he reassured his continually irresolute disciples
that he'd be returning.
Ergo, "soon" couldn't have two entirely different meanings when
speaking to the same group.
The Bible is rife with such contradictions that demonstrate
brilliant but flawed fabulists.
On Jul 4, 2:47 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

> > > >    Well, here’s to believing you are waiting…..and not in vain.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[a query]

Wow, one post later you now concede that Jesus did exist, but argue
that he was a "poor, hapless moron and insignificant criminal". It
would be helpful if you made up your mind on what position you
actually hold to here. Do you support the Jesus myth hypothesis or
not? This post seems to suggest that you don't. I would like to know
how you came to hold such a concept of Jesus as you talk about in this
post. Do you base your opinion on scholarship, or is it merely the
result of your atheistic presuppositions? It seems to me that it
cannot be the former because you are ignoring scholarly consensus
here...

> ...
>
> read more »

[grisha]

Observer:

The stupidity is rather related not to "criminal" part, after all
George Washington was a criminal according to the contemporary British
laws, but to "worship" part.

Grisha

[Observer]

On Jul 5, 7:36 pm, a query <djb...@uow.edu.au> wrote:
> Wow, one post later you now concede that Jesus did exist, but argue
> that he was a "poor, hapless moron and insignificant criminal".

Observer

Is there some remedial reading class at your local library of
elementary school wherein you mite learn to read for content?

Or is it selective reading due to your indefenbsible position of being
a member of a hideous superstitious cult that has taken your mind.

Note the following


"according to legend"

and

"Poor Jesus , at best , if he ever existed ,had a mind eaten alive
by
naivete at best and profound stupidity at worst. In either case he
would have been a quintisential looser. "

It
> would be helpful if you made up your mind on what position you
> actually hold to here. Do you support the Jesus myth hypothesis or
> not? This post seems to suggest that you don't. I would like to know
> how you came to hold such a concept of Jesus as you talk about in this
> post.

Observer
Read the crap purported to have been his words and then ask me again
in you can not fathom them any more than you can mine.

Do you base your opinion on scholarship, or is it merely the
> result of your atheistic presuppositions? It seems to me that it
> cannot be the former because you are ignoring scholarly consensus
> here...

Observer
How is this for scholarship, There exists not on bit of scientifically
verifiable substantiating data for the EXISTENCE of or any ACTION OF
ANY GOD EVER. Rendering belief is such pretty stupid.

Psychonomist

> ...
>
> read more »

[Dead Kennedy]

oooh, oooh, me, me!

[Sketch System]

On Jul 3, 5:58 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If 6 days in Bible time is equivalent to 4 billion years in secular
> time, "soon" in Bible time could be a very long time in secular time.

This is simply idiotic. A day has never been considered anything but
a single cycle of day and night. You don't get to redefine it to suit
your argument. You also don't get to create two different kinds of
time.

[Walt]

Maybe God, to pass the time, flies around the universe in a really
fast spaceship close to the speed of light (relative to Earth's
inertial reference frame), so that 144 hours on God's spaceship is
equivalent to 5 billion years on Earth.

Only sissy atheists need to avoid having any imagination in order to
doubt the existence of God.

[Neil Kelsey]

Ah, so you choose to be deranged in order to prove your manliness.
That makes sense.

I prefer women.

[grisha]

With enough of *wishful thinking* one can consider anything.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 6, 3:56 pm, Sketch System <sketch.sys...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 3, 5:58 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If 6 days in Bible time is equivalent to 4 billion years in secular
> > time, "soon" in Bible time could be a very long time in secular time.
>
> This is simply idiotic.  A day has never been considered anything but
> a single cycle of day and night.

According to Genesis, was it the Earth or the Sun that was created
first? If the former, then before the Sun was created, how could a day
be a day-night cycle?

[Trance Gemini]

LMAO!
 

--
“You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)

[TheMac37]

Earth was created first. God said there was light...thats all you need
for a day. Earth only has to turn once on its axis.

On Jul 6, 7:00 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

[Les]

On Jul 5, 2:20 am, <khurramcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have not mentioned my dispute. I am simply stating that it is questioned
> by experts.
>
> I do not have to dispute a thing to express disbelief.
>

You are right about that and we don't have to take you serious when
you will not even name the 'experts'

> Ciao!
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "a query" <djb...@uow.edu.au>

> Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 8:44 PM

[Answer_42]

On Jul 6, 9:05 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Earth was created first. God said there was light...

If the sun was not yet created, where was the light coming from, I
mean the light that bathed the Earth?
Laurelin and Telperion, perhaps?

> thats all you need
> for a day. Earth only has to turn once on its axis.

_______________________________________
In a liberal scientific society, to claim that you are above error is
the height of irresponsibility.
-- Jonathan Rauch

[William T. Goat]

Imagination is not required for a belief in real things.

It is, however, required for a belief in imaginary things.

So, if imagination is required to believe in God, what does that tell
us?

--Billy

[Walt]

Imagination is required to understand real things. Each advancement
of Science begins with imagination (a.k.a. forming a new hypothesis).

[Sketch System]

On Jul 6, 2:43 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Maybe God, to pass the time, flies around the universe in a really
> fast spaceship close to the speed of light (relative to Earth's
> inertial reference frame), so that  144 hours on God's spaceship is
> equivalent to 5 billion years on Earth.
>
> Only sissy atheists need to avoid having any imagination in order to
> doubt the existence of God.

You're funny.

[William T. Goat]

On Jul 7, 3:13 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 7, 12:52 pm, "William T. Goat" <ericv...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 6, 5:43 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 6, 3:56 pm, Sketch System <sketch.sys...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 3, 5:58 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > If 6 days in Bible time is equivalent to 4 billion years in secular
> > > > > time, "soon" in Bible time could be a very long time in secular time.
>
> > > > This is simply idiotic.  A day has never been considered anything but
> > > > a single cycle of day and night.  You don't get to redefine it to suit
> > > > your  argument.  You also don't get to create two different kinds of
> > > > time.
>
> > > Maybe God, to pass the time, flies around the universe in a really
> > > fast spaceship close to the speed of light (relative to Earth's
> > > inertial reference frame), so that  144 hours on God's spaceship is
> > > equivalent to 5 billion years on Earth.
>
> > > Only sissy atheists need to avoid having any imagination in order to
> > > doubt the existence of God.
>
> > Imagination is not required for a belief in real things.
>
> > It is, however, required for a belief in imaginary things.
>
> > So, if imagination is required to believe in God, what does that tell
> > us?
>
> Imagination is required to understand real things. Each advancement
> of Science begins with imagination (a.k.a. forming a new hypothesis).

For almost 40 years, Christians have been telling me that God is
beyond human understanding. Are you backpedaling now? Get your story
straight, and maybe you'll have more believers.

--Billy

[TheMac37]

God does not say, therefore I don`t know either. There is a verse that
says God is light, and in Revelations is says there will be no sun or
moon because God will be the light, perhaps it was Him.. I don`t know.
Good question.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 8, 11:26 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> God does not say, therefore I don`t know either. There is a verse that
> says God is light,

Was God light before God said "let there be light"?

[Answer_42]

On Jul 8, 11:26 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:

> God does not say, therefore I don`t know either. There is a verse that
> says God is light, and in Revelations is says there will be no sun or
> moon because God will be the light, perhaps it was Him.. I don`t know.
> Good question.

And you claimed in another thread that you abandoned the scientific
method because the bible always came on top when comparing the two?
Yet, right on the first page of your bible there is a glaring
contradiction that you cannot explain, but you nevertheless choose to
believe the bible?
Fine, your choice, but I hope you will not mind when I assert that
based on this it is safe to conclude that your beliefs are very
irrational.

> > > Earth was created first. God said there was light...
>
> > If the sun was not yet created, where was the light coming from, I
> > mean the light that bathed the Earth?
> > Laurelin and Telperion, perhaps?

______________________________________________
The gods offer no rewards for intellect. There was never one yet that
showed any interest in it.
-- Mark Twain

[Observer]

On Jul 5, 4:21 am, a query <djb...@uow.edu.au> wrote:
> Wow. Your ignorance of historical method astounds me. There are a
> myriad of well-established 'facts' of ancient history that have been
> accepted and supported by the vast majority of scholarship. The
> existence of Jesus is one of them. If you chose to take a position
> that stands opposed to such scholarship, then you need to come up with
> justification for that position. If you have none, and it is rather
> your atheistic predispositions that are dictating your attitude toward
> the historical record, then you are acting exceedingly irrationally.

Observer
You believe that the most completely stupid story that was ever
published is true and you dare to talk of his ignorance of historical
method?

Where is the corroboration for the ultimate stupidity of claiming the
resurrection, and what of the fact that there is no record of the
crucifixion of this fictive Jesus? Further more where is the any
scientifically verifiable substantiation of the EXISTENCE of or any
ACT of any god a demon, an angel , a devil, or any of the other comic
book thy entities discussed in your buy bull?

You are lucky to be on the street with your lack of education, skill
at critical thought, understanding of science and scientific method.
One such as you who deliberately isolates them selves from an
education belongs in a mental institution.

Psychonomist