Marijuana.
postrib
"be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled by the
Spirit" (Ephesians 5:18). I believe the principle here against
drunkenness applies to any kind of "high" we try to get apart from the
high of being filled with the Holy Spirit.
Is the Spirit of Jesus himself we claim as believers to be within us
really not enough for us to feel good? If so, what does this tell us,
and what does it tell unbelievers?
Brian Tozer
postrib <pos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f08ded3e.01110...@posting.google.com...
How pathetic.
Brian Tozer
Matthew Healey
postrib wrote:
>
> I don't believe the Bible mentions smoking marijuana, but it does say
> "be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled by the
> Spirit" (Ephesians 5:18). I believe the principle here against
> drunkenness applies to any kind of "high" we try to get apart from the
> high of being filled with the Holy Spirit.
Are you refering to 'high' as that which results from physiological
change via substance?
The kind of physiological change that is in induced by caffine or
nicotine or asprin or morphine etctetctetctetc. I assume you are true to
your word and avoid these substance also.
> Is the Spirit of Jesus himself we claim as believers to be within us
> really not enough for us to feel good?
You reckon the Hesus buzz is good....try the krsna buzz it lasts for
eons.
> If so, what does this tell us,
> and what does it tell unbelievers?
That you let your dogma do your thinking for you.
> http://www.geocities.com/postrib
In the words of the now very dead Bill Hicks....
"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who
I fuck, what I take into my body -
as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?"
let me here you say Amen to that....
ok one more Bill Hicks...
"They lie about marijuana. They tell you pot-smoking makes you
unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally
do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking
effort. There is a difference."
matt
:p
tm
the law. Period.
TM
Brian Tozer wrote in message <9s4d19$saq$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
Santa Claus
>The Bible tells us to follow the laws of our land. Marijuanna is against
>the law. Period.
>TM
True, but it is a waste of time telling Brian Tozer that, his bitter
antagonism to anything Christian is legend.
TomV
>The Bible tells us to follow the laws of our land. Marijuanna is against
>the law. Period.
Abortion is legal. So I assume you are in favour of that as well? What
about homosexuality, that is also legal. Bend over big boy
...tom
Rick
"tm" <kayne...@yahoo.ca> wrote
> The Bible tells us to follow the laws of our land.
Marijuanna is against
> the law. Period.
What chapter and verse are alluding to?
Theodore A. Kaldis
> "tm" <kayne...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> The Bible tells us to follow the laws of our land. Marijuanna is against
>> the law. Period.
> Abortion is legal. So I assume you are in favour of that as well? What
> about homosexuality, that is also legal. Bend over big boy
What is it that I hear about you kiwi blokes and sheep?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kal...@worldnet.att.net
Ken Smith
> TomV wrote:
> > "tm" <kayne...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> >> The Bible tells us to follow the laws of our land. Marijuanna is against
> >> the law. Period.
>
> > Abortion is legal. So I assume you are in favour of that as well? What
> > about homosexuality, that is also legal. Bend over big boy
>
> What is it that I hear about you kiwi blokes and sheep?
What is it that I hear about you and muu-muu dresses, Ted?
Pastor Dave
<to...@ihug.blahblah.co.nz> wrote:
>On Sun, 4 Nov 2001 19:34:43 -0800, "tm" <kayne...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>The Bible tells us to follow the laws of our land. Marijuanna is against
>>the law. Period.
>
>Abortion is legal. So I assume you are in favour of that as well?
While something may not be illegal, that does not mean
that we should do it. Drinking is illegal, but that
doesn't mean that we should get drunk.
>What about homosexuality, that is also legal.
Actually, there are no laws that state that
homosexuality is legal, nor illegal. However, there
are many states in which sodomy is illegal.
Theodore A. Kaldis
Lies perhaps? Or is the lie the assertion that you have heard such a thing?
TomV
<nospam-pa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Actually, there are no laws that state that
>homosexuality is legal, nor illegal. However, there
>are many states in which sodomy is illegal.
Fortunately I live in New Zealand and don't have to put up with
countries that have such repressive regimes which deny people their
basic human rights. We live in hope that such repressive
countries/states will one day be freed from the yoke of their
oppressors.
...tom
Santa Claus
wrote:
>Fortunately I live in New Zealand and don't have to put up with
>countries that have such repressive regimes which deny people their
>basic human rights. We live in hope that such repressive
>countries/states will one day be freed from the yoke of their
>oppressors.
You mean you have agreed with NZ's capitulation to degeneracy!
TomV
>>Fortunately I live in New Zealand and don't have to put up with
>>countries that have such repressive regimes which deny people their
>>basic human rights. We live in hope that such repressive
>>countries/states will one day be freed from the yoke of their
>>oppressors.
>
>You mean you have agreed with NZ's capitulation to degeneracy!
What degeneracy? If oppressing a countries citizens and denying them
their basic human rights is the alternative, then I will have what you
call degeneracy any day.
...tom
Santa Claus
wrote:
>What degeneracy? If oppressing a countries citizens and denying them
>their basic human rights is the alternative, then I will have what you
>call degeneracy any day.
Weren't you talking about homosexuality? That is degeneracy with a
capital G.
Pastor Dave
<to...@ihug.blahblah.co.nz> wrote:
Well, to you it's "repressive" in a bad way. To me,
it's repressive in the right way. Just because someone
wants to do something, that doesn't make it right to
do, even if it seems right to them.
Pastor Dave
<to...@ihug.blahblah.co.nz> wrote:
According to God's word, it is degenerate behavior and
remember, you are posting in religious newsgroups. :)
TomV
>>What degeneracy? If oppressing a countries citizens and denying them
>>their basic human rights is the alternative, then I will have what you
>>call degeneracy any day.
>
>Weren't you talking about homosexuality? That is degeneracy with a
>capital G.
To you possibly, but just because you find a practice degenerate is no
reason to deny someone else their rights.
I find most organised religions degenrate and morally abhorrent. If I
followed your view I would be advocating that christians be denied the
right to indulge in a practice that disgusts me.
You are extremely fortunate to live in a country where your right to
practice your particular religious perversions is enshrined in your
consititution. It's sadly hypocritical that you apparently oppose
extending the right to live as they see fit ( as long as they don't
try and impose it on you) to others.
...tom
TomV
<nospam-pa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Well, to you it's "repressive" in a bad way. To me,
>it's repressive in the right way. Just because someone
>wants to do something, that doesn't make it right to
>do, even if it seems right to them.
I don't think it is right for you to practice organised religion.
Should I be permitted to stop you from doing so?
...tom
the bundaberg chick
Damien Harrison
"TomV" <to...@ihug.blahblah.co.nz> wrote in message
>
> I don't think it is right for you to practice organised religion.
> Should I be permitted to stop you from doing so?
This is exactly what is beginning to happen in many "Western" countries.
In any case, why don't you think it's right for us to be Christians?
Harro.
Ken Smith
> "TomV" <to...@ihug.blahblah.co.nz> wrote in message
> >
> > I don't think it is right for you to practice organised religion.
> > Should I be permitted to stop you from doing so?
>
> This is exactly what is beginning to happen in many "Western" countries.
You are free to practice it in your church, but not in our schools.
> In any case, why don't you think it's right for us to be Christians?
Because Christianuty is an ancient tribal religion, based on zero
credible evidence?
Personally, I would defend your right to be wrong, even to the
death. But you're still wrong.
Damien Harrison
"Ken Smith" <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3BE7E0F9...@concentric.net...
> Damien Harrison wrote:
>
> > "TomV" <to...@ihug.blahblah.co.nz> wrote in message
> > >
> > > I don't think it is right for you to practice organised religion.
> > > Should I be permitted to stop you from doing so?
> >
> > This is exactly what is beginning to happen in many "Western" countries.
>
> You are free to practice it in your church, but not in our schools.
I "practice" Christianity 24/7, wherever I am. I can't just switch off who
I am. You don't "practice" Christianity, you just are one. If I was an
American, I'd still be a Christian at school as well. And why are you free
to practice atheism in schools if a Christian can't? Thank God I don't live
there, although there are double standards in Australia as well.
> > In any case, why don't you think it's right for us to be Christians?
>
> Because Christianuty is an ancient tribal religion, based on zero
> credible evidence?
LOL, okay.
> Personally, I would defend your right to be wrong, even to the
> death.
Forgive me if I don't believe you.
Harro.
Ken Smith
> "Ken Smith" <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:3BE7E0F9...@concentric.net...
> > Damien Harrison wrote:
> > > "TomV" <to...@ihug.blahblah.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > I don't think it is right for you to practice organised religion.
> > > > Should I be permitted to stop you from doing so?
> > >
> > > This is exactly what is beginning to happen in many "Western" countries.
> >
> > You are free to practice it in your church, but not in our schools.
>
> I "practice" Christianity 24/7, wherever I am.
Let me be a little more precise, mostly for the peanut gallery here at
home. In America, you are free to practice Christianity wherever you
want -- but what you can't do is use the government to aid you in your
proselytization efforts.
> I can't just switch off who
> I am. You don't "practice" Christianity, you just are one.
Here, that means you are a compulsive liar. :P
> If I was an American, I'd still be a Christian at school as well.
And no one would stop you. If you wanted to say "Grace" before
you had your Vegemite and cheese sandwich (And why would you
want to? God, that stuff is wretched! :)), you may be teased by your
classmates, but you would be well within your legal rights. However,
we won't let you preach the Gospel during a school assembly.
Basically, this is an adaptation of Matt. 7:12, made necessary due
to the reality of our multicultural society. Just as you wouldn't want
your children to be forced to take part in Satanic rituals, we protect
other children from being forced to endure your religious practices.
> And why are you free
> to practice atheism in schools if a Christian can't?
How does one "practice" atheism?
> Thank God I don't live
> there, although there are double standards in Australia as well.
You don't have nearly the fundie problems in Aus that we have
here -- that's because we got all of Britain's religious nuts, and you
got all the convicts.
Obviously, you must have had first choice. :)
For instance, you don't really have televangelists. The only time
I caught 'em on the tube was when I was staying in Hamilton Island,
and I was channel-surfing for a weather report.
> > > In any case, why don't you think it's right for us to be Christians?
> >
> > Because Christianuty is an ancient tribal religion, based on zero
> > credible evidence?
>
> LOL, okay.
LOL, it just is. All you have is simple hearsay from anonymous
sources. The author of "Matthew" was in all likelihood a Gentile,
as he has displayed an astonishing ignorance of rudimentary Jewish
religious practices in his writings.
> > Personally, I would defend your right to be wrong, even to the
> > death.
>
> Forgive me if I don't believe you.
Like I said, you have a right to be wrong. I'm quite the passionate
defender of our First Amendment.
But we don't understand each other -- because I don't understand
cricket. :)
> Harro.
Doug
> > And why are you free
> > to practice atheism in schools if a Christian can't?
>
> How does one "practice" atheism?
See:
Doug
> The author of "Matthew" was in all likelihood a Gentile,
> as he has displayed an astonishing ignorance of rudimentary Jewish
> religious practices in his writings.
Asked and answered quite a few times. See google archives.
Ken's memory is not what it could be.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>
> > The author of "Matthew" was in all likelihood a Gentile,
> > as he has displayed an astonishing ignorance of rudimentary Jewish
> > religious practices in his writings.
>
> Asked and answered quite a few times.
The mere fact that you have offered a ridiculous explanation is not
tantamount to having the question answered.
> See google archives.
>
> Ken's memory is not what it could be.
Refresh it, then. How do you explain the fact that Matthew didn't
know that the Jewish day ended at sunset?
Pastor Dave
I'm not much one for "organized religion" either, so
you're asking the wrong person.
Michael Cree
> I don't believe the Bible mentions smoking marijuana,
"and I was stoned..." St. Paul.
(Sorry, I forget the actual verse reference.)
Michael.
James
>I don't believe the Bible mentions smoking marijuana, but it does say
>"be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled by the
>Spirit" (Ephesians 5:18). I believe the principle here against
>drunkenness applies to any kind of "high" we try to get apart from the
>high of being filled with the Holy Spirit.
>
>Is the Spirit of Jesus himself we claim as believers to be within us
>really not enough for us to feel good? If so, what does this tell us,
>and what does it tell unbelievers?
>
Hello,
The Bible does permit a moderate use of alcohol. Ps 104:15,
"wine that gladdens the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and
bread that sustains his heart." (NIV)
Even in moderation, there must be some effects of it that "gladdens"
the hearts of men. I don't think grape juice would have such an
effect, etc.
But does that apply to any other substance that causes a change in our
hearts? Not if the drug itself is harmful to us, even at small
dosages. The Apostle Paul stated at 2 Co 7:1,
"Therefore, since we have these promises, beloved ones, let us cleanse
ourselves of every defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness
in God's fear." (see also Ro 12:1)
Marijuana, like tobacco, has been proven to be harmful to a person's
body. Just inhaling smoke day after day is unnatural. Do you not agree
that inhaling any smoke regularly would pollute the lungs and likely
could imperil one's health? Our lungs are a great organ of design, but
they were not created to be saturated in smoke of any kind, day in
and day out.
Yes, Marijuana, unlike moderate use of alcohol, does 'defile the flesh
and spirit', thus making it something not to used by the followers of
the "one faith" religion of the Bible. (2 Ti 3:16; Eph 4:5)
Sincerely,
James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the only authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
Matthew Healey
James wrote:
SNIP
> Hello,
>
> The Bible does permit a moderate use of alcohol. Ps 104:15,
SNIP
> Marijuana, like tobacco, has been proven to be harmful to a person's
> body. Just inhaling smoke day after day is unnatural.
Since the plant occurs in nature and fire/smoke/burning occur in
nature..why isn't smoking marijuana natural?? Are you sure you don't
mean 'Just inhaling smoke day after day is harmful'. I would have to
agree.
>Do you not agree
> that inhaling any smoke regularly would pollute the lungs and likely
> could imperil one's health? Our lungs are a great organ of design, but
> they were not created to be saturated in smoke of any kind, day in
> and day out.
Fair enuff....restrict your intake to consumables then. Try cake,
cookies, tea, etcetc. Just remember THC isn't soluble in water, you
have to boil it down in butter (oil) first.
> Yes, Marijuana, unlike moderate use of alcohol, does 'defile the flesh
> and spirit'
Nice conjecture shame about the lack of evidence or coherent argument.
> thus making it something not to used by the followers of
> the "one faith" religion of the Bible. (2 Ti 3:16; Eph 4:5)
Seems like personal belief is being justified by appeals to an
interpretation of the bible. Since you appear to be a JW, its an
interpretation that is not even representative of the majority of
xstians.
> Sincerely,
>
> James
matt
:p
TomV
<har...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>And why are you free
>to practice atheism in schools if a Christian can't
because yu don't practice atheism.it's the default position. belief is
a god(s) of some sort is added on top
..tom
Allistar Melville
<har...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>
>"Ken Smith" <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>news:3BE7E0F9...@concentric.net...
>> Damien Harrison wrote:
>>
>> > "TomV" <to...@ihug.blahblah.co.nz> wrote in message
>> > >
>> > > I don't think it is right for you to practice organised religion.
>> > > Should I be permitted to stop you from doing so?
>> >
>> > This is exactly what is beginning to happen in many "Western" countries.
>>
>> You are free to practice it in your church, but not in our schools.
>
>I "practice" Christianity 24/7, wherever I am. I can't just switch off who
>I am. You don't "practice" Christianity, you just are one. If I was an
>American, I'd still be a Christian at school as well.
Wow, the exact same argument some homosexuals use, yet to some
Christians they don't consider it valid. Ironic.
>And why are you free
>to practice atheism in schools if a Christian can't?
You don't "practice" actheism. There are no doctrines or guidelines to
being an atheist. No one forces their atheist opinion on you. By all
means, practide your superstition at school, just please don't expect
others to follow you. That is what I object to. Have an opt-in system,
not an opt-out system as a lot of schools do today.
>Thank God I don't live
>there, although there are double standards in Australia as well.
>
>> > In any case, why don't you think it's right for us to be Christians?
>>
>> Because Christianuty is an ancient tribal religion, based on zero
>> credible evidence?
>
>LOL, okay.
His point is valid.
>> Personally, I would defend your right to be wrong, even to the
>> death.
>
>Forgive me if I don't believe you.
I would also defind your righjt to believe what you want. But as soon
as those beliefs encroach on my freedoms, then I will resist.
>Harro.
Allistar.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Allistar Melville (BSc) Home: alli...@ihug.co.nz \_
Software Developer Work: alli...@focussoft.co.nz </'
Auckland, NEW ZEALAND /)
(/`
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alistair W Smith
>
> You don't "practice" actheism.
As opposed to dc-theism?
> I would also defind your righjt to believe what you want. But as soon
> as those beliefs encroach on my freedoms, then I will resist.
You refer to "freedoms" as though there is a list somewhere. How exactly
do you know that we are in fact free to do some things and not others?
Just wondering, cos it almost seems as if you are appealing to an
objective standard. Surely not :-)
Al.
--
"There doesn't seem to be anyone around" - Tiffany
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Ken Smith wrote:
I hear marijuana can do that to you.
Richard Kerr
>
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 00:20:25 +1100, "Damien Harrison"
> <har...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ken Smith" <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> >news:3BE7E0F9...@concentric.net...
> >> Damien Harrison wrote:
> >>
> >> > In any case, why don't you think it's right for us to be Christians?
> >>
> >> Because Christianuty is an ancient tribal religion, based on zero
> >> credible evidence?
> >
> >LOL, okay.
>
> His point is valid.
Except that Christianity has never been a tribal religion, having been
cosmopolitan from the very start. It doesn't matter whether you count
the gospels, early Christian histories or third party evidence, it's
been multicultural from as far back as anyone can go.
Likewise I dispute the assertion that it is not based on credible
evidence. I think you may mean that you do not find the kind of evidence
you demand.
Many people who are concerned about the evidentiary bases of their
beliefs find the evidence we do have compelling enough to be Christians,
so your statement is trivially disproved.
--
Regards,
Richard Kerr
TomV
<aw...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>You refer to "freedoms" as though there is a list somewhere. How exactly
>do you know that we are in fact free to do some things and not others?
>Just wondering, cos it almost seems as if you are appealing to an
>objective standard. Surely not :-)
A Randian would claim that there was some objective standard.
Personally I disagree, but morals gained via an external source have
several pragmatic benefits inlcuding; clear guidlines, simpler to
administer, less personal responsibility (which based on millennia of
behaviour appears to be the preferred state of affairs) easier to
control, and a universal standard..
The problem lies in that such external standards are, by necessity
quite arbitrary, because few standards apply universally.
Leaving aside for a moment any hint of justifying existing prejudices,
there appears little basis for widespread christian condemnation of
homosexuality beyond a few lines in the Bible, many of which are the
subject of debate over context and translation.
I could argue a social system where homosexual behaviour was
demonstrably beneficial. Imagine a society (or social grouping) in
which homosexuality was an accepted channel for young peoples sexual
urges, with full heterosexual intercourse only acceptable within a
marriage style relationship. I can see many benefits from such an
arrangement.
It seems to me in general that if you look at societies though the
ages there is a pretty strong relationship between personal freedoms
and general happiness. If you wish to argue that there should be some
personal freedoms and not others, your basis for denying some of them
needs to be stronger than a few lines in a book. I am assuming that
you are not in favour of us living entirely prescribed lives with few
or no personal freedoms
..tom
Ken Smith
I hear XXXX can make you fat, as well.
Matt
From: "Richard Kerr" <r.kerr.R...@ssdu.usyd.edu.au>
> Allistar Melville wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 00:20:25 +1100, "Damien Harrison"
> > <har...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> > >"Ken Smith" <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> > >news:3BE7E0F9...@concentric.net...
> > >> Damien Harrison wrote:
SNIP
> Except that Christianity has never been a tribal religion
Upon its conception xstianity was a minor sect of judaism. Messiahs within
the judaic faith were popping up all the time...if it wasn't for the romans
it would have sunk into obscurity.
>having been
> cosmopolitan from the very start. It doesn't matter whether you count
> the gospels, early Christian histories or third party evidence, it's
> been multicultural from as far back as anyone can go.
Since xstianity shares the OT with Judaism it would be fair to say that
xstianity originiated within a fairly insular tribal environment.
> Likewise I dispute the assertion that it is not based on credible
> evidence. I think you may mean that you do not find the kind of evidence
> you demand
How can we distinguish between metaphysical theories (since no religion can
be proven empirically)? Since they can't be validated by appeals to things
in the world what standard do we use? History isn't sufficient cos if the
worlds holybooks have one thing in common its that they all tell a story
(often slightly embellished) of the history etc of the peoples involved.
Hence the same type of evidence is available (and often presented) for other
religions? If xstianity is true via this evidence then so are all the other
religions (underdetermination of theory by data)
> Many people who are concerned about the evidentiary bases of their
> beliefs find the evidence we do have compelling enough to be Christians.
Thats a weak argument. Many people believe many different/conflicting
things....the majority of them find the evidence compelling enough. Many
people once believed the world was flat..they thought they had compelling
evidence..did it make it true?
> so your statement is trivially disproved.
Only if you are arrogant enough to think that xstianity is the only show in
town. Since it isn't and since there are other religions that offer the same
type of evidence as xstianity (ie history/metaphysics) and since belief is
not sufficient for a truth claim it would appear to me that the statement is
neither trivial nor disproven.
> --
> Regards,
>
> Richard Kerr
matt
:p
Theodore A. Kaldis
4X. Ptooi! 'Roo p*ss. Make mine green, mate.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kal...@worldnet.att.net
Ken Smith
Green? I guess you've forgotten that marijuana can do that to you. :)
John Hattan
Absinthe?
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
Doug
> Upon its conception xstianity was a minor sect of judaism. Messiahs within
> the judaic faith were popping up all the time...if it wasn't for the romans
> it would have sunk into obscurity.
The Romans did everything that they could to stomp it out on at least 10
occasions.
Doug
I think that they like to make the claim that Christianity is an ancient
tribal religion for several reasons. One is that makes it like the rest
and the other is that for some people old = bad.
Doug
To the contrary. The faith in God is subtracted to arrive at atheism.
Doug
Ken Smith
Credible evidence? I didn't think so.
Ken Smith
AT Robertson does what so many Christians do -- he assumes that
Matthew must be Jewish, because he NEEDS Matthew to be Jewish.
His "solution," though creative, is ridiculous on its face.
The second clause of Matt. 28:1 and the remaining context proves
conclusively that the author of "Matthew" was speaking of the dawn.
Robertson's "solution" makes absolutely no sense, in light of Mark --
if the stone was moved that evening, and the women knew it (as they
would have had to have known it, presuming the verity of Matthew's
narrative), Mary Magdalene could not have asked, "Who will roll the
stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" Mark 16:3.
Even if you give Robertson the benefit of the presumption that the
women visited both in the evening and the morning, you're screwed.
Q.E.D.
If that's the best argument you have, you lose.
Santa Claus
wrote:
>AT Robertson does what so many Christians do -- he assumes that
>Matthew must be Jewish, because he NEEDS Matthew to be Jewish.
>His "solution," though creative, is ridiculous on its face.
>
> The second clause of Matt. 28:1 and the remaining context proves
>conclusively that the author of "Matthew" was speaking of the dawn.
>Robertson's "solution" makes absolutely no sense, in light of Mark --
>if the stone was moved that evening, and the women knew it (as they
>would have had to have known it, presuming the verity of Matthew's
>narrative), Mary Magdalene could not have asked, "Who will roll the
>stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" Mark 16:3.
>
> Even if you give Robertson the benefit of the presumption that the
>women visited both in the evening and the morning, you're screwed.
>Q.E.D.
"In the end of the Sabbath." The Greek says, "After the Sabbath."
Note: Because Jewish "day" time was from sundown to sundown Christ
could have arisen any time after sundown on Saturday. "After the
Sabbath" is any time after sundown.
Another problem arises however: Gentile time which comes from 1
Corinthians 15:4, "Christ rose on the third day." From the standpoint
of Gentile time it would mean that the third day has to be from
midnight Friday to midnight Saturday. So Christ could have arisen any
time after sundown, Jewish time, on Saturday.
Sunday starts after sundown. But to rise on the third day Jesus Christ
had to arise at least by midnight Saturday, which is actually Sunday
Jewish time.
To correlate two the best estimate as to His resurrection would be
midnight Saturday night; "as it began to dawn." Now this isn't when
Christ arose, it was when the angel came and opened up the grave so
that people could come in and see. While Matthew will not describe it
Peter and John ran a foot race which John won and got there first. But
John, who got there first, looked in but did not go in. Peter went
right inside.
"As it began to dawn" is actually an idiom for just before the dawn.
This would be quite a few hours after the resurrection; "toward the
first day of the week." Now why would you have to say "toward the
first day in the week" when obviously dawn occurs in the morning? It
does by our time but not by the Jews' time; dawn was in the middle of
the day. This verse is dealing with Jewish time, not Gentile time;
"came" is aorist tense, indicating here decisiveness.
The two Marys had decided the night before they would be there at the
grave when the first rays of the sun appeared. They would be there to
see it. Therefore they travelled in the darkest part of the morning
which is just before dawn. This indicates something of their devotion.
"Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre." These are
the two women who appeared to know more doctrine than anyone else. The
aorist of the verb to "come" indicates their decisiveness. If anyone
is capable of making a good decision these two ladies are in that
realm of capability. Obviously they were expecting resurrection and
they wanted to be there when it was possible to see. They were the
only two who did so; "to see the sepulchre."
Ken Smith
> On 07 Nov 2001 16:44:23 GMT, Ken Smith <Rang...@concentric.net>
> wrote:
>
> >AT Robertson does what so many Christians do -- he assumes that
> >Matthew must be Jewish, because he NEEDS Matthew to be Jewish.
> >His "solution," though creative, is ridiculous on its face.
> >
> > The second clause of Matt. 28:1 and the remaining context proves
> >conclusively that the author of "Matthew" was speaking of the dawn.
> >Robertson's "solution" makes absolutely no sense, in light of Mark --
> >if the stone was moved that evening, and the women knew it (as they
> >would have had to have known it, presuming the verity of Matthew's
> >narrative), Mary Magdalene could not have asked, "Who will roll the
> >stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" Mark 16:3.
> >
> > Even if you give Robertson the benefit of the presumption that the
> >women visited both in the evening and the morning, you're screwed.
> >Q.E.D.
>
> "In the end of the Sabbath." The Greek says, "After the Sabbath."
No, the Greek says opse de sabboton; opsia is a Greek adverb of time
denoting lateness. The literal translation is "late on the sabbath."
The NIV translators agree with this reading.
> Note: Because Jewish "day" time was from sundown to sundown Christ
> could have arisen any time after sundown on Saturday. "After the
> Sabbath" is any time after sundown.
If Matthew had meant meta (after), he would have *SAID* meta.
After all, he did so no less than eight times -- the closest being verse
27:63. :)
After means after, and late means late.
> Another problem arises however: Gentile time which comes from 1
> Corinthians 15:4, "Christ rose on the third day." From the standpoint
> of Gentile time it would mean that the third day has to be from
> midnight Friday to midnight Saturday. So Christ could have arisen any
> time after sundown, Jewish time, on Saturday.
>
> Sunday starts after sundown. But to rise on the third day Jesus Christ
> had to arise at least by midnight Saturday, which is actually Sunday
> Jewish time.
>
> To correlate two the best estimate as to His resurrection would be
> midnight Saturday night; "as it began to dawn." Now this isn't when
> Christ arose, it was when the angel came and opened up the grave so
> that people could come in and see. While Matthew will not describe it
> Peter and John ran a foot race which John won and got there first. But
> John, who got there first, looked in but did not go in. Peter went
> right inside.
>
> "As it began to dawn" is actually an idiom for just before the dawn.
Just before the dawn is 5:00 AM local time.
> This would be quite a few hours after the resurrection; "toward the
> first day of the week." Now why would you have to say "toward the
> first day in the week" when obviously dawn occurs in the morning? It
> does by our time but not by the Jews' time; dawn was in the middle of
> the day. This verse is dealing with Jewish time, not Gentile time;
> "came" is aorist tense, indicating here decisiveness.
>
> The two Marys had decided the night before they would be there at the
> grave when the first rays of the sun appeared. They would be there to
> see it. Therefore they travelled in the darkest part of the morning
> which is just before dawn.
I'll buy that part. And by implication, Robertson's solution is
illogical.
Both narratives try to tell us that Jesus was found to have arisen on
Sunday morning. Problem is, the author of Matthew didn't know that
the Jewish day began at sunset.
Santa Claus
wrote:
> Both narratives try to tell us that Jesus was found to have arisen on
>Sunday morning. Problem is, the author of Matthew didn't know that
>the Jewish day began at sunset.
I see a problem here. To agree with that one would have to reject the
divine inspiration of scripture.
Ken Smith
All I *can* do is follow the evidence where it leads. And here, the trail
leads inexorably to the conclusion that the author of Matthew was not an
eyewitness.
And if that destroys the divine inspiration of scripture, so be it.
Santa Claus
wrote:
> All I *can* do is follow the evidence where it leads. And here, the trail
>
>leads inexorably to the conclusion that the author of Matthew was not an
>eyewitness.
>
> And if that destroys the divine inspiration of scripture, so be it.
Well my motive for mentioning that is purely curiosity. As I see it,
unless the scripture is divinely inspired we may as well throw it away
as useless.
Pardon me if I am in error here because I came into this late and did
not see the entire thread, but didn't you say that Matthew was a
Gentile? Apart from anything else it seems curious to me that anyone
but a Jew in the context of the New Testament would be called Levi.
Ken Smith
> On 07 Nov 2001 18:06:34 GMT, Ken Smith <Rang...@concentric.net>
> wrote:
>
> > All I *can* do is follow the evidence where it leads. And here, the trail
> >leads inexorably to the conclusion that the author of Matthew was not an
> >eyewitness.
> >
> > And if that destroys the divine inspiration of scripture, so be it.
>
> Well my motive for mentioning that is purely curiosity. As I see it,
> unless the scripture is divinely inspired we may as well throw it away
> as useless.
And if there are problems like these, it is unlikely to be divinely inspired.
> Pardon me if I am in error here because I came into this late and did
> not see the entire thread, but didn't you say that Matthew was a
> Gentile?
I am saying that the internal evidence indicates that the actual author
of "Matthew" (remember that the Gospel names were assigned on the
basis of tradition) could not have been Jewish.
There are many examples of pious fraud in the Christian collection of
religious writings, and "Matthew" may have been one of them. Second
Peter is widely suspected to be apocryphal, as well.
> Apart from anything else it seems curious to me that anyone
> but a Jew in the context of the New Testament would be called Levi.
Which proves absolutely nothing. I could claim that I'm a 24-year-old
professional football player, but it doesn't make me one.
John Hattan
"Wait a minute. There ain't no sanity clause."
-- Chico Marx "A Night at the Opera"
Q
To interject,
Right up until they adopted it (supposedly) under Constantine.
This seems a very political tactic to me, though. Failing to "stomp
out" the infidel amongst you, the wisest course of action is to begin
to subvert it. Work within it to make it more acceptable to your
tastes and even make it useful if you can.
Christianity fits both bills here. Paul is seen by some as the
first heretic. He preaches a message almost entirely different than
James and Co. are in the church in Israel. He insists that revoloution
or insurgency of any kind against the gov't is sin in the book of
Romans. The Messianic movm't at the time was all about the military
conquerer predicted in the prophecies. (Marvin Harris, Cows Pigs Wars
and Witches) The peace loving saviour wasn't mentioned except in the
context of the peace after conquest of the oppressor. Some have
suggested that Paul and his churches sanitized the militancy from the
religion in order to escape further persecution. A very few suggest
that's what Paul was sent to do by Rome. After they were satisfied he
had done the deed well enough, he disappears, assumed dead in prison
or stoned.
Later on, this Constantine fellow realizes something. No doubt
some of his advisors noted it first. If they structure the HRCC with
him at the top or a trusted individual, then they will have yet
another mechanism of controlling the populace. The intercessory nature
of the prayer structure would require that those who planned a sinful
attack on gov't confess it or roast in this new "Hell" thingy. The
rules of this religion make it extremely easy to exploit it's
followers, particularly the rabble classes who can't read about it for
themselves and are looking for a strongly scripted leadership anyway.
A leader might even be able to set themself up as the next best thing
to God. This is much easier to control than the poly-theisms of the
pre-Christian Rome whose devotion to a particular God/dess might
over-ride their devotion to the emporer. Now they are all but the same
entity, God and king.
Just conjecture, but so is so much of the other stuff about the
religion, including the origins of it's text if not the content of the
same. So, if not for the Romans who successfully subverted and
utilized it, this messianic cult probably would have died out. And
another thing... Christianity seems to have far less in common with it
supposed "Judaic" roots. It bears striking resemblences to Mithraism,
Zoarastrianism, and several philosophical movements contemporary to
its developement, none of which were extant within Judaism. Thomas
Jefferson and Thomas Paine pointed out the huge inconsistancies in the
behavior of YHVH and Jesus Christ (Joshua ben Joseph?)that seemed to
them to prove the former a barbaric and petulant deity while they both
still held a great amount of respect for the latter.
Just a differing perspective to contrast the generally accepted ideas.
Thoughts?
Matthew Healey
Doug wrote:
>
> Richard Kerr wrote:
> >
> > Allistar Melville wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 00:20:25 +1100, "Damien Harrison"
> > > <har...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Ken Smith" <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> > > >news:3BE7E0F9...@concentric.net...
> > > >> Damien Harrison wrote:
Snip
> > Many people who are concerned about the evidentiary bases of their
> > beliefs find the evidence we do have compelling enough to be Christians,
> > so your statement is trivially disproved.
>
> I think that they like to make the claim that Christianity is an ancient
> tribal religion for several reasons.
No....it WAS....or it had its ORIGINS in....I didn't think this was such
a radical idea.
> One is that makes it like the rest
If you mean..like all other systems of belief/explanation that at their
root are grounded in metaphysical conjecture..then yes. Of course it is,
since it isn't the only (nor the oldest) religion.
> and the other is that for some people old = bad.
Since I have a love of history I don't hold the old = bad belief. For me
its more old = origins.
matt
:p
Matthew Healey
Thats undeniable...I'm not speaking of a willfull act by all within the
roman empire to adopt xstianity. The point is that the roman empire
(owing to its size and diversity) was responsible for the transmission
of much nonroman-originating culture.
matt
:p
Q
So you are contending that faith in God (Defined how?) is an innate
concept to humanity as a whole?
If we use the commonly ascribed Christian values for this God fellow
as they contend it is the one and only true God, I would disagree.
There are far too many differing indigenous religions to back that
kind of statement.
If we instead use the idea that faith in something "supernatural" is
normal and innate, then we might be on to something. The realization
that there is more to the world than what we can see is present in
every society, even the supposedly "primitive" peoples. As societies
progress, however, we see a de-mystification of the deity. We see
that, after awhile, the once important cultural myths become
fairy-tales for kids and the processes attributed to deity in the past
are found to be the function of natural laws. The intervention of the
God becomes less and less and the number of things over which he/she
has direct dominion diminishes. The last great bastions are the
creation of all things and the fate of the consciousness after death.
Since we can not percieve these things, we still give the Gods
dominion over them, not wanting to let go. Benjamin Disraeli said
something to the effect of, "Man is born to believe. If not Church
comes forward to instruct with its title deeds of truth, the he will
erect idols and altars in his own heart." Neitsche contends that the
holding of irrational ideas and beliefs in the face of overwhelming
evidence is both useful and in most cases necessary. It patches the
holes in our psyche that cry out for completion. It allows us to
operate in and at least have a capable functionality in an otherwise
overwhelming world with few if any absolutes. The psychologist A.Adler
referred to such things as Fictional Finalisms, concepts or ideas that
we know are either not true, not complete, or bear more investigation,
but that we use anyway until something better comes along. The
Sociologist Karl Manheim cautions us however to be wary of the totally
irrational beliefs that he calls "Total ideologies." These result when
we hold dogmatically and tenaciously, almost parnoiacally to disproven
ideas based on myths, tales and irrational or contrary evidence. It is
"Faith" gone wrong. Descartes insisted that science and religion must
be in total agreement, and in the Meditations, reasoned that God would
have it no other way. Nazi Germany fell into just such a trap,
allowing ideals and ideologies to over-run reason. Manheim pointed
that out, as he was a survivor of that brutal era.
At any rate, not teaching religion or not allowing it to be taught
by the state or the emissaries of the state, is a great idea. It
ensures that we do not create little robots. I think it better to
teach faith in the home, church, mosque, temple, coven, grove, etc.
etc. than in the school.
As above illustrated, faith is innate to human beings. Faith in
one specific God is not. The equitable solutions are few: teach no
religion or teach all religions. The latter being almost impossible
w/o adding 4+ yrs to the schooling process, the former seems equitable
enough. Quit crying about not being able to preach in schools and do
your job: Teach those in your home, church, etc... There's plenty of
places other than state funded events and institutions to spread your
message.
The Q
Allistar Melville
<aw...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>Allistar Melville wrote:
>>
>> You don't "practice" actheism.
>
>As opposed to dc-theism?
>
>> I would also defind your righjt to believe what you want. But as soon
>> as those beliefs encroach on my freedoms, then I will resist.
>
>You refer to "freedoms" as though there is a list somewhere. How exactly
>do you know that we are in fact free to do some things and not others?
>Just wondering, cos it almost seems as if you are appealing to an
>objective standard. Surely not :-)
Not at all. What I consider to be my freedons are completely
subjective. Some peoples' religious vigour does impose on my freedoms,
and those of others (IMHO).
>Al.
Allistar.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Allistar Melville (BSc) Home: alli...@ihug.co.nz \_
Software Developer Work: alli...@focussoft.co.nz </'
Auckland, NEW ZEALAND /)
(/`
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alistair W Smith
>
> >You refer to "freedoms" as though there is a list somewhere. How exactly
> >do you know that we are in fact free to do some things and not others?
> >Just wondering, cos it almost seems as if you are appealing to an
> >objective standard. Surely not :-)
>
> subjective. Some peoples' religious vigour does impose on my freedoms,
> and those of others (IMHO).
The problem is that freedoms clash, and you have no basis to say who's
fault it is when they do. You cannot really complain when your freedoms
are being imposed, because the imposer may believe they have the freedom
to do so. Who's freedom is more important? Can't say, because it's
apparently all subjective.
Al.
--
"There doesn't seem to be anyone around" - Tiffany
Theodore A. Kaldis
Ken, alas, being a seppo, hasn't got the slightest hint of what "make mine
green" really means in this context.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> Ken's memory is not what it could be.
>>>> I hear marijuana can do that to you.
>>> I hear XXXX can make you fat, as well.
>> 4X. Ptooi! 'Roo p*ss. Make mine green, mate.
> Absinthe?
Oh, no no. Something much more mundane. Let's see if you yanks can get it
sorted out on your own.
Allistar Melville
I think that freedom is a personal thing, and as such can't be imposed
on others. So you are saying that some people may claim that outlawing
same couple sex is their freedom? What a load of crap, that is
removing freedom from other people.
Imposing your beliefs onto others is not a freedom or a right, it is
unethical.
TomV
>> because yu don't practice atheism.it's the default position. belief is
>> a god(s) of some sort is added on top
>
>To the contrary. The faith in God is subtracted to arrive at atheism.
Which god? have you had faith in all the gods you don't believe in
subtracted? I assume you don't believe that 25 meter tall amazon women
live on mars. Was that belief subtracted as well?
...tom
the bundaberg chick
problem up.
"TomV" <to...@ihug.blahblah.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ddjjutc4n96ftm1q1...@4ax.com...
Richard Kerr
I take your point, but it seems to me that atheism misses out not so
much on a belief in God (or gods, or martian Amazons) as a sense of
transcendant spirituality. I think the current rapid upsurge in
alternate spiritualities is a reaction against the materialism (in the
philosophic sense) of our age. People are sick of being told "there is
nothing more" when it is so obvious to many of us that there is.
How you get from transcendant spirituality to Christianity, or any
particular religion, is an individual journey, but regarding atheism I
think it's pretty obvious that most people find it _lacking_ something,
i.e. something has been subtracted.
--
Regards,
Richard Kerr
TomV
Yes but that means there are a whole pile of gods that christians
don't believe in. I was asking Doug if his faith in those gods was
subtracted as well
...tom
TomV
<r.kerr.R...@ssdu.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>How you get from transcendant spirituality to Christianity, or any
>particular religion, is an individual journey, but regarding atheism I
>think it's pretty obvious that most people find it _lacking_ something,
>i.e. something has been subtracted.
If I finish eating and I'm still hungry, has something been
subtracted?
Religion fills many needs, but that doesn't make its tenets correct.
...tom
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Doug wrote:
>> Matt wrote:
>>> Upon its conception xstianity was a minor sect of judaism. Messiahs
>>> within the judaic faith were popping up all the time ... if it wasn't for
>>> the romans it would have sunk into obscurity.
>> The Romans did everything that they could to stomp it out on at least 10
>> occasions.
> Credible evidence? I didn't think so.
I didn't see you present any.
Richard Kerr
But that doens't address the point, does it?
I jumped in because you suggested that people are inherently atheistic
and religion is added later, I point out that even our own culture, that
has flirted with philosophic materialism since WWI and now shows mass
movements back to popular spirituality, demonstrates otherwise.
You may choose to believe that everybody else is deluding themselves,
but that wasn't my point.
--
Regards,
Richard Kerr
TomV
<r.kerr.R...@ssdu.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>I jumped in because you suggested that people are inherently atheistic
>and religion is added later, I point out that even our own culture, that
>has flirted with philosophic materialism since WWI and now shows mass
>movements back to popular spirituality, demonstrates otherwise.
Hmm You've misinterpreted my point. I would say people are
"inherently" superstitious and ignorant.
My point was that you don't "take away" something to be an atheist,
any more than you take away blue from purple to get red. You could
become an atheist via that method (and some do), just as you could
create red by that method, but a belief in some sort of god(s) is
added by people to fill a need.
...tom
Richard Kerr
Matt wrote:
>
> From: "Richard Kerr" <r.kerr.R...@ssdu.usyd.edu.au>
> > Allistar Melville wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 00:20:25 +1100, "Damien Harrison"
> > > <har...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> > > >"Ken Smith" <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> > > >news:3BE7E0F9...@concentric.net...
> > > >> Damien Harrison wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > Except that Christianity has never been a tribal religion
>
> Upon its conception xstianity was a minor sect of judaism. Messiahs within
> the judaic faith were popping up all the time...if it wasn't for the romans
> it would have sunk into obscurity.
That's unfounded speculation. The burgeoning Jesus movement was doing
very nicely before the Romans noticed it. In fact, that's _why_ they
noticed it.
> >having been
> > cosmopolitan from the very start. It doesn't matter whether you count
> > the gospels, early Christian histories or third party evidence, it's
> > been multicultural from as far back as anyone can go.
>
> Since xstianity shares the OT with Judaism it would be fair to say that
> xstianity originiated within a fairly insular tribal environment.
Which completely ignores the fact that every source you look at
specifically includes references to gentiles _very_ early in the story.
Even to state that Christianity found acceptance in synagogues in its
earliest days does not mean it was basically an an ethnic Jewish
phenomenon. The suggestion ignores just how cosmopolitan Judaism, even,
or perhaps particularly, in Jerusalem was.
> > Likewise I dispute the assertion that it is not based on credible
> > evidence. I think you may mean that you do not find the kind of evidence
> > you demand
>
> How can we distinguish between metaphysical theories (since no religion can
> be proven empirically)? Since they can't be validated by appeals to things
> in the world what standard do we use? History isn't sufficient cos if the
> worlds...[snip]
What you are doing here is debating _about_ the evidence. If you need to
mount a defense of your interpretation of the evidence my point is
proven.
[snip]
--
Regards,
Richard Kerr
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >> Ken Smith wrote:
> >>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >>>> Doug wrote:
>
> >>>>> Ken's memory is not what it could be.
>
> >>>> I hear marijuana can do that to you.
>
> >>> I hear XXXX can make you fat, as well.
>
> >> 4X. Ptooi! 'Roo p*ss. Make mine green, mate.
>
> > Green? I guess you've forgotten that marijuana can do that to you. :)
>
> Ken, alas, being a seppo,
Sorry, mate -- you resemble that remark.
If memory serves, you were born in Greeley, Colorado -- and were
based in Denver last time I saw you.
Alistair W Smith
>
> My point was that you don't "take away" something to be an atheist,
> any more than you take away blue from purple to get red. You could
> become an atheist via that method (and some do), just as you could
> create red by that method, but a belief in some sort of god(s) is
> added by people to fill a need.
To yet again butt in...
"fill a need"? That sounds like such an atheistic point, and it so
isn't. Assuming we all can hold hands in a circle and agree that there
is a need/desire... Now, explain it from a theistic perspective, easy.
Explain it from an atheistic perspective, hard enough that I've never
seen it done convincingly, except to spout on about security, belonging
and relationship, which obscures the issue and relies on the pull of the
emotional side of our brains, from which the atheistic debater is
necessarily and remarkably immune.
That is all for now.
Alistair W Smith
>
> I think that freedom is a personal thing, and as such can't be imposed
> on others. So you are saying that some people may claim that outlawing
> same couple sex is their freedom? What a load of crap, that is
> removing freedom from other people.
Let's not go there, I agree with you that people have the freedom to do
whatever they want in that respect.
> Imposing your beliefs onto others is not a freedom or a right, it is
> unethical.
Now tell me... Why should I take this sentence as anything more than
your opinion?
Once you go down the "it's all subjective" path, you can't change your
tune when it's convenient, and make these universal ethical claims.
Al.
--
I seem to have deleted my sig by accident
Ken Smith
> John Hattan wrote:
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >> Ken Smith wrote:
> >>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >>>> Doug wrote:
>
> >>>>> Ken's memory is not what it could be.
>
> >>>> I hear marijuana can do that to you.
>
> >>> I hear XXXX can make you fat, as well.
>
> >> 4X. Ptooi! 'Roo p*ss. Make mine green, mate.
>
> > Absinthe?
>
> Oh, no no. Something much more mundane. Let's see if you yanks can get it
> sorted out on your own.
And exactly what are you -- a geek?
By your own admission, you are an American by birth, and last time I saw
you, you were based in Denver (but living out of a suitcase). And home.com
ain't exactly BigPond.
IIRC, there's nothing a true-blue Aussie hates more than a seppo who tries
to pass himself off as an Aussie. In our vernacular-- sucks for you, Ted. ;)
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> >> Matt wrote:
>
> >>> Upon its conception xstianity was a minor sect of judaism. Messiahs
> >>> within the judaic faith were popping up all the time ... if it wasn't for
> >>> the romans it would have sunk into obscurity.
>
> >> The Romans did everything that they could to stomp it out on at least 10
> >> occasions.
>
> > Credible evidence? I didn't think so.
>
> I didn't see you present any.
I'm not the one with the burden of production on that one.
John Hattan
>Let's see if you yanks can get it sorted out on your own.
You're from Colorado.
Yanks. Sheesh.
Ken Smith
> "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Let's see if you yanks can get it sorted out on your own.
>
> You're from Colorado.
Even worse -- he went to school in New Jersey.
> Yanks. Sheesh.
He thinks he's the "Man From Snowy River".... :)
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> Ken's memory is not what it could be.
>>>>>> I hear marijuana can do that to you.
>>>>> I hear XXXX can make you fat, as well.
>>>> 4X. Ptooi! 'Roo p*ss. Make mine green, mate.
>>> Green? I guess you've forgotten that marijuana can do that to you. :)
>> Ken, alas, being a seppo,
> Sorry, mate -- you resemble that remark.
So, can you tell me the origin of the term "seppo"?
> If memory serves, you were born in Greeley, Colorado -- and were based in
> Denver last time I saw you.
Nevertheless, you still haven't told us what "make mine green" means.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
>> John Hattan wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> Ken's memory is not what it could be.
>>>>>> I hear marijuana can do that to you.
>>>>> I hear XXXX can make you fat, as well.
>>>> 4X. Ptooi! 'Roo p*ss. Make mine green, mate.
>>> Absinthe?
>> Oh, no no. Something much more mundane. Let's see if you yanks can get
>> it sorted out on your own.
> And exactly what are you -- a geek?
> By your own admission, you are an American by birth, and last time I saw
> you, you were based in Denver (but living out of a suitcase). And home.com
> ain't exactly BigPond.
You might be surprised to learn that @Home is also in Australia. (BTW, I
also have a bigpond account.)
> IIRC, there's nothing a true-blue Aussie hates more than a seppo who tries
> to pass himself off as an Aussie.
And where did I ever represent myself to be an aussie?
> In our vernacular-- sucks for you, Ted. ;)
So can you tell us what "make mine green" means?
Theodore A. Kaldis
Oh? And why is that?
In your mind, it seems that you never are.
John Hattan
>So can you tell us what "make mine green" means?
You're making the assumption that someone cares what it means.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >> Ken Smith wrote:
> >>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >>>> Ken Smith wrote:
> >>>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >>>>>> Doug wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Ken's memory is not what it could be.
>
> >>>>>> I hear marijuana can do that to you.
>
> >>>>> I hear XXXX can make you fat, as well.
>
> >>>> 4X. Ptooi! 'Roo p*ss. Make mine green, mate.
>
> >>> Green? I guess you've forgotten that marijuana can do that to you. :)
>
> >> Ken, alas, being a seppo,
>
> > Sorry, mate -- you resemble that remark.
>
> So, can you tell me the origin of the term "seppo"?
I just did. "Seppo" is short for "septic," as in "tank," which rhymes with
--
uh, you guessed it, "Yank."
> > If memory serves, you were born in Greeley, Colorado -- and were based in
> > Denver last time I saw you.
>
> Nevertheless, you still haven't told us what "make mine green" means.
It also presupposes that someone actually cares.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
> > Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
> >> John Hattan wrote:
> >>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >>>> Ken Smith wrote:
> >>>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >>>>>> Doug wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Ken's memory is not what it could be.
>
> >>>>>> I hear marijuana can do that to you.
>
> >>>>> I hear XXXX can make you fat, as well.
>
> >>>> 4X. Ptooi! 'Roo p*ss. Make mine green, mate.
>
> >>> Absinthe?
>
> >> Oh, no no. Something much more mundane. Let's see if you yanks can get
> >> it sorted out on your own.
>
> > And exactly what are you -- a geek?
>
> > By your own admission, you are an American by birth, and last time I saw
> > you, you were based in Denver (but living out of a suitcase). And home.com
> > ain't exactly BigPond.
>
> You might be surprised to learn that @Home is also in Australia.
I might be, but I could care less. Are you there now?
> (BTW, I also have a bigpond account.)
Oooooooooooooooooooohhhh.
> > IIRC, there's nothing a true-blue Aussie hates more than a seppo who tries
> > to pass himself off as an Aussie.
>
> And where did I ever represent myself to be an aussie?
Spare us, seppo. :)
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >> Ken Smith wrote:
> >>> Doug wrote:
> >>>> Matt wrote:
>
> >>>>> Upon its conception xstianity was a minor sect of judaism. Messiahs
> >>>>> within the judaic faith were popping up all the time ... if it wasn't
> >>>>> for the romans it would have sunk into obscurity.
>
> >>>> The Romans did everything that they could to stomp it out on at least 10
> >>>> occasions.
>
> >>> Credible evidence? I didn't think so.
>
> >> I didn't see you present any.
>
> > I'm not the one with the burden of production on that one.
>
> Oh? And why is that?
Because I'm not the one making the allegation. Basic rule of law,
really.
Doug
The Bible declares the other gods as false.
Doug
>
> Doug wrote:
> >
> > Matt wrote:
> >
> > > Upon its conception xstianity was a minor sect of judaism. Messiahs within
> > > it would have sunk into obscurity.
> >
> > The Romans did everything that they could to stomp it out on at least 10
> > occasions.
>
> roman empire to adopt xstianity. The point is that the roman empire
> (owing to its size and diversity) was responsible for the transmission
> of much nonroman-originating culture.
That's like saying that without the camel no one would have ever
travelled.
Doug
>
> Doug <jaco...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<3BE9590B...@pacbell.net>...
> > Matt wrote:
> >
> > > Upon its conception xstianity was a minor sect of judaism. Messiahs within
> > > the judaic faith were popping up all the time...if it wasn't for the romans
> > > it would have sunk into obscurity.
> >
> > The Romans did everything that they could to stomp it out on at least 10
> > occasions.
>
> Right up until they adopted it (supposedly) under Constantine.
300+ years later.
Doug
> Right up until they adopted it (supposedly) under Constantine.
> This seems a very political tactic to me, though. Failing to "stomp
> out" the infidel amongst you, the wisest course of action is to begin
> to subvert it. Work within it to make it more acceptable to your
> tastes and even make it useful if you can.
And to eventually outlaw all of the other gods? Sounds like Christianity
won plain and simple.
Doug
> Christianity fits both bills here. Paul is seen by some as the
> first heretic. He preaches a message almost entirely different than
> James and Co. are in the church in Israel.
They were slower to catch onto the concept of the Gospel going to the
rest of the non-Jewish world. How is that entirely different?
Doug
>
> Doug <jaco...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<3BE9590B...@pacbell.net>...
> > Matt wrote:
> >
> > > Upon its conception xstianity was a minor sect of judaism. Messiahs within
> > > the judaic faith were popping up all the time...if it wasn't for the romans
> > > it would have sunk into obscurity.
> >
> > The Romans did everything that they could to stomp it out on at least 10
> > occasions.
>
> To interject,
> This seems a very political tactic to me, though. Failing to "stomp
> out" the infidel amongst you, the wisest course of action is to begin
> to subvert it. Work within it to make it more acceptable to your
> tastes and even make it useful if you can.
> first heretic. He preaches a message almost entirely different than
> or insurgency of any kind against the gov't is sin in the book of
> Romans. The Messianic movm't at the time was all about the military
> conquerer predicted in the prophecies. (Marvin Harris, Cows Pigs Wars
> and Witches) The peace loving saviour wasn't mentioned except in the
> context of the peace after conquest of the oppressor. Some have
> suggested that Paul and his churches sanitized the militancy from the
> religion in order to escape further persecution. A very few suggest
> that's what Paul was sent to do by Rome. After they were satisfied he
> had done the deed well enough, he disappears, assumed dead in prison
> or stoned.
> Later on, this Constantine fellow realizes something. No doubt
> some of his advisors noted it first. If they structure the HRCC with
> him at the top or a trusted individual, then they will have yet
> another mechanism of controlling the populace. The intercessory nature
> of the prayer structure would require that those who planned a sinful
> attack on gov't confess it or roast in this new "Hell" thingy. The
> rules of this religion make it extremely easy to exploit it's
> followers, particularly the rabble classes who can't read about it for
> themselves and are looking for a strongly scripted leadership anyway.
> A leader might even be able to set themself up as the next best thing
> to God. This is much easier to control than the poly-theisms of the
> pre-Christian Rome whose devotion to a particular God/dess might
> over-ride their devotion to the emporer. Now they are all but the same
> entity, God and king.
> Just conjecture, but so is so much of the other stuff about the
> religion, including the origins of it's text if not the content of the
> same. So, if not for the Romans who successfully subverted and
> utilized it, this messianic cult probably would have died out. And
> another thing... Christianity seems to have far less in common with it
> supposed "Judaic" roots. It bears striking resemblences to Mithraism,
> Zoarastrianism, and several philosophical movements contemporary to
> its developement, none of which were extant within Judaism. Thomas
> Jefferson and Thomas Paine pointed out the huge inconsistancies in the
> behavior of YHVH and Jesus Christ (Joshua ben Joseph?)that seemed to
> them to prove the former a barbaric and petulant deity while they both
> still held a great amount of respect for the latter.
>
> Just a differing perspective to contrast the generally accepted ideas.
> Thoughts?
Other than the fact that it's pure conjecture not matched by evidence?
Doug
> I am saying that the internal evidence indicates that the actual author
> of "Matthew" (remember that the Gospel names were assigned on the
> basis of tradition) could not have been Jewish.
To the contrary. The evidence suggests that he was Jewish. Kenny's case
is so weak that for him to state it, refutes it.
Doug
> > "In the end of the Sabbath." The Greek says, "After the Sabbath."
>
> No, the Greek says opse de sabboton; opsia is a Greek adverb of time
> denoting lateness. The literal translation is "late on the sabbath."
>
> The NIV translators agree with this reading.
Here's a clue. The NIV is not a translation.
Doug
> No, the Greek says opse de sabboton; opsia is a Greek adverb of time
> denoting lateness. The literal translation is "late on the sabbath."
>
> The NIV translators agree with this reading.
>
> > Note: Because Jewish "day" time was from sundown to sundown Christ
> > could have arisen any time after sundown on Saturday. "After the
> > Sabbath" is any time after sundown.
>
> If Matthew had meant meta (after), he would have *SAID* meta.
> After all, he did so no less than eight times -- the closest being verse
> 27:63. :)
Ken doesn't know a meta from a tauta. He's parroting some argument that
he's read in some liberal commentary or on some anti-Christian website.
Very little reason to debate him because his method (and I've got years
of experience with him on this one) is to deny the truth no matter how
convincingly it is presented.
Doug
>
> Doug wrote:
>
> >
> > > Upon its conception xstianity was a minor sect of judaism. Messiahs within
> > > the judaic faith were popping up all the time...if it wasn't for the romans
> > > it would have sunk into obscurity.
> >
> > The Romans did everything that they could to stomp it out on at least 10
> > occasions.
>
ROTFL. You don't believe that there were 10 separate persecutions of the
church under the Romans? You gotta love Kenny's historical agnosticism.
I bet he doubts that he was even born himself.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>
> > No, the Greek says opse de sabboton; opsia is a Greek adverb of time
> > denoting lateness. The literal translation is "late on the sabbath."
> >
> > The NIV translators agree with this reading.
> >
> > > Note: Because Jewish "day" time was from sundown to sundown Christ
> > > could have arisen any time after sundown on Saturday. "After the
> > > Sabbath" is any time after sundown.
> >
> > If Matthew had meant meta (after), he would have *SAID* meta.
> > After all, he did so no less than eight times -- the closest being verse
> > 27:63. :)
>
> Ken doesn't know a meta from a tauta. He's parroting some argument that
> he's read in some liberal commentary or on some anti-Christian website.
Yeah, right, dougie. We've all heard your bullshit for years.
If he meant "after," why did he use a word that means "late?"
Try to answer the question, and spare us the old, tired ad homs.
John Hattan
The only thing that is certain is that you will inevitably refuse to
answer questions given to you.
Ken Smith
When debating Doug, you always have to keep in mind that a word
means what he needs it to mean -- nothing more, nothing less.
The translators refer to it as a translation. I'm entitled to take their
word for it over the assertions of a lying sack of shit like you, dougie.