Amazing proofs by LORD Almighty GOD: MW's bedridden Pastorio dies on April Fool's day and satan continues to rage via his cloud of sockpuppets(demons).
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ae00397cf8a7d41c?
Therefore, let there be no doubt that satan is the source of all lies.
Now for the truth, Who is LORD Jesus Christ:
(1) The miracle of the parting of the Red Sea:
(2) The miracle of the USS Texas surviving both World Wars:
http://TruthRUS.org/DreadNought
(3) The miracle of the 2PD-OMER Approach curing type-2 diabetes:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp
(4) The miracle of the million-dollar guarantee backing the 2PD-OMER
Approach:
(5) Patsy's miracle:
(6) Bob Pastorio (from misc.writing) dying on April Fool's day (my
condolences to his surviving friends and family during this their
difficult time especially upon their realizing that Patsy's miracle
could have been Bob's miracle has he chosen wisely to turn to the
Great Physician, LORD Jesus Christ):
http://bobs-amanuensis.livejournal.com/8728.html
(7) The powerlessness of satan and his cloud of wimpy sockpuppets
(demons):
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/14e3bd62940af893?
May GOD annihilate satan soon starting with his pathetic
sockpuppets(demons), in the precious and holy name of HIS one and only
begotten Son, LORD Jesus Christ.
Prayerfully in the infinite power of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://EmoryCardiology.com
"Unlike the 2PD-OMER Approach, weight loss diets can't be combined
with well-balanced diets."
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth
St. Jackanapes
In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD said...
> Behold in wide-eyed wonder:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ae00397cf8a7d41c?
Yes indeed, that really does make you look the fool.
--
St. Jackanapes ~ Bearer of The One True Liver ~
Ordained Minister & Holy Saint of The Universal Life Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WEBSITE: http://www.jackanapes.ws/ | FORUM: http://www.voy.com/20630/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The ejaculate from satan has the consistency and smell of emesis."
- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Kurt Gavin
there no mention of dinosaurs, or microbes, or the scale of the universe, or
numerous other things that would be known to a "god", but were not known to
PEOPLE 2000 to 3000 years ago?
Albert Einstein: " it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which has been systematically repeated. I do not believe
in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it
clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the
unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science
can reveal it."
Albert Einstein: "the idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems
even naïve."
Very Busy Guy
It was a Sunday, and--of course--I was in church.
Bob was a scoffer, and words--even those of a scoffer--have power in the
universe. We know that because according to the Word, they give both life
and death, blessing and cursing. His were a bane to him, not a blessing.
I never met him, but he was fun to deal with; so, I miss him as much as
anyone else does. He would bite on any ol' hook you threw out.
--BF'ngD
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heart...@emorycardiology.com> wrote in message
news:1180351295....@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Pastorio.
May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://EmoryCardiology.com
"Unlike the 2PD-OMER Approach, weight loss diets can't be combined
with well-balanced diets."
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth
Kurt Gavin
> You are correct in your observations concerning our late dear Bob
> Pastorio.
He showed you up for the delusional fool that you are, and you hate him for
it.
St. Jackanapes
In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD said...
>
> You are correct in your observations concerning our late dear Bob
> Pastorio.
You *killed* Bob! You and that Holy Ghost mureded him! Bob's blood is on
your hands, and you *will* pay.
Say - does a ghost have hands?
flyingrat
bugg...@s.com says...
now.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.support.diabetes/msg/d5d5097f3e03f7
1a?dmode=source&hl=en
from that post:
"Funny thing about that. No reason why they should admit it. Chung was
fired for giving substandard medical care. An arbitrator upheld the
firing. He was out of there in less than 3 months. If Chung's story were
true, he'd at least have had grounds for a suit himself. Ooops. No suit.
Canned. Out the door. Bad doctoring."
(Bob Pastorio)
Bob showed up Chung the Demonic for being what he is, a twelve week
wonder who fled the State of Florida. Some cardiologist and Christian
isn't he?
Now Bob is dead, Chung shrieks and howls and spams Bob's web journal.
Just like a good little ghoul who wants his revenge.
Cunning Stunt
<keuhf...@hotmahhil.com> wrote:
>
>In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD said...
>
>>
>> You are correct in your observations concerning our late dear Bob
>> Pastorio.
>
>You *killed* Bob! You and that Holy Ghost mureded him! Bob's blood is on
>your hands, and you *will* pay.
>
>Say - does a ghost have hands?
Ghosts have ghostly fingers that make shivers up and downyour spine.
other than that, they're pretty useless
Stephen Knight
<heart...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
>Therefore, let there be no doubt that satan is the source of all lies.
Satan is a myth. There is no such thing. It's nothing but
superstitious bile.
Get a life.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> >
> >Therefore, let there be no doubt that satan is the source of all lies.
>
> Satan is a myth. There is no such thing. It's nothing but
> superstitious bile.
Without the LORD, your beliefs are meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
> Get a life.
That has been from GOD.
"I am the way, the truth, and the life..." -- LORD Jesus Christ
Amen ! ! !
Laus Deo ! ! !
Marana tha
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
Professor Geoffrey Loftus, Saint Swithins Hospital
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> convicted neighbor Stephen Knight wrote:
>
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/43cf5ac7a023bdaa?
>
> > >Therefore, let there be no doubt that satan is the source of all lies.
>
> > Satan is a myth. There is no such thing. It's nothing but
> > superstitious bile.
>
> Without the LORD, your beliefs are meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
>
> > Get a life.
>
> That has been from GOD.
>
> "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." -- LORD Jesus Christ
There is no god or jesus christ, either. Behold. Your psychotic
pantheon shrinks to nothing.
St. Jackanapes
In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Cunning Stunt said...
Oh well, another fantasy goes down in flames.
St. Jackanapes
In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Stephen Knight said...
> On 28 May 2007 04:21:35 -0700, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> <heart...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Therefore, let there be no doubt that satan is the source of all lies.
>
> Satan is a myth. There is no such thing. It's nothing but
> superstitious bile.
But Chung's smelled the hot wad of Satan himself! How can you deny that?
St. Jackanapes
In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD said...
> convicted neighbor Stephen Knight wrote:
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/43cf5ac7a023bdaa?
> > >
> > >Therefore, let there be no doubt that satan is the source of all lies.
> >
> > Satan is a myth. There is no such thing. It's nothing but
> > superstitious bile.
>
> Without the LORD, your beliefs are meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
>
> > Get a life.
>
> That has been from GOD.
>
> "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." -- LORD Jesus Christ
And don't forget the Holy Ghost!
http://www.jackanapes.ws/ani/holyghost.gif
Denis Loubet
"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7j6r83hnh8p4ur4v9...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 14:26:42 GMT, "Kurt Gavin" <bugg...@s.com> wrote:
>
>>If some all knowing god wrote the bible, or even just inspired it, why is
>>there no mention of dinosaurs, or microbes, or the scale of the universe,
>>or
>>numerous other things that would be known to a "god", but were not known
>>to
>>PEOPLE 2000 to 3000 years ago?
>
Why?
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
Alan Hope
>On Mon, 28 May 2007 14:26:42 GMT, "Kurt Gavin" <bugg...@s.com> wrote:
>>If some all knowing god wrote the bible, or even just inspired it, why is
>>there no mention of dinosaurs, or microbes, or the scale of the universe, or
>>numerous other things that would be known to a "god", but were not known to
>>PEOPLE 2000 to 3000 years ago?
>God figured people weren't ready for that information.
Oh right, but they were ready to be told they were made out of some
dirt by a spirit in the sky. I know which of those would blow my mind.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Jack Baun
>>there no mention of dinosaurs, or microbes, or the scale of the universe,
>>or
>>numerous other things that would be known to a "god", but were not known
>>to
>>PEOPLE 2000 to 3000 years ago?
>
>
Hi Barry,
God made it and it was good but it says the earth was void and without
form. I think God made dino's in a diferent earth age . He said man will
havde dominion over all the animals and man never had domion over them .
Notice 6th day man and woman made at the same time. 8th day man was made
then the animals then the woman so they could do the farming in the garden.
I think millions of years went be between verse one and two.By Barry,
there was no time till the forth day when He made the Sun so a day could be
years or millions of them
Jack
> =====
> Home page
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
> I do not represent atheists or atheism
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> convicted neighbor "Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote in his lying fashion:
> >
> >>If some all knowing god wrote the bible, or even just inspired it, why is
> >>there no mention of dinosaurs, or microbes, or the scale of the universe,
> >>or
> >>numerous other things that would be known to a "god", but were not known
> >>to
> >>PEOPLE 2000 to 3000 years ago?
> >
> > God figured people weren't ready for that information.
> >
> > Barry
> Hi Barry,
> God made it and it was good but it says the earth was void and without
> form. I think God made dino's in a diferent earth age . He said man will
> havde dominion over all the animals and man never had domion over them .
> Notice 6th day man and woman made at the same time. 8th day man was made
> then the animals then the woman so they could do the farming in the garden.
> I think millions of years went be between verse one and two.By Barry,
> there was no time till the forth day when He made the Sun so a day could be
> years or millions of them
> Jack
In the Holy Spirit, I know the answer to be the number of stars in the
universe.
GOD is absolutely amazing.
Laus Deo ! ! !
May GOD continue to heal our heart with HIS living water thereby
driving out satan's lies so that we can love our neighbors a little
more, our brethren a whole lot more, and LORD Jesus Christ infinitely
more, dear brother Jack whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cardiologist
Richard Catto
> "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." -- LORD Jesus Christ
Could you explain to me why that verse (John 14:6) only appears in one
Gospel (the Gospel of St. John)?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." -- LORD Jesus Christ
Amen.
> Could you explain to me why that verse (John 14:6) only appears in one
> Gospel (the Gospel of St. John)?
Yes.
The same reason that the detailed story of Cleopus and Simon walking
with LORD Jesus Christ appears only in one of the four gospels (Luke
24:13-35)...
... the inspiration given by the Holy Spirit is as unique as each of
the writers are differently made by LORD Almighty GOD.
Indeed, what the Holy Spirit has inspired me to write about Cleopus
and Simon's experience would be yet another perspective for the same
event:
http://abchung.livejournal.com/2502.html?thread=33990#t33990
Be hungry... be healthy... be blessed.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cardiologist
ur_droll
and...@emorycardiology.com says...
> You, satan, have been and forever will be a liar.
Andrew Chung:
Is a frequent and proven liar (evidence archived forever on Google)
Has lost numerous NNTP accounts with supernews and others, has had
many
Google accounts nuked, and his vanity domain heartmdphd.com is now
banned from setting up accounts. He is instead using multiple Google
sock accounts and email addresses in the format l...@thetruth.com (#
being a number)
Is unemployed after being sacked with cause from his one and only job
after just over 80 days
Fled the state of Florida, and now claims to practice in Georgia
despite
having no admission priveliges in the State's hospitals
Runs a phony foundation with a total declared income of circa $200,
the
ownership and contact details of which are obfuscated on its website
Makes failed prophecies concerning earthquakes with areas and dates,
which don't happen (remember the bible quotes about false prophets)
Performed a public attempt at 'exorcising' a Malaysian sock on usenet,
then denied doing it. He has recently reversed position again and
admits
to practicing exorcism by usenet, proving himself a liar in the
process.
Promotes a dangerous diet, with a million dollar guarantee that he
demands thirty dollars to access details of. This despite being
unemployed. His soliciting and spamming for donations looks to be
similar to the Nigerian Advance Fee Fraud, where victims pay money
upfront in the hope of coming into riches but find they have merely
bought into a lie. Part of his advice is to pour nail polish remover
onto food.
Declares he has a cardiology practice despite posting night and day
from
the same IP address (his home presumably) or a coffee shop internet
cafe
Makes further false prophecies that we should now be all dying in a
bird
flu pandemic. When these fail to happen, he does them all over again
and
changes the dates. Nuclear war is another Chung spciality, which
naturally doesn't happen when he says it is going to.
Worships evil hatemonger Fred Phelps and will not denounce the acts of
Westboro's congregation. He even accuses someone with the name Phelps
of
being Fred's son and refuses to accept he is completely wrong.
Uses the same patter as Pat Robertson, indicating his religious
activity
is confined to watching cable TV. No evidence Chung has ever attended
a
church.
Has a tendency to cyberstalk, particularly women. His wife fled some
time ago to another state, an act which Chung tries to pass off as
"being
on vacation".
Frequently passes himself off as being qualified in areas such as
endocrinology, despite making incredibly fundamental blunders in his
'advice'. It is no wonder the Florida heart facility terminated him,
and
has publicly denounced his version of events. Again archived on
Google.
Don't forget the fake fast, where he didn't lose any weight, as well
as
the infamous 666 stamping fiasco. His latest vile trick is spamming
the
blogs of dying cancer patients and then crowing triumphantly when they
pass away.
Richard Catto
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." -- LORD Jesus Christ
> > Gospel (the Gospel of St. John)?
> Yes.
> The same reason that the detailed story of Cleopus and Simon walking
> with LORD Jesus Christ appears only in one of the four gospels (Luke
> 24:13-35)...
> ... the inspiration given by the Holy Spirit is as unique as each of
> the writers are differently made by LORD Almighty GOD.
Matthew, Mark and Luke all record that Simon of Cyrene carried Jesus'
cross for Him.
John has Jesus carry His own cross, and that account seems to have
made the most impact, because most Christians, if asked, will reply
that Jesus carried His own cross without any help.
Why was Simon edited out of John's Gospel?
Richard Catto
> Has lost numerous NNTP accounts with supernews and others, has had
> many Google accounts nuked,
Google states that they do not monitor or moderate Usenet. They don't
terminate Google accounts.
> and his vanity domain heartmdphd.com is now
> banned from setting up accounts.
How do you know? This does not seem plausible.
> He is instead using multiple Google
> sock accounts and email addresses in the format l...@thetruth.com (#
> being a number)
He could create as many gmail accounts as he likes.
> His latest vile trick is spamming the
> blogs of dying cancer patients and then crowing triumphantly when they
> pass away.
links?
let's have some proof of these allegations.
Steve O
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heart...@emorycardiology.com> wrote in message
news:1183717162.4...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
What the hell are you all blathering about?
Making dinosaurs in another "earth age"?
Making a sun in four days?
Don't you ever stop and think for a moment how gloriously idiotic you sound?
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"The only problem with Baptists is that they don't hold them underwater long
enough"
ur_droll
Oh yea of little faith. The proof is in the lack of evidence to the
contrary
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Simon was not edited out of John's account. Instead, Simon was never
in John's account.
As soon as John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, beheld that Jesus
shouldered the cross on HIS own, he left with the women to take
another more expeditious route, avoiding the crowds of spectators, to
get to Golgotha, the site of the crucifixion in order that they could
be at the foot of the cross where Jesus would hang. Otherwise, they
would not have been able as a group to get to the foot of Jesus' cross
without being separated one from another. And so John did not witness
Simon of Cyrene being drafted into carrying Jesus' cross.
May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you healthier (hungrier)
than ever:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/press.asp
You Think
>> On Mon, 28 May 2007 14:26:42 GMT, "Kurt Gavin" <bugg...@s.com> wrote:
>>
>>>If some all knowing god wrote the bible, or even just inspired it, why is
>>>there no mention of dinosaurs, or microbes, or the scale of the universe, or
>>>numerous other things that would be known to a "god", but were not known to
>>>PEOPLE 2000 to 3000 years ago?
>>
>> God figured people weren't ready for that information.
>
> Why?
. The Ten Commandments
The Ten Commandments - there is nothing like them! What even comes
close? Here is an historic document over 3,000 years old. It is a code
for living more influential than any other. It confronts us today as an
object of unceasing and intense public debate. The Ten Commandments
were given to the people of Israel, yet they have been embraced by
diverse cultures over long centuries. The neglect of the Ten
Commandments is seen by many as contributing to a moral breakdown
today. Others fight to keep them out of public places. Can you think of
any other ancient text that so inspires such contemporary attention?
Richard Catto
> neighbor Richard Catto wrote:
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > neighbor Richard Catto wrote:
> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > > > "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." -- LORD Jesus Christ
> > > > Could you explain to me why that verse (John 14:6) only appears in one
> > > > Gospel (the Gospel of St. John)?
> > > Yes.
> > > The same reason that the detailed story of Cleopus and Simon walking
> > > with LORD Jesus Christ appears only in one of the four gospels (Luke
> > > 24:13-35)...
> > > ... the inspiration given by the Holy Spirit is as unique as each of
> > > the writers are differently made by LORD Almighty GOD.
> > Matthew, Mark and Luke all record that Simon of Cyrene carried Jesus'
> > cross for Him.
> > John has Jesus carry His own cross, and that account seems to have
> > made the most impact, because most Christians, if asked, will reply
> > that Jesus carried His own cross without any help.
> > Why was Simon edited out of John's Gospel?
> Simon was not edited out of John's account. Instead, Simon was never
> in John's account.
Correct.
> As soon as John, the disciple whom Jesus loved,
It has never been established who the beloved disciple was.
Jesus may have had a homosexual relationship with this disciple.
> beheld that Jesus shouldered the cross on HIS own,
"As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and
they forced him to carry the cross." - Matthew 27:32
"As they led Jesus] away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on
his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him
carry it behind Jesus." - Luke 23:26
"A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus,
was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to
carry the cross." - Mark 15:21
"So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went
out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha)."
- John 19:17
Neither Matthew, Mark or Luke have Jesus even touch the cross until
they get to the place of crucifixion. According to the first 3
Gospels, Simon of Cyrene carries the cross the WHOLE way.
Only ONE Gospel, John, has Jesus carry his own cross (without anyone
helping him at any point).
> he left with the women to take another more expeditious route,
> avoiding the crowds of spectators, to get to Golgotha, the site
> of the crucifixion in order that they could be at the foot of the
> cross where Jesus would hang. Otherwise, they would not have
> been able as a group to get to the foot of Jesus' cross
> without being separated one from another. And so John did not witness
> Simon of Cyrene being drafted into carrying Jesus' cross.
None of this description of yours has any basis in scripture.
All John has is that four women and the beloved disciple stood on the
hill near him.
Fact is, the Church likes the whole scene of Jesus carrying his own
cross, so that one version is promoted over the other three versions.
In the Stations of the Cross, Jesus carries his own cross the whole
way, falling three times, and eventually being helped by Simon of
Cyrene to carry it. It just fits the image of the suffering Messiah
better, than having him stroll along while Simon does all the heavy
lifting.
John is a Gospel apart from the other three (synoptic) Gospels. It was
written sometime between 90 and 100CE. Authorship is disputed.
Mike
news:1183737755.5...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>> > > > > "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." -- LORD Jesus Christ
>> > > > Could you explain to me why that verse (John 14:6) only appears in
>> > > > one
>> > > > Gospel (the Gospel of St. John)?
>> > > Yes.
>> > > The same reason that the detailed story of Cleopus and Simon walking
>> > > with LORD Jesus Christ appears only in one of the four gospels (Luke
>> > > 24:13-35)...
>> > > ... the inspiration given by the Holy Spirit is as unique as each of
>> > > the writers are differently made by LORD Almighty GOD.
>> > Matthew, Mark and Luke all record that Simon of Cyrene carried Jesus'
>> > cross for Him.
>> > John has Jesus carry His own cross, and that account seems to have
>> > made the most impact, because most Christians, if asked, will reply
>> > that Jesus carried His own cross without any help.
>> > Why was Simon edited out of John's Gospel?
>> Simon was not edited out of John's account. Instead, Simon was never
>> in John's account.
>
> Correct.
>
>> As soon as John, the disciple whom Jesus loved,
>
> It has never been established who the beloved disciple was.
It was Catto the pissboy.
> Jesus may have had a homosexual relationship with this disciple.
C'mon, Dick. It's too obvious you're the undisputed expert on matters of
homosexuality.
>> beheld that Jesus shouldered the cross on HIS own,
>
> "As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and
> they forced him to carry the cross." - Matthew 27:32
>
> "As they led Jesus] away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on
> his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him
> carry it behind Jesus." - Luke 23:26
>
> "A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus,
> was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to
> carry the cross." - Mark 15:21
>
> "So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went
> out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha)."
> - John 19:17
>
> Neither Matthew, Mark or Luke have Jesus even touch the cross until
> they get to the place of crucifixion. According to the first 3
> Gospels, Simon of Cyrene carries the cross the WHOLE way.
>
> Only ONE Gospel, John, has Jesus carry his own cross (without anyone
> helping him at any point).
What cross do you shoulder, Dick?
>> he left with the women to take another more expeditious route,
>> avoiding the crowds of spectators, to get to Golgotha, the site
>> of the crucifixion in order that they could be at the foot of the
>> cross where Jesus would hang. Otherwise, they would not have
>> been able as a group to get to the foot of Jesus' cross
>> without being separated one from another. And so John did not witness
>> Simon of Cyrene being drafted into carrying Jesus' cross.
>
> None of this description of yours has any basis in scripture.
>
> All John has is that four women and the beloved disciple stood on the
> hill near him.
>
> Fact is, the Church likes the whole scene of Jesus carrying his own
> cross, so that one version is promoted over the other three versions.
> In the Stations of the Cross, Jesus carries his own cross the whole
> way, falling three times, and eventually being helped by Simon of
> Cyrene to carry it. It just fits the image of the suffering Messiah
> better, than having him stroll along while Simon does all the heavy
> lifting.
>
> John is a Gospel apart from the other three (synoptic) Gospels. It was
> written sometime between 90 and 100CE. Authorship is disputed.
These questions can only be answered in death. Do us all a favor, won't ya?
--
"Anybody can have more birthdays; but it takes
balls to get old!"
Jack Baun
"Steve O" <spam...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:5f6q47F...@mid.individual.net...
Jack
jem
wrote:
If there was no time before the fourth day, then how is it called a
day? how was time not a factor? was it three infinities and then a
fourth segment was a "new" creation called a day?
If there was no time before the fourth day, how could it start at the
fourth day with no preceding days? Did god have a problem with
numbers? An almighty dyslexic?
So what day did you decide man was made? 6 or 8? Wasn't this a 7 day
thing? Counting the "rest" day twice?
Why would a god need to rest? That doesn't seem to fit an all powerful
being does it? Infinite power that couldn't work more than 6 days.....
Did the "biblical" speed of light have something to do with the light
showing up three days before the sun was created? Or was that billions
of years before it was created? Was there a temporary sun just for
creation operations before the sun? Does god have one of those
forehead mounted lights like a miner? Maybe a third eye? Doesn't need
light to work?
About other sequence issues, were trees made before or after man?
Birds or man first? Animals first or man first? The bible says both
ways for each of these.
I am thankful for several things, one thing is I don't have to twist
my brain into a broken piece of meat trying to defend the bible.
Got a serious answer for any of my questions?
Just to be sure, I won't hold my breath.....
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > neighbor Richard Catto wrote:
> > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > > neighbor Richard Catto wrote:
> > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > > > > > "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." -- LORD Jesus Christ
Amen
> > > > > Could you explain to me why that verse (John 14:6) only appears in one
> > > > > Gospel (the Gospel of St. John)?
> > > > Yes.
> > > > The same reason that the detailed story of Cleopus and Simon walking
> > > > with LORD Jesus Christ appears only in one of the four gospels (Luke
> > > > 24:13-35)...
> > > > ... the inspiration given by the Holy Spirit is as unique as each of
> > > > the writers are differently made by LORD Almighty GOD.
>
> > > Matthew, Mark and Luke all record that Simon of Cyrene carried Jesus'
> > > cross for Him.
> > > John has Jesus carry His own cross, and that account seems to have
> > > made the most impact, because most Christians, if asked, will reply
> > > that Jesus carried His own cross without any help.
> > > Why was Simon edited out of John's Gospel?
>
> > Simon was not edited out of John's account. Instead, Simon was never
> > in John's account.
>
> Correct.
GOD remains the Source of all righteousness.
To HIM belongs all the glory here.
> > As soon as John, the disciple whom Jesus loved,
>
> It has never been established who the beloved disciple was.
In the Holy Spirit, I know that John is the "disciple whom Jesus
loved."
> Jesus may have had a homosexual relationship with this disciple.
If that were true, HE would not be without sin.
Bottomline:
You are untruthful.
> > beheld that Jesus shouldered the cross on HIS own,
>
> "As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and
> they forced him to carry the cross." - Matthew 27:32
Correct. Jesus carried the cross to the outskirts of Jerusalem.
> "As they led Jesus] away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on
> his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him
> carry it behind Jesus." - Luke 23:26
Correct. Simon was seized just as they reached the outskirts of
Jerusalem.
> "A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus,
> was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to
> carry the cross." - Mark 15:21
Correct. Simon was forced to carry the cross for Jesus.
> "So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went
> out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha)."
> - John 19:17
Correct. Jesus carried his own cross to the outskirts of Jerusalem.
> Neither Matthew, Mark or Luke have Jesus even touch the cross until
> they get to the place of crucifixion.
See the above Spirit-guided exegesis of each of the verses.
> According to the first 3
> Gospels, Simon of Cyrene carries the cross the WHOLE way.
Not for the discerning.
> Only ONE Gospel, John, has Jesus carry his own cross (without anyone
> helping him at any point).
See the following Spirit-guided exegesis of Scripture.
> > he left with the women to take another more expeditious route,
> > avoiding the crowds of spectators, to get to Golgotha, the site
> > of the crucifixion in order that they could be at the foot of the
> > cross where Jesus would hang. Otherwise, they would not have
> > been able as a group to get to the foot of Jesus' cross
> > without being separated one from another. And so John did not witness
> > Simon of Cyrene being drafted into carrying Jesus' cross.
>
> None of this description of yours has any basis in scripture.
Those with discerning hearts will see the basis in Scripture for what
the Holy Spirit has guided me to write.
> All John has is that four women and the beloved disciple stood on the
> hill near him.
>
> Fact is, the Church likes the whole scene of Jesus carrying his own
> cross, so that one version is promoted over the other three versions.
> In the Stations of the Cross, Jesus carries his own cross the whole
> way, falling three times, and eventually being helped by Simon of
> Cyrene to carry it. It just fits the image of the suffering Messiah
> better, than having him stroll along while Simon does all the heavy
> lifting.
It remains my choice to refrain from being religious:
http://abchung.livejournal.com/1176.html?thread=10136#t10136
> John is a Gospel apart from the other three (synoptic) Gospels. It was
> written sometime between 90 and 100CE. Authorship is disputed.
Not by the discerning.
flyingrat
heart...@emorycardiology.com says...
> See the above Spirit-guided exegesis of each of the verses.
as he is issuing new commandments and rewriting the Bible, does that not
mean Chung is again
setting himself up as a prophet? The messenger of God?
"But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not
commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods,
must be put to death."
"You may say to yourselves, 'How can we know when a message has not
been spoken by the Lord?' If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the
Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has
not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of
him" (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NIV).
So as Chung prophesied earthquakes, nuclear wars, the destruction of
Tehran (complete with dates) and the rest, that qualifies him firmly as
a false prophet. No doubt his St Chung the Baptist fantasy will continue
unabated.
FR
Sylvia
Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 14:26:42 GMT, "Kurt Gavin" <bugg...@s.com> wrote:
.
> >If some all knowing god wrote the bible, or even just inspired it,
> >why is there no mention of dinosaurs, or microbes, or the scale of
> >the universe, or numerous other things that would be known to a
> >"god", but were not known to PEOPLE 2000 to 3000 years ago?
.
> God figured people weren't ready for that information.
SOME GOD: "Golly, should I let people know about microbes or simply
allow them to watch their children die needlessly?"
ARCHANGEL: "You didn't tell the dinosaurs about that comet, and look
what happened to them. Perhaps if you--"
SOME GOD: "How dare you presume to question me? And, where's that
martini I ordered? Yer supposed to be fallin' all over yerself to serve
me!"
ARCHANGEL: "Hello? You just asked if you should--"
SOME GOD: "That's it! Yer outta here! You wanna be charge, Suggestion
Boy? You can be in charge of the Underground!, so Go To Hell! BWAH HA
HA HA! I crack me up! Guards! Strip Lucifer of his halo (and order
pad) and escort him off the clouds! He'll never get a server's job in
*this* town again! "
*** Six months later, during an interview with Forbes: ***
EX-ARCHANGEL LUCIFER: "So, anyway, after the shock wore off I decided
to view that whole ugly episode as an opportunity. I thought, "Hey!
Better to Reign in Hell, than serve in heaven, right?" <deep chortle!>
Well, after the hugely successful opening of my *first* "Hot Springs
Spa" (motto: "Come on in for Warm, Satiny Skin by Satan) I was able to
take that thought to the bank!
"I mean, up *there* I was on my feet all day slavin' away for someone
who didn't even have the courtesy to consider my ideas, and I didn't as
much as have a 401K up, let alone a decent salary. Now, as Owner and
Reigning CEO of Hell, Inc, I see proof every quarter that my ideas ARE
valid, *and* I'm allowed to pack away forty-five thousand into my
SEP-IRA every year.
"Meanwhile, the Pearly Gate Scandal's caused the SEC's to launch that
investigation and Mr. "BWAH HA HA HA!"'s stock's gone ENRON. Neener."
> Barry
> =====
> Home page
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
> I do not represent atheists or atheism
You better not be an attorney,'cause that's illegal.
--
Sylvia <--- Supreme Ruler of MW & a Petite Peep
"Two foot tall, yet rules them all! Less is more!"
Sylvia
> Barry OGrady goes:
, "Kurt Gavin" <bugg...@s.com> wrote:
.
> >>If some all knowing god wrote the bible, or even just inspired it,
> >>why is there no mention of dinosaurs, or microbes, or the scale of
> >>the universe, or numerous other things that would be known to a
> >>"god", but were not known to PEOPLE 2000 to 3000 years ago?
.
> >God figured people weren't ready for that information.
.
> Oh right, but they were ready to be told they were made out of some
> dirt by a spirit in the sky.
LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! Not *all*.
*Some* were ready to be told they were made out of an old excised bit of
some dude's thoracic cage by a spirit in the sky.
> I know which of those would blow my mind.
<considering>
Hmmm... dirt or surgery room discard...
'K, either way, I'm not seein' a whole lotta respect for people here.
It's like bein' told yer some kid's second grade science fair project
wot he whipped up the day before from whatever he could scrounge up from
a biohazard waste dump.
"So you know that when you die
He's gonna recommend you
To the spirit in the sky" [1]
Not that I had any intention of applyin'...
--
Sylvia <---- the Supreme Ruler of MW and No One's Rib!
[1] Norman Greenbaum, "Spirit in the Sky"
--
Sylvia <--- Supreme Ruler of MW & a Petite Peep
"All power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat though."
Hatt...@gmail.com
> In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD said...
>
>
>
> > Pastorio.
>
> You *killed* Bob! You and that Holy Ghost mureded him! Bob's blood is on
>
> Say - does a ghost havehands?
>
Spengler.
Hatter
Josh Hill
>If there was no time before the fourth day, then how is it called a
>day? how was time not a factor? was it three infinities and then a
>fourth segment was a "new" creation called a day?
>If there was no time before the fourth day, how could it start at the
>fourth day with no preceding days? Did god have a problem with
>numbers? An almighty dyslexic?
>So what day did you decide man was made? 6 or 8? Wasn't this a 7 day
>thing? Counting the "rest" day twice?
>Why would a god need to rest? That doesn't seem to fit an all powerful
>being does it? Infinite power that couldn't work more than 6 days.....
>Did the "biblical" speed of light have something to do with the light
>showing up three days before the sun was created? Or was that billions
>of years before it was created? Was there a temporary sun just for
>creation operations before the sun? Does god have one of those
>forehead mounted lights like a miner? Maybe a third eye? Doesn't need
>light to work?
>About other sequence issues, were trees made before or after man?
>Birds or man first? Animals first or man first? The bible says both
>ways for each of these.
>
>I am thankful for several things, one thing is I don't have to twist
>my brain into a broken piece of meat trying to defend the bible.
>
>Got a serious answer for any of my questions?
>
>Just to be sure, I won't hold my breath.....
Well, /that's/ easy -- God made trees and then man, and then Adam and
eve chopped the trees down and made a gazebo, so God had to make them
all over again.
--
Josh
"Vista is at best mildly annoying and at worst makes you want
to rush to Redmond, Washington and rip somebody's liver out."
- Stephen Manes
Ferd Farkel
And the Source of your Tragic Sickness.
> Correct. Jesus carried the cross to the outskirts of Jerusalem.
It was a telephone pole. He heisted it for the copper.
Richard Catto
> > It has never been established who the beloved disciple was.
> In the Holy Spirit, I know that John is the "disciple whom Jesus
> loved."
Okay, but in this exercise you are being asked to engage your
intellect. Feelings and hunches can guide us to truth, but we must
always take care to confirm them, lest we discover ourselves to be led
down a blind alley.
So, although many suspect that John was the beloved disciple, it has
never actually been discovered who he was.
Some have expressed the opinion that God wished it to be that way.
> > Jesus may have had a homosexual relationship with this disciple.
> If that were true, HE would not be without sin.
You are assuming that homosexuality is a sin.
However, Jesus never said one thing about homosexuality. Neither for,
nor against. He never addressed the topic.
> Bottomline:
> You are untruthful.
No, I am truthful. You can trust me not to wish to mislead you in
anyway.
> > > beheld that Jesus shouldered the cross on HIS own,
> > "As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and
> > they forced him to carry the cross." - Matthew 27:32
> Correct. Jesus carried the cross to the outskirts of Jerusalem.
Matthew does not state that he carried it. It is possible that he was
carrying it "as they were going out", but Matthew omits to clarify
that.
> > "As they led [Jesus] away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on
> > his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him
> > carry it behind Jesus." - Luke 23:26
> Correct. Simon was seized just as they reached the outskirts of
> Jerusalem.
Okay, but Luke's account uses clearer language. "Leading him away"
suggests that he was not carrying his cross, but was walking
unencumbered.
> > "A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus,
> > was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to
> > carry the cross." - Mark 15:21
> Correct. Simon was forced to carry the cross for Jesus.
>From these three accounts, it seems clear that right from the start,
the Roman soldiers could tell that Jesus was in no fit state to carry
his own cross.
They may have tried putting it on him and seen him collapse under it.
What is unambiguous is that Simon carried the cross on his own for the
entire journey. Jesus was not helped, nor did Jesus carry it. Simon
did.
> > "So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went
> > out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha)."
> > - John 19:17
> Correct. Jesus carried his own cross to the outskirts of Jerusalem.
I think John's Gospel got it wrong. The above verse implies that Jesus
carried his own cross unaided the entire way to the top of the hill.
I think it's worse than that. I think John was written by someone who
was not eyewitness to the events he writes about (whilst pretending
that he was). I think the author deliberately put words in Jesus'
mouth and had Jesus saying things in the Gospel of John that he says
nowhere else.
I think that anything written in John which is not confirmed by at
least one other Gospel is unreliable.
> > Neither Matthew, Mark nor Luke have Jesus even touch the cross until
> > they get to the place of crucifixion.
> See the above Spirit-guided exegesis of each of the verses.
I need you to understand something very elemental.
If in four books, a cat is mentioned and it is said to be white in
three of them and black in the fourth, then you have a serious problem
with at least one of the books.
What you are attempting to do to resolve the issue is to say that the
cat is both black and white at the same time, and although one can
have a cat which has both black and white patches, anyone describing
such a cat would mention that it was both black and white, not choose
just one colour to mention.
So what we have in the Gospels is a serious problem. Three of them say
that Simon carried Jesus' cross the whole way. One of them says that
Jesus carried his own cross the whole way and never mentions any
helper.
However you cut it, there is an error there. Perhaps minor, perhaps
major depending on how much importance you place on the books of the
Bible being totally error free.
> > According to the first 3
> > Gospels, Simon of Cyrene carries the cross the WHOLE way.
> Not for the discerning.
Three Gospels say that Simon carried the cross. They do not say Jesus
carried it, even for a metre. They were all completely specific and
emphatic that Simon of Cyrene carried the cross.
The greatest irony is that if you asked a group of Christians who
carried Jesus' cross, most would say that he carried it himself the
whole way.
> > Only ONE Gospel, John, has Jesus carry his own cross (without anyone
> > helping him at any point).
> See the following Spirit-guided exegesis of Scripture.
Andrew, if you are going to start re-interpreting what is written and
start speculating how to resolve the mismatch, then you will start
walking a very meandering path.
One such theory has it that Simon was mistaken for Jesus and crucified
in his stead.
How the person arrived at that fantastic idea is by simply letting
their imagination run riot instead of restricting themselves to what
is written.
> > > he left with the women to take another more expeditious route,
> > > avoiding the crowds of spectators, to get to Golgotha, the site
> > > of the crucifixion in order that they could be at the foot of the
> > > cross where Jesus would hang. Otherwise, they would not have
> > > been able as a group to get to the foot of Jesus' cross
> > > without being separated one from another. And so John did not witness
> > > Simon of Cyrene being drafted into carrying Jesus' cross.
> > None of this description of yours has any basis in scripture.
> Those with discerning hearts will see the basis in Scripture for what
> the Holy Spirit has guided me to write.
You can't allow yourself the freedom to make up events as you see fit,
because you will merely be concocting an ever more distorted view of
what is said to have taken place.
> > John is a Gospel apart from the other three (synoptic) Gospels. It was
> > written sometime between 90 and 100CE. Authorship is disputed.
> Not by the discerning.
Whoever wrote it, it is problematic.
Michelle Malkin
<chung.i...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.20f8a01ea...@news.readfreenews.net...
> In article <1183747920.5...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> heart...@emorycardiology.com says...
>> See the above Spirit-guided exegesis of each of the verses.
>
> as he is issuing new commandments and rewriting the Bible, does that not
> mean Chung is again
> setting himself up as a prophet? The messenger of God?
Chung can write? Go know. The only place he will
ever set himself up as a prophet is in his rancid
imagination.
>
> "But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not
> commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods,
> must be put to death."
>
> "You may say to yourselves, 'How can we know when a message has not
> been spoken by the Lord?' If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the
> Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has
> not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of
> him" (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NIV).
>
> So as Chung prophesied earthquakes, nuclear wars, the destruction of
> Tehran (complete with dates) and the rest, that qualifies him firmly as
> a false prophet. No doubt his St Chung the Baptist fantasy will continue
> unabated.
Your bible quotes mean nothing. Chung is insane.
And, he manifests his insanity through his religious
beliefs.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
When fascism comes to America, it will be
wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross -
Sinclair Lewis
Michelle Malkin
They're starting to sound like a comedy team.
A repetitious comedy teams.
Denis Loubet
"You Think" <ut_...@yahoo.uk> wrote in message
news:12iavn....@news.alt.net...
>> "Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:7j6r83hnh8p4ur4v9...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 28 May 2007 14:26:42 GMT, "Kurt Gavin" <bugg...@s.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>If some all knowing god wrote the bible, or even just inspired it, why
>>>>is
>>>>there no mention of dinosaurs, or microbes, or the scale of the
>>>>universe, or
>>>>numerous other things that would be known to a "god", but were not known
>>>>to
>>>>PEOPLE 2000 to 3000 years ago?
>>>
>>> God figured people weren't ready for that information.
>>
>> Why?
>
>
> . The Ten Commandments
If you can't answer the question, just say so.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit boldly wrote:
>
> > > > As soon as John, the disciple whom Jesus loved,
>
> > > It has never been established who the beloved disciple was.
>
> > In the Holy Spirit, I know that John is the "disciple whom Jesus
> > loved."
>
> Okay, but in this exercise you are being asked to engage your
> intellect.
Where there is no intellect, there is no understanding.
"This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them
down. WE know that
his testimony is true." -- John in the Holy Spirit (John 21:24)
Amen.
> Feelings and hunches can guide us to truth, but we must
> always take care to confirm them, lest we discover ourselves to be led
> down a blind alley.
The Holy Spirit does not lead folks to a blind alley.
Only HE can make hearts discerning to know the truth, Who is LORD
Jesus Christ.
> So, although many suspect that John was the beloved disciple, it has
> never actually been discovered who he was.
The discerning know that John is "the disciple whom Jesus loved."
> Some have expressed the opinion that God wished it to be that way.
The brethren of LORD Jesus Christ are chosen and so their hearts are
made discerning by the Holy Spirit.
> > > Jesus may have had a homosexual relationship with this disciple.
>
> > If that were true, HE would not be without sin.
>
> You are assuming that homosexuality is a sin.
In the Holy Spirit, I know that homosexual behavior is sin.
> However, Jesus never said one thing about homosexuality.
"...do not commit adultery..." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Matthew 19:18)
> Neither for, nor against. He never addressed the topic.
See above.
> > Bottomline: You are untruthful.
>
> No, I am truthful.
Not to the discerning.
> You can trust me not to wish to mislead you in anyway.
And, yet you are misleading and untruthful.
Without the LORD, it will always be the spirit of error that guides
you.
> > > > beheld that Jesus shouldered the cross on HIS own,
>
> > > "As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and
> > > they forced him to carry the cross." - Matthew 27:32
>
> > Correct. Jesus carried the cross to the outskirts of Jerusalem.
>
> Matthew does not state that he carried it. It is possible that he was
> carrying it "as they were going out", but Matthew omits to clarify
> that.
"... with GOD all things are possible." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Matthew
19:26).
Amen.
And so from Jesus' words, in the Holy Spirit, I know that Jesus
carried the cross to the ourskirts of Jerusalem. If there had been
someone else, this would have been described in all four gospels.
> > > "As they led [Jesus] away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on
> > > his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him
> > > carry it behind Jesus." - Luke 23:26
>
> > Correct. Simon was seized just as they reached the outskirts of
> > Jerusalem.
>
> Okay, but Luke's account uses clearer language. "Leading him away"
> suggests that he was not carrying his cross, but was walking
> unencumbered.
Incorrect.
An encumbered person can be led as easily as an unencumbered person.
"...lead you where you do not want to go." -- LORD Jesus Christ
speaking to Peter about a Peter encumbered with age (21:18).
Amen.
"Two other men, both criminals were also led out with HIM to be
executed." (Luke 23:32)
Clearly, the thieves carrying their own crosses were being led too.
Applying your flawed logic would have you falsely believe that others
were drafted to carry the thieves' crosses too.
> > > "A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus,
> > > was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to
> > > carry the cross." - Mark 15:21
>
> > Correct. Simon was forced to carry the cross for Jesus.
>
> From these three accounts, it seems clear that right from the start,
> the Roman soldiers could tell that Jesus was in no fit state to carry
> his own cross.
Incorrect.
GOD compelled the Roman soldiers to unwittingly free HIS Son of the
burden of carrying the cross so that HIS message would be clearer when
HE was free to turn to them:
"Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and
for your children. For the time will come when you will say,
'Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the
breasts that never nursed!'
Then they will say to the mountains, 'Fall on us!' and to the hills,
'Cover us!'
For if men do these things when the tree is green,
what will happen when it is dry?" -- LORD Jesus Christ to onlookers
(Luke 23:28-31)
Amen.
> They may have tried putting it on him and seen him collapse under it.
Incorrect.
See above.
> What is unambiguous is that Simon carried the cross on his own for the
> entire journey.
Incorrect.
It is clear from this Spirit-guided exegesis of Scripture that Jesus
carried HIS own cross to the outskirts of Jerusalem and that the
reason why Simon was drafted to carry Jesus' cross the rest of the way
was so that Jesus could preach to on-lookers.
> Jesus was not helped, nor did Jesus carry it.
Again, incorrect.
Jesus did carry HIS own cross to the outskirts of Jerusalem as
witnessed by John.
> Simon did.
Incorrect. Simon was not drafted until Jesus reached the outskirts of
Jerusalem as described in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
>
> > > "So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went
> > > out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha)."
> > > - John 19:17
>
> > Correct. Jesus carried his own cross to the outskirts of Jerusalem.
>
> I think John's Gospel got it wrong.
Without the LORD, what you think is meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
> The above verse implies that Jesus
> carried his own cross unaided the entire way to the top of the hill.
Not for the discerning:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/discern.asp
> I think it's worse than that. I think John was written by someone who
> was not eyewitness to the events he writes about (whilst pretending
> that he was). I think the author deliberately put words in Jesus'
> mouth and had Jesus saying things in the Gospel of John that he says
> nowhere else.
>
> I think that anything written in John which is not confirmed by at
> least one other Gospel is unreliable.
Again, without the LORD, what you think remains meaningless
(Ecclesiastes).
> > > Neither Matthew, Mark nor Luke have Jesus even touch the cross until
> > > they get to the place of crucifixion.
>
> > See the above Spirit-guided exegesis of each of the verses.
>
> I need you to understand something very elemental.
>
> If in four books, a cat is mentioned and it is said to be white in
> three of them and black in the fourth, then you have a serious problem
> with at least one of the books.
>
> What you are attempting to do to resolve the issue is to say that the
> cat is both black and white at the same time, and although one can
> have a cat which has both black and white patches, anyone describing
> such a cat would mention that it was both black and white, not choose
> just one colour to mention.
A person can have only seen the side of the cat that is black whereas
the others have seen the side that is white.
> So what we have in the Gospels is a serious problem. Three of them say
> that Simon carried Jesus' cross the whole way.
Incorrect. See above.
> One of them says that
> Jesus carried his own cross the whole way and never mentions any
> helper.
Again, incorrect. See above.
> However you cut it, there is an error there. Perhaps minor, perhaps
> major depending on how much importance you place on the books of the
> Bible being totally error free.
The Bible remains completely truthful.
Those reading the Bible with the guidance of the Holy Spirit learn
from it without error.
You, on the other hand, are guided by the spirit of error, so that all
you will get is error.
> > > According to the first 3
> > > Gospels, Simon of Cyrene carries the cross the WHOLE way.
>
> > Not for the discerning.
>
> Three Gospels say that Simon carried the cross. They do not say Jesus
> carried it, even for a metre. They were all completely specific and
> emphatic that Simon of Cyrene carried the cross.
Incorrect. See above.
> The greatest irony is that if you asked a group of Christians who
> carried Jesus' cross, most would say that he carried it himself the
> whole way.
Many Christians are not guided by the Holy Spirit.
Only those without satan's lies in their hearts are receiving the
guidance of the Spirit of Truth, Who is the Holy Spirit:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/press.asp
> > > Only ONE Gospel, John, has Jesus carry his own cross (without anyone
> > > helping him at any point).
>
> > See the following Spirit-guided exegesis of Scripture.
>
> Andrew, if you are going to start re-interpreting what is written and
> start speculating how to resolve the mismatch, then you will start
> walking a very meandering path.
A Spirit-guided exegesis of Scripture is not a re-interpretation of
Scripture.
> One such theory has it that Simon was mistaken for Jesus and crucified
> in his stead.
>
> How the person arrived at that fantastic idea is by simply letting
> their imagination run riot instead of restricting themselves to what
> is written.
The Holy Spirit is not my imagination.
HE is GOD.
> > > > he left with the women to take another more expeditious route,
> > > > avoiding the crowds of spectators, to get to Golgotha, the site
> > > > of the crucifixion in order that they could be at the foot of the
> > > > cross where Jesus would hang. Otherwise, they would not have
> > > > been able as a group to get to the foot of Jesus' cross
> > > > without being separated one from another. And so John did not witness
> > > > Simon of Cyrene being drafted into carrying Jesus' cross.
>
> > > None of this description of yours has any basis in scripture.
>
> > Those with discerning hearts will see the basis in Scripture for what
> > the Holy Spirit has guided me to write.
>
> You can't allow yourself the freedom to make up events as you see fit,
> because you will merely be concocting an ever more distorted view of
> what is said to have taken place.
It remains my choice to continue to die to self daily so that self is
not in the way of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
> > > John is a Gospel apart from the other three (synoptic) Gospels. It was
> > > written sometime between 90 and 100CE. Authorship is disputed.
>
> > Not by the discerning.
>
> Whoever wrote it, it is problematic.
In the Holy Spirit, I know that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" wrote
this 4th Gospel.
The brethren of LORD Jesus Christ are neither perfect nor more
special...
... we are simply forgiven by GOD:
http://www.interviewwithgod.com/forgiven/
May you wisely choose to be forgiven too by publicly confessing with
your mouth that "Jesus is LORD:"
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/TheWay
In the interim, may GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you
healthier (hungrier) than ever.
ur_droll
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >
> > Okay, but in this exercise you are being asked to engage your
> > intellect.
>
>
The first truth I seen ya post
jem
wrote:
AHA!!! god couldn't see them because he was looking from above, and
they were hiding in the gazebo.
So, god can't see through wood. The first cosmic case of not seeing
the forest for the trees.
Or, was god the first tree-hugger? Maybe he was actually focused on
the trees, they were his favored creation. Animals such as humans were
just part of the support system for the trees. Talk about a system out
of control. Bad planning indeed.
If gazebos piss off god, maybe if everybody built one and stayed in it
for a few days, god would get mad and go away, maybe go take the
lessons learned in creating another universe.
If gazebos block his vision, and we all hide in them, he'll get bored
and go away.
Whattya bet the next created universe has nothing bigger than small
shrubbery? Is he smart enough to do that? Or is he destined to fuck
that up all over again?
Hmm, maybe there is a link with his kid smiting the fig tree? "fuck
with my dad- I'll show you ya woody bastid"
Hmm, maybe that's why he's all fucked up with sex too, after all, we
get a "woody" and then go for it....
It's too bad god doesn't exist, I would like to see somebody twist him
in knots with questions, and then watch the divine temper tantrum.
Poetic justice, a reversal of the inquisition. If he doesn't show up
for the interview, then he's either a complete coward or doesn't
exist. Either way, he's useless.
Jack Baun
"Josh Hill" <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d6t839n8qhhq5d2f...@4ax.com...
Richard Catto
> down. WE know that his testimony is true." -- John in the Holy Spirit (John 21:24)
We don't know who wrote the Gospel of St. John.
You can believe it to have been John, as many do.
> > Feelings and hunches can guide us to truth, but we must
> > always take care to confirm them, lest we discover ourselves to be led
> > down a blind alley.
> The Holy Spirit does not lead folks to a blind alley.
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to
see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone
out into the world." - 1 John 4:1
1 John was apparently written by the same author(s) as who wrote the
Gospel of St. John.
"This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that
acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but
every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is
the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even
now is already in the world." - 1 John 4:2-3
Which is pretty much gobbledegook.
You claim that you are led by the Holy Spirit to know the truth. So
what you will do is think about something and thoughts will pop into
your mind. Some of those thoughts you will decide are from the Holy
Spirit giving you guidance. It's impossible to ask what you imagine is
the Holy Spirit to acknowledge for you that Jesus Christ came in the
flesh, and thereby verify that it is in fact the Holy Spirit talking
to you, because your brain will simply manufacture any answer you
like.
To examine scripture, you read what is written. You can also read
encyclopedia references about the scripture you are reading.
But at the end of the day, scripture must stand and fall on its own.
If you think something happened a certain way, then you must find
scripture which states that. You can't infer it, or decide that that
is what happened. Scripture must inform you; you cannot inform
scripture.
If you make an inference, then you can only state it as a possibility,
not a certainty. You cannot claim that the Holy Spirit informed you
and that makes it so. When you do that, you are making pronouncements
that have no scriptural backing.
Does that sound like something the Holy Spirit would lead someone to
do?
> > > > Jesus may have had a homosexual relationship with this disciple.
> > > If that were true, HE would not be without sin.
> > You are assuming that homosexuality is a sin.
> In the Holy Spirit, I know that homosexual behavior is sin.
I'm not convinced by those kinds of statements. I need scripture that
shows this to be the case.
> > However, Jesus never said one thing about homosexuality.
> "...do not commit adultery..." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Matthew 19:18)
Here's a traditional definition of adultery:
"voluntary sexual activity (as sexual intercourse) between a married
man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and
someone other than her husband."
Here's a modern orientation neutral definition:
"Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner
other than the lawful spouse."
Neither defines same-sex relations as adultery per se. At least one of
the couple would have to be married to someone else.
> > Neither for, nor against. He never addressed the topic.
> See above.
There's nothing in any of the Gospels that explicits lists
homosexuality as a sin. People have looked and found nothing.
Read for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_Homosexuality
> > You can trust me not to wish to mislead you in anyway.
> And, yet you are misleading and untruthful.
I haven't distorted anything. I've adhered rigorously to scripture,
adding nothing, subtracting nothing.
> Without the LORD, it will always be the spirit of error that guides you.
You have introduced additional facts not in scripture and presented
them as true facts, allegedly given directly to you by inspiration of
the Holy Spirit. Not so?
> > > > > beheld that Jesus shouldered the cross on HIS own,
> > > > "As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and
> > > > they forced him to carry the cross." - Matthew 27:32
> > > Correct. Jesus carried the cross to the outskirts of Jerusalem.
> > Matthew does not state that he carried it. It is possible that he was
> > carrying it "as they were going out", but Matthew omits to clarify
> > that.
> And so from Jesus' words,
That passage contains no words of Jesus.
> in the Holy Spirit, I know that Jesus carried the cross to the
> ourskirts of Jerusalem.
Well the distance from where they started out to Golgotha was about
640 metres. The distance to the outskirts of Jerusalem was most of the
journey. Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Simon of Cyrene was forced to
carry the cross at the start of their journey, not half a kilometre
down the road.
http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/golgotha.html
So it seems that the Holy Spirit just handed you a completely new
version of what took place.
> If there had been someone else, this would have been described in all four gospels.
The first three Gospels say that Simon of Cyrene was right there at
the start as they set out and was forced to carry the cross to
Golgotha. John says Jesus carried his cross to Golgotha. None of them
mention the outskirts of Jerusalem.
"Then the governor's soldiers took Jesus into the Praetorium and
gathered the whole company of soldiers around him. 28They stripped him
and put a scarlet robe on him, 29and then twisted together a crown of
thorns and set it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand and
knelt in front of him and mocked him. "Hail, king of the Jews!" they
said. 30They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the
head again and again. 31After they had mocked him, they took off the
robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him away to crucify
him. 32As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named
Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross. 33They came to a place
called Golgotha (which means The Place of the Skull)." - Matthew
27:27-33
That's the fuller context of the passage in Matthew 27.
The Roman soldiers took Jesus into the Praetorium. That's their
commander's headquarters. When they were done mocking him they put his
own clothes back on him. They didn't put the cross on him. As they
left the Praetorium they ran into Simon of Cyrene and got him to carry
the cross.
That's what Matthew says happened. Simon was right there at the
beginning. Jesus didn't carry his cross even one pace. Not at any
point did Jesus carry his own cross. Not according to Matthew.
> > > > "As they led [Jesus] away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on
> > > > his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him
> > > > carry it behind Jesus." - Luke 23:26
> > > Correct. Simon was seized just as they reached the outskirts of
> > > Jerusalem.
> > Okay, but Luke's account uses clearer language. "Leading him away"
> > suggests that he was not carrying his cross, but was walking
> > unencumbered.
> Incorrect.
> An encumbered person can be led as easily as an unencumbered person.
Matthew 27 details what the soldiers did to him - dressed him in a
scarlet robe, placed a crown of thorns on his head and a staff in his
hand. Matthew is all about the details. He's telling you what
happened. If the soldiers had put a cross on him, Matthew would have
mentioned it. That's plausible. It's not plausible to decide that
Matthew omitted that detail. Matthew gave us information about the
cross - he told us that Simon of Cyrene got forced to carry it.
> "Two other men, both criminals were also led out with HIM to be
> executed." (Luke 23:32)
> Clearly, the thieves carrying their own crosses were being led too.
"26As they led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his
way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry
it behind Jesus. 27A large number of people followed him, including
women who mourned and wailed for him. 28Jesus turned and said to them,
"Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and
for your children. 29For the time will come when you will say,
'Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the
breasts that never nursed!' 30Then
" 'they will say to the mountains, "Fall on us!"
and to the hills, "Cover us!" '[d] 31For if men do these things
when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?" 32Two other
men, both criminals, were also led out with him to be executed. 33When
they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him,
along with the criminals-one on his right, the other on his left." -
Luke 23:26-33
Luke doesn't say anything about the thieves' crosses. Luke has Simon
of Cyrene carry Jesus cross the whole way. At no time does Luke state
that the cross was put on Jesus.
> Applying your flawed logic would have you falsely believe that others
> were drafted to carry the thieves' crosses too.
We don't have any information on the thieves' crosses. Their crosses
were not considered important details. Jesus' cross was, and we are
told that Simon of Cyrene carried it in Matthew, Mark and Luke.
> > > > "A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus,
> > > > was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to
> > > > carry the cross." - Mark 15:21
> > > Correct. Simon was forced to carry the cross for Jesus.
> > From these three accounts, it seems clear that right from the start,
> > the Roman soldiers could tell that Jesus was in no fit state to carry
> > his own cross.
> Incorrect.
"16The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the
Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. 17They
put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and
set it on him. 18And they began to call out to him, "Hail, king of the
Jews!" 19Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and
spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. 20And
when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his
own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.
21A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and
Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced
him to carry the cross. 22They brought Jesus to the place called
Golgotha (which means The Place of the Skull)." - Mark 15:16-22
Marks agrees with Matthew and Luke's accounts. Simon of Cyrene carried
the cross. Jesus is never said to have carried it even one pace.
> GOD compelled the Roman soldiers to unwittingly free HIS Son of the
> burden of carrying the cross so that HIS message would be clearer when
> HE was free to turn to them:
For whatever reason, the Romans forced Simon to carry the cross.
> > What is unambiguous is that Simon carried the cross on his own for the
> > entire journey.
> Incorrect.
That is what Matthew, Mark and Luke state happened.
> It is clear from this Spirit-guided exegesis of Scripture that Jesus
> carried HIS own cross to the outskirts of Jerusalem and that the
> reason why Simon was drafted to carry Jesus' cross the rest of the way
> was so that Jesus could preach to on-lookers.
None of the Gospels state this version of events. None of them even
mention the phrase "outskirts of Jerusalem".
The Stations of the Cross presents this hybrid version of Jesus
carrying his own cross some of the way before falling for the first
time and then Simon of Cyrene takes over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stations_of_the_Cross
> > Jesus was not helped, nor did Jesus carry it.
> Again, incorrect.
> Jesus did carry HIS own cross to the outskirts of Jerusalem as
> witnessed by John.
"So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. 17Carrying his own cross, he
went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called
Golgotha). 18Here they crucified him, and with him two others-one on
each side and Jesus in the middle." John 19:16-18
John makes no mention of the outskirts of Jerusalem nor of Simon. John
says that Jesus carried his own cross to Golgotha.
Andrew, I think many Christians read the Gospels and notice the
discrepancy and shrug and move on without giving it much further
thought. They most likely consider that there are larger more
important things to think about. And they're right. There are more
important issues.
However, discrepancies need to be resolved, if one is to continue
believing that the Bible is without error. The Church has known about
this discrepancy for a long time and hence the reason for The Stations
of the Cross tradition.
This hybrid version does not resolve the discrepancy for me, because I
can't see how the accounts in the three synoptic Gospels can
accommodate Jesus carrying his cross for even one pace. I feel that it
is implausible that Matthew would have omitted to tell us that Jesus
initially bore his own cross before Simon of Cyrene was forced to take
over.
Since this discrepany defies resolution for me, I have no choice but
to conclude that at least one of the Gospels contain error.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/1cf4eabdfcbf3b68?
>
> > "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them
> > down. WE know that his testimony is true." -- John in the Holy Spirit (John 21:24)
>
> We don't know who wrote the Gospel of St. John.
Though you don't know, others, with hearts made discerning by the Holy
Spirit, know that St. John wrote this Gospel just as he wrote the
Revelation of LORD Jesus Christ.
> You can believe it to have been John, as many do.
In the Holy Spirit, I know that St. John in the Holy Spirit wrote this
4th Gospel.
> > > Feelings and hunches can guide us to truth, but we must
> > > always take care to confirm them, lest we discover ourselves to be led
> > > down a blind alley.
>
> > The Holy Spirit does not lead folks to a blind alley.
>
> "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to
> see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone
> out into the world." - 1 John 4:1
Amen.
> 1 John was apparently written by the same author(s) as who wrote the
> Gospel of St. John.
That would be St. John, son of Zebedee.
In the Holy Spirit, I know that St. John is "the disciple whom Jesus
loved."
> "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that
> acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but
> every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is
> the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even
> now is already in the world." - 1 John 4:2-3
>
> Which is pretty much gobbledegook.
Not for the discerning who know the spirit of error to be the spirit
of the antichrist.
Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for HIS compelling
you to unwittingly demonstrate that the Holy Spirit is absolutely
right to convict you:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you healthier (hungrier)
than ever:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/press.asp
ur_droll
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
>
> Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for HIS compelling
> you to unwittingly demonstrate that the Holy Spirit is absolutely
> right to convict you:
>
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
>
Oh dear!... you got yourself convicted.
I was convicted on my second post
Yer'll see that half of usenet is on his convicted list... a good
indication as to the level of support he enjoys... (just checked his
list and see that I've fallen off... bugger)... He's such a fucking
retard he can't even keep a simple list intact
jem
wrote:
>
Genesis 2
2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and
he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that
in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Sounds like it was nappy time for the tuckered out creator.
Later in the bibble you get the man part huh.
Still, no explanation why an all powerful god needs a day of rest.
I have another question about Genesis, 1
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
"OUR"????
Is this a group of gods or one skitzo, or what? Why plural? Is this
god a singular or multiple entity? Is it a board of creators?
Why not "MY" or "HIS" or "GOD"S" image/likeness?
Is the translation that bad?
Isn't this an important book? Was it outsourced to semi literate
students?
Inquiring doubters wanna know.......
Can ya thinketh of an answer Jack?
Professor Geoffrey Loftus, Saint Swithins Hospital
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> convicted neighbor Richard Catto wrote:
> > We don't know who wrote the Gospel of St. John.
>
> Though you don't know, others, with hearts made discerning by the Holy
> Spirit, know that St. John wrote this Gospel just as he wrote the
> Revelation of LORD Jesus Christ.
I hear he gave good head.
(Rimshot)
Richard Catto
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/1cf4eabdfcbf3b68?
> > > "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them
> > > down. WE know that his testimony is true." -- John in the Holy Spirit (John 21:24)
> > We don't know who wrote the Gospel of St. John.
> Though you don't know, others, with hearts made discerning by the Holy
> Spirit, know that St. John wrote this Gospel just as he wrote the
> Revelation of LORD Jesus Christ.
This is truth: You don't know, you believe.
Believing is not knowing.
> > You can believe it to have been John, as many do.
> In the Holy Spirit, I know that St. John in the Holy Spirit wrote this
> 4th Gospel.
The truth is that that is merely wishful thinking.
You claim that the Holy Spirit is telling you what actually happened
by supplying you with additional information that is not recorded in
any scripture.
Essentially, the Holy Spirit you hear is adding to the words of the
Bible. You are hearing a different Gospel than what is written.
You are being deceived.
> > > > Feelings and hunches can guide us to truth, but we must
> > > > always take care to confirm them, lest we discover ourselves to be led
> > > > down a blind alley.
> > > The Holy Spirit does not lead folks to a blind alley.
> > "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to
> > see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone
> > out into the world." - 1 John 4:1
> Amen.
If you hear something which is not written in the Bible, what is it?
It's your own mind trying to assist you to accept something which is a
logical contradiction because you desire to believe it.
Your mind helps to rationalise the inconsistencies for you.
> > 1 John was apparently written by the same author(s) as who wrote the
> > Gospel of St. John.
> That would be St. John, son of Zebedee.
Read for yourself here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_John
> In the Holy Spirit, I know that St. John is "the disciple whom Jesus
> loved."
Ask the Holy Spirit to tell you whether or not Jesus had a homosexual
relationship with his beloved disciple.
> > "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that
> > acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but
> > every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is
> > the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even
> > now is already in the world." - 1 John 4:2-3
> > Which is pretty much gobbledegook.
> Not for the discerning who know the spirit of error to be the spirit
> of the antichrist.
If God has written the Bible, he would not have contradicted himself.
That is the true test. That is a test you can easily understand and
apply.
The above test is impossible to apply. It is impenetrable, iow, one
cannot make head or tail of it. It has no practical application. It is
designed to deceive.
> Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for HIS compelling
> you to unwittingly demonstrate that the Holy Spirit is absolutely
> right to convict you:
I don't think he has a case.
I have demonstrated an irresolvable contradiction.
The way you have attempted to resolve the issue is by adding words to
the scripture.
Do you think that is the way to correct problems with scripture? Do
you wish to edit scripture?
ur_droll
Heh
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > convicted neighbor Richard Catto wrote:
> > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/1cf4eabdfcbf3b68?
>
> > > > "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them
> > > > down. WE know that his testimony is true." -- John in the Holy Spirit (John 21:24)
>
> > > We don't know who wrote the Gospel of St. John.
>
> > Though you don't know, others, with hearts made discerning by the Holy
> > Spirit, know that St. John wrote this Gospel just as he wrote the
> > Revelation of LORD Jesus Christ.
>
> This is truth: You don't know, you believe.
In the Holy Spirit, there is knowledge that transcends belief.
> Believing is not knowing.
Knowing transcends believing.
> > > You can believe it to have been John, as many do.
>
> > In the Holy Spirit, I know that St. John in the Holy Spirit wrote this
> > 4th Gospel.
>
> The truth is that that is merely wishful thinking.
Without the LORD, your beliefs are meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
> You claim that the Holy Spirit is telling you what actually happened
> by supplying you with additional information that is not recorded in
> any scripture.
In the Holy Spirit, the discerning become witnesses to the actual
event rather than being told anything.
> Essentially, the Holy Spirit you hear is adding to the words of the
> Bible.
Exegesis is not adding words to the Bible but the opening up of
Scripture for those with discerning hearts.
> You are hearing a different Gospel than what is written.
In the Holy Spirit, there is witnessing rather than hearing.
> You are being deceived.
The Holy Spirit does not deceive.
> > > > > Feelings and hunches can guide us to truth, but we must
> > > > > always take care to confirm them, lest we discover ourselves to be led
> > > > > down a blind alley.
>
> > > > The Holy Spirit does not lead folks to a blind alley.
>
> > > "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to
> > > see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone
> > > out into the world." - 1 John 4:1
>
> > Amen.
>
> If you hear something which is not written in the Bible, what is it?
In the Holy Spirit, the discerning witness firsthand the events
described in the Bible.
> It's your own mind trying to assist you to accept something which is a
> logical contradiction because you desire to believe it.
You remind me of the blind man who would attempt to feign vision by
pretending to describe what is in front of the seeing...
> Your mind helps to rationalise the inconsistencies for you.
... and then trying to explain how the eyes of the seeing work.
> > > 1 John was apparently written by the same author(s) as who wrote the
> > > Gospel of St. John.
>
> > That would be St. John, son of Zebedee.
>
> Read for yourself here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_John
No thanks.
> > In the Holy Spirit, I know that St. John is "the disciple whom Jesus
> > loved."
>
> Ask the Holy Spirit to tell you whether or not Jesus had a homosexual
> relationship with his beloved disciple.
In the Holy Spirit, I know that Jesus is without sin.
> > > "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that
> > > acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but
> > > every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is
> > > the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even
> > > now is already in the world." - 1 John 4:2-3
> > > Which is pretty much gobbledegook.
>
> > Not for the discerning who know the spirit of error to be the spirit
> > of the antichrist.
>
> If God has written the Bible, he would not have contradicted himself.
GOD inspired men to write the Bible in a manner that is inscrutable
for those whose hearts have not be made discerning by the Holy Spirit.
> That is the true test. That is a test you can easily understand and
> apply.
You remind me of the blind man who would feign vision by pretending to
test the vision of the seeing.
> The above test is impossible to apply. It is impenetrable, iow, one
> cannot make head or tail of it. It has no practical application. It is
> designed to deceive.
As if the blind are deceived about the existence of stars.
> > Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for HIS compelling
> > you to unwittingly demonstrate that the Holy Spirit is absolutely
> > right to convict you:
>
> I don't think he has a case.
HE has the power.
> I have demonstrated an irresolvable contradiction.
Without the LORD, you fantasies are meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
> The way you have attempted to resolve the issue is by adding words to
> the scripture.
Exegesis is not the adding of words to Scripture.
> Do you think that is the way to correct problems with scripture? Do
> you wish to edit scripture?
Exegesis is not the editing of Scripture but rather the opening up of
Scripture for the discerning.
May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you healthier (hungrier)
than ever.
Free Lunch
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@emorycardiology.com> wrote in
<1183862814.0...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>:
>convicted neighbor Richard Catto wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> > convicted neighbor Richard Catto wrote:
>> > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>
>> > > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/1cf4eabdfcbf3b68?
>>
>> > > > "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them
>> > > > down. WE know that his testimony is true." -- John in the Holy Spirit (John 21:24)
>>
>> > > We don't know who wrote the Gospel of St. John.
>>
>> > Though you don't know, others, with hearts made discerning by the Holy
>> > Spirit, know that St. John wrote this Gospel just as he wrote the
>> > Revelation of LORD Jesus Christ.
>>
>> This is truth: You don't know, you believe.
>
>In the Holy Spirit, there is knowledge that transcends belief.
You don't get to redefine words. You demonstrate that you are a liar by
attempting to do so.
>
>> Believing is not knowing.
>
>Knowing transcends believing.
But you don't know, you claim to know but have no evidence to support
your claim.
...
--
"... There's glory for you."
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiles contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till
I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But glory doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice "whether you can make words mean so
many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's
all."
Josh Hill
>
>Genesis 2
> 2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and
>he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
>
> 3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that
>in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
>
>Sounds like it was nappy time for the tuckered out creator.
>Later in the bibble you get the man part huh.
>
>Still, no explanation why an all powerful god needs a day of rest.
>
>I have another question about Genesis, 1
>26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
>let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
>the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
>creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
>
>"OUR"????
>Is this a group of gods or one skitzo, or what? Why plural? Is this
>god a singular or multiple entity? Is it a board of creators?
>Why not "MY" or "HIS" or "GOD"S" image/likeness?
>
>Is the translation that bad?
>Isn't this an important book? Was it outsourced to semi literate
>students?
>Inquiring doubters wanna know.......
>Can ya thinketh of an answer Jack?
A professor of mine told us, way, way back when, that the use of the
plural in Genesis is a revenant of polytheism.
--
Josh
Velvet Elvis
<and...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
>You remind me of the blind man who would attempt to feign vision by
>pretending to describe what is in front of the seeing...
"A metaphysician is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat
that isn't there, and a theologian is one who finds the cat."
Richard Catto
> convicted neighbor Richard Catto wrote:
> > > > > "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them
> > > > > down. WE know that his testimony is true." -- John in the Holy Spirit (John 21:24)
> > > > We don't know who wrote the Gospel of St. John.
> > > Though you don't know, others, with hearts made discerning by the Holy
> > > Spirit, know that St. John wrote this Gospel just as he wrote the
> > > Revelation of LORD Jesus Christ.
> > This is truth: You don't know, you believe.
> In the Holy Spirit, there is knowledge that transcends belief.
Andrew, this is not a Christian belief.
If you think it is, please provide scripture to back this up.
Have you discussed your ideas about the Holy Spirit with fellow
Christians and your pastor in the fellowship you belong to?
> > Believing is not knowing.
> Knowing transcends believing.
Well, yes. If you know something, you don't need to suspect it or
believe it to be so - you know it to be so!
Knowing something requires proof, though. If you don't have proof,
then you have to content yourself with believing it to be so.
> > You claim that the Holy Spirit is telling you what actually happened
> > by supplying you with additional information that is not recorded in
> > any scripture.
> In the Holy Spirit, the discerning become witnesses to the actual
> event rather than being told anything.
Andrew, you cannot witness something that took place about 2000 years
ago.
The Holy Spirit does not transport you back in time in reality such
that the dust clings to your feet, the camel dung fills your nostrils
and beads of sweat form on your brow from the heat of a Sun 2000 years
ago.
Unless you have some scripture that says that that is what the Holy
Spirit does, you have no basis for this assertion other than your own
fanciful thinking.
You really ought to discuss your ideas with your pastor, who I hope
will guide you onto the right path.
> > Essentially, the Holy Spirit you hear is adding to the words of the
> > Bible.
> Exegesis is not adding words to the Bible but the opening up of
> Scripture for those with discerning hearts.
Andrew, here are some dictionary definitions of exegesis:
"critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a
text, esp. of the Bible."
"An exegesis is the interpretation and understanding of a text on the
basis of the text itself."
In other words, Andrew, what I gave you was an exegesis because I
rigorously adhered to the text and the text alone.
You, on the other hand, introducted the idea of a "Holy Spirit guided
exegesis" which meant that you were free to add words, such as
"outskirts of Jerusalem" to the text, which appears in none of the
Gospel accounts of Jesus' walk to Golgotha.
There is in fact a word already for what you did. It is called
eisegesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis
"Eisegesis is the process of interpretation of an existing text in
such a way as to introduce one's own ideas."
> > You are hearing a different Gospel than what is written.
> In the Holy Spirit, there is witnessing rather than hearing.
Provide scripture to back this up please. I have never heard of this
concept before.
> > You are being deceived.
> The Holy Spirit does not deceive.
Apparently not. And yet here you are, trying to sell me a story that
is unbiblical, claiming that the Holy Spirit gave it to you.
Your eisegesis is actually very similar to the Roman Catholic Church's
invented hybrid crucifixion story (The Stations of the Cross).
Are you a Roman Catholic?
> > > > > > Feelings and hunches can guide us to truth, but we must
> > > > > > always take care to confirm them, lest we discover ourselves to be led
> > > > > > down a blind alley.
> > > > > The Holy Spirit does not lead folks to a blind alley.
> > > > "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to
> > > > see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone
> > > > out into the world." - 1 John 4:1
> > > Amen.
> > If you hear something which is not written in the Bible, what is it?
> In the Holy Spirit, the discerning witness firsthand the events
> described in the Bible.
You need to provide scripture to back this up.
In order for you to witness something firsthand, you have to be there
at the time it happened.
If you were not present at the time it happened, you are not a
witness.
If you feel the Holy Spirit told you what happened, that still does
not make you a witness to the actual event.
> > > In the Holy Spirit, I know that St. John is "the disciple whom Jesus
> > > loved."
> > Ask the Holy Spirit to tell you whether or not Jesus had a homosexual
> > relationship with his beloved disciple.
> In the Holy Spirit, I know that Jesus is without sin.
That was not the question. Ask the Holy Spirit whether Jesus had a
homosexual relationship with his beloved disciple.
Are you afraid of the answer?
> > > > "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that
> > > > acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but
> > > > every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is
> > > > the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even
> > > > now is already in the world." - 1 John 4:2-3
> > > > Which is pretty much gobbledegook.
> > > Not for the discerning who know the spirit of error to be the spirit
> > > of the antichrist.
> > If God has written the Bible, he would not have contradicted himself.
> GOD inspired men to write the Bible in a manner that is inscrutable
> for those whose hearts have not be made discerning by the Holy Spirit.
dictionary definition of inscrutable:
"incapable of being investigated, analyzed, or scrutinized;
impenetrable."
This does not describe the passages in the Gospels we have been
discussing. There was nothing difficult to understand there. All four
passages were simple straightforward accounts of what happened.
The problem is that three are in agreement, whereas the fourth says
something that directly contradicts the other three and despite
careful analysis of the accounts, defies resolution.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
May reading the following give you understanding:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/76c0d6d2aa5eed2f
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/3fa4ecde07979a5a
Once you have understanding, what the Holy Spirit has guided me to
write earlier will be sufficient:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9ccd75a71cc26dfa?
Otherwise, you would be wise to read the book, "Be Hungry:"
http://HeartMDPhD.com/press.asp
Be hungry... be healthy... be blessed.
Professor Geoffrey Loftus, Saint Swithins Hospital
<and...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> convicted neighbor Richard Catto wrote:
>
>
>
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > convicted neighbor Richard Catto wrote:
> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/1cf4eabdfcbf3b68?
>
> > > > > "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them
> > > > > down. WE know that his testimony is true." -- John in the Holy Spirit (John 21:24)
>
> > > > We don't know who wrote the Gospel of St. John.
>
> > > Though you don't know, others, with hearts made discerning by the Holy
> > > Spirit, know that St. John wrote this Gospel just as he wrote the
> > > Revelation of LORD Jesus Christ.
>
> > This is truth: You don't know, you believe.
>
> In the Holy Spirit, there is knowledge that transcends belief.
>
> > Believing is not knowing.
>
> Knowing transcends believing.
Believing is lying to yourself.
Professor Geoffrey Loftus, Saint Swithins Hospital
A merciful god would euthanize you like an ailing housepet.
jem
wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 22:11:27 +0200, jem <A005...@airmail.net> wrote:
Sounds like a sensible answer to me.
I'm guessing that a bible thumper(the American fundy type especially)
would not like that answer.
thumpus biblicanus americansis, be a good day when that is only in
museums....
Richard Catto
> >>I have another question about Genesis, 1
> >>26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
> >>let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
> >>the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
> >>creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
> >>"OUR"????
> >>Is this a group of gods or one skitzo, or what? Why plural? Is this
> >>god a singular or multiple entity? Is it a board of creators?
> >>Why not "MY" or "HIS" or "GOD"S" image/likeness?
> >>Is the translation that bad?
> >>Isn't this an important book? Was it outsourced to semi literate
> >>students?
> >>Inquiring doubters wanna know.......
> >>Can ya thinketh of an answer Jack?
> >A professor of mine told us, way, way back when, that the use of the
> >plural in Genesis is a revenant of polytheism.
> Sounds like a sensible answer to me.
> I'm guessing that a bible thumper(the American fundy type especially)
> would not like that answer.
Error is demonstrably present in the collected scriptural books we
know as the Bible.
A voluntary course should be made available at public schools that
covers this.
The problem is that a lot of young people are completely ignorant of
the fact that the Bible (and other scriptural works) contain provable
serious flaws. They are thus completely vulnerable to religious
organisations proselytizing them, becoming indoctrinated and immune to
rational discussion of scripture.
This inability of indoctrinated people to apply rational thought
processes to that which they have come to believe is actually becoming
an ever more serious problem for the human race, as a whole.
It presents several very real threats to people everywhere:
1. It presents a very real security threat to people without respect
to any country's borders, as we see expressed in terrorism.
2. It presents a threat to the basic human rights that we as secular
societies agree are rightfully accorded to all people everywhere,
because it seeks to deny people those basic human rights and freedoms.
Richard Catto
> > > GOD inspired men to write the Bible in a manner that is inscrutable
> > > for those whose hearts have not be made discerning by the Holy Spirit.
> > dictionary definition of inscrutable:
> > "incapable of being investigated, analyzed, or scrutinized;
> > impenetrable."
> > This does not describe the passages in the Gospels we have been
> > discussing. There was nothing difficult to understand there. All four
> > passages were simple straightforward accounts of what happened.
> > The problem is that three are in agreement, whereas the fourth says
> > something that directly contradicts the other three and despite
> > careful analysis of the accounts, defies resolution.
> May reading the following give you understanding:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/76c0d6d2aa5eed2f
you wrote:
"It is clear you rely more on your logic and cognitive abilities than
the counsel of the Holy Spirit."
By writing that, it would seem that you are not interested in rational
discussion. Not even what is written in scripture anchors you. You
feel free to state as fact anything you like, while claiming that the
Holy Spirit informed you of it.
You are potentially a very dangerous individual, if you ever possess
any power over others.
You cannot be reasoned with. You reject all rational discussion.
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/3fa4ecde07979a5a
you wrote:
"Studying the Holy Bible is not enough"
Clearly, you feel free to override scripture on your own whim.
> Once you have understanding, what the Holy Spirit has guided me to
> write earlier will be sufficient:
It is not sufficient. I cannot accept anything you claim as having any
authority unless you can produce scripture which directly supports
you.
Appeals to the Holy Spirit guiding you, contrary to what is written in
scripture, avails you nothing.
I'm sorry to say this, Andrew, but you have fallen far off the wagon.
I suggest you talk to your pastor about your ideas. I hope for your
sake that he can help you back to reality.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Would suggest you read the book, Be Hungry, in hopes of possibly
better understanding human eyewitness testimony as is relevant here.
Within the pages of Be Hungry, there are four written eyewitness
testimonies that were given under oath where lying could have resulted
in criminal charges of perjury with prosecution. Then there are
several written eyewitness testimonies gathered without the
requirement for truthfulness.
The amazing thing is there is more variability (what the undiscerning
would call error) among the sworn testimonies than among the unsworn.
Because the reader is given a unique "behind the scenes" perspective
from the outset, the reader comes to realize that the sworn eyewitness
testimonies are a much better fit to the "behind the scenes"
perspective than the less truthful unsworn testimonies.
Here is how you can get a copy of Be Hungry to behold this miracle for
yourself:
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
GOD is the Author of all reality (including the alternate ones).
Those with discerning hearts know this:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/24d5021eab4eea73?
May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you healthier (hungrier)
than ever.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
ur_droll
No andrew. "Those with rocks in their heads" is the correct analogy.
You are a just another of life's fuckwits.. yer not in the least bit
special... just a sad lost soul who can't even find comfort in
religion without perverting it to suit yer delusions. A true loser
St. Jackanapes
Andrew B. Chung, Mediocre Doctor/Phalse Diploma held us spellbound with
yet another lie seen burbling up from his gaping maw....
> GOD is absolutely amazing
Yes, an absolutely amazing lie. But that lie just came from a mediocre
liar. It's really no surprise that Atlanta policeman knocked your goofy
brains spinning around your brain pan a few times. You obviously tried
to feed the brave peace officer a blatant untruth, something that was
second nature to you in medical school, and no doubt throughout your
life, as you concealed your lousy study habits and your peculiar
nocturnal wanderings - something that the authorities are still
interested in learning more about. Lies fall from your lips as quick and
easily as rain from a monsoon. But you sure got one rude awakening about
how things work outside of Academia that day. You start throwing around
a load of stinking shit, and the real world doesn't take too kindly to
it. It will take that load of stinking shit and give you a reverse enema
faster than you can say "The FDA charges former doctor Chung with diet
fraud!"
--
St. Jackanapes
http://www.jackanapes.ws
==================================
Who Loves You_fan_club@yahoo.com Somebody Who Loves You
>
Moving the Equator North
The Rise of Christianity in the Global South
Like other northern European countries, Denmark has historically been a homogenous society. Also like its neighbors, this has
changed in recent years with the arrival of immigrants from what's called the "Global South."
The religious fervor of some of these immigrants, like that of immigrants to other European countries, has shaken things up among
the "notoriously staid" Danes. But if you're thinking this is "another story about Muslims in Europe," guess again.
A recent Washington Post story described the impact that Christians from Africa, Asia, and Latin America are having on the Danes.
Immigrants have started more than 150 churches in Denmark. These churches not only minister to foreign-born residents, but
increasingly to native Danes as well.
Karsten Nissen, a Lutheran bishop, called the immigrant Christian churches "a gift to our Danish Lutheran Church" that helps Danes
understand how Christians are supposed to live.
According to Bess Semer-Pederson, who runs Alpha Denmark, a course that teaches the basics of Christianity, Denmark "[needs] these
immigrant churches, because they are bringing a message that we have forgotten."
What's happening in Denmark is only a small part of a larger trend. "Churches in countries such as Nigeria, Ghana, South Korea, and
the Philippines have sent thousands of missionaries to Europe to set up churches in homes, office buildings and storefronts."
African Anglican bishops are reaching out to conservative congregations in the United States, breaking away from the apostate
Episcopal church.
Phillip Jenkins isn't surprised at these developments. Jenkins, a professor of history at Penn State, has chronicled the rise of
what he calls "The Next Christendom." As he writes in The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South, 60
percent of the estimated two billion Christians in the world live in Africa, Asia, or Latin America. By 2050, there will be an
estimated three billion Christians, 75 percent of whom will live in what is the "Global South."
But numbers only tell a part of the story. These Southern Christians have a much stronger belief in the authority of Scripture than
their Western counterparts. As a Kenyan bishop said, "Our understanding of the Bible is different from them. We are two different
churches."
This belief in biblical authority produces the exuberant faith and the desire to share it that Europeans and Americans desperately
need.
It also promises to change Christianity-and not just in the Global South. According to Jenkins, "as the center of gravity of the
Christian world moves ever southward, the conservative traditions prevailing in the global South matter even more."
The most visible example is what's happening in the Anglican Communion. Africans are not only dominating the Communion
statistically-they are defining the theological agenda, as well.
Along with other non-Western bishops, they are working to transform "two different churches" into one Bible-believing one. A similar
process is taking place in Methodist circles.
The author John Updike once said, "I don't think God plays well in Sweden. God sticks pretty close to the equator." Whether or not
Updike was right about Sweden (or Denmark), there's one thing he didn't anticipate: that God would bring the equator to them and, in
doing that, would remind the West of what it had forgotten.
By Chuck Colson
7/16/2007
Today's BreakPoint Offer
Check out the 2007 Summer Reading List from Chuck Colson and The Point bloggers.
For Further Reading and Information
Kevin Sullivan, "Foreign Missionaries Find Fertile Ground in Europe," Washington Post, 11 June 2007.
Mary Jordan, "Albanians Rediscover God, If Not Old Time Religion," Washington Post, 4 April 2007.
Phillip Jenkins, The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South, (Oxford University Press 2006).
"Nigerian Bishops Ready to Boycott Anglican Summit Over Homosexuality," Africasia, 7 April 2007.
Breakpoint Commentary No. 050322, "Voted Off the Island? The Southern Christian Struggle Against Apostasy."
Who Loves You_fan_club@yahoo.com Somebody Who Loves You
Unlikely Witnesses
By Steve Beard
Pop Culture Wrestles with Faith
This article is from the April 2006 BreakPoint WorldView magazine. Sign up
today to receive the free online edition 10 times a year!
Rolling Stone recently published an exceedingly respectful story about a
Hasidic Jewish reggae singer named Matisyahu who finishes concerts by dusk
on Fridays to observe the Sabbath. He also had to give up stage-diving
into fans because he is not allowed to have physical contact with women
outside his family. His music reminds you that if King David would have
been from Jamaica, this is what the Psalms would have sounded like.
Surprisingly, his album was at No. 33 on the Billboard charts in
mid-January.
No doubt, Matisyahu is an interesting story. He is one-of-a-kind with his
trademark Hasidic black fedora, suit, and thick long beard singing a genre
of music that was made famous by Bob Marley. What is a bit more
surprising, however, is the fact that Rolling Stone treated him with
respect-religious restrictions and all.
Ironically, only a week later, USA Today published a lengthy article
asking whether celebrities who flaunt Hindu ideas such as yoga,
reincarnation, and karma are doing the 6,000-year-old religion an
injustice with slipshod portrayals found in pop culture. The writer
pointed to the popular TV show My Name Is Earl and a song called "Karma"
from Alicia Keys. Cathy Lynn Grossman correctly points out that "believers
object when riffs plunder serious spiritual teachings or venerable
images." To her credit, she points out that this is nothing new:
"Hollywood has been mocking Christian culture for years."
These are not the kind of stories I grew up reading in the mainstream
press. Religion and entertainment were never addressed together. However,
we are living in a very different era. Our culture has a voracious
appetite for spiritual engagement. More and more films, books, and
television episodes are dealing with religion and spirituality. Some of it
is worth ignoring, but some of it is worth engaging. Nowhere is this
revived interest in mixing faith and art more noticeable than in the music
industry.
. 'YOU GOTTA SERVE SOMEBODY'
When Rolling Stone recently asked Bob Dylan what song he wanted to hear on
his death bed, he said, "How 'bout 'Rock of Ages'?" That's a 230-year-old
hymn written by August M. Toplady. The eccentric man that Martin Scorsese
recently immortalized on PBS and that hippies christened as the prophet
for the 1960s still sings songs from his gospel albums.
A few years ago, Dylan was opening many of his concerts with the song "I
Am the Man, Thomas." With more than 40 albums of his own from which to
choose, it's fair to ask, Why is he opening with a cover song from the old
Stanley Brothers?
The song is about the conversation between Jesus Christ and Doubting
Thomas. "Look at these nail scars here in my hands/They pierced me in the
side, Thomas, I am the Man/They made me bear the cross, Thomas, I am the
Man/They laid me in the tomb, Thomas, I am the Man/In three days I arose,
Thomas, I am the Man."
Fans had good reason to wonder whether it was a reassertion of his
Christian conversion back in the late 1970s. Or was it merely a spasm of
eccentricity to keep his fans scratching their heads?
Of course, the latter option does not explain why he has also been singing
"Solid Rock" from his 1980 album Saved. In it, Dylan proclaims: "For me He
was chastised, for me He was hated/For me He was rejected by a world that
He created . . . Well, I'm hangin' on to a solid rock/Made before the
foundation of the world/And I won't let go, and I can't let go, won't let
go."
It would be unfair to speculate on Dylan's motivation for returning these
gospel-centric songs-and others such as "Gotta Serve Somebody," "Man of
Peace," "In the Garden," or "I Believe in You"-to his playlist.
Nevertheless, Dylan has always been a prophetic poet on a quest to find
God, and it's only reasonable to assume that he believes in what he sings.
It is also worth noting that the godfather of folk rock is not the only
musician showcasing faith in his art.
Surf-rockers Switchfoot continue to probe and prod the big questions of
life on their recent album, Nothing Is Sound. "Happy is a yuppie
word/Blessed is the man who's lost it all/Looking for an orphanage/I'm
looking for a bridge I can't burn down/I don't believe the emptiness/I'm
looking for the kingdom coming down." One month after the release of their
album, it went gold. One could speculate that the band tapped into a
universal yearning.
Coldplay included the gospel-oriented "Kingdom Come" as a hidden track on
its latest album, X & Y. "I went through a weird patch, starting when I
was about sixteen to twenty-two, of getting God and religion and
superstition and judgment all confused," singer Chris Martin told Rolling
Stone. "I think a lot of our music comes out of that. I definitely believe
in God. How can you look at anything and not be overwhelmed by the
miraculousness of it?"
There are no hidden tracks on Howl, the new roots-oriented album from the
Black Rebel Motorcycle Club. "I will walk with Jesus till I can't walk
anymore/And I will stay with Jesus till I can't go another mile," sings
Robert Levron Been. Howl is a sweaty, tambourine-thumping, foot-stomping
tribute to Americana-blues, country, and hanky-waving, honky-tonk gospel.
"I grew up in a God-fearing family, so that's always been in the back of
my head, for better or worse," guitarist Peter Hayes told Boston's Weekly
Dig. "It was fun letting go and writing music like that. There's kind of
this fear that you are going to be labeled Christian rock or it's going to
be taken the wrong way. But not worrying about that, just letting it go,
it's just a better feeling."
PARTED WAYS
A year ago, guitarist Brian "Head" Welch left the hardcore metal band Korn
because of his newfound faith. "Korn has parted ways with guitarist Brian
'Head' Welch, who has chosen Jesus Christ as his Savior, and will be
dedicating his musical pursuits to that end," read a statement from the
band. "Korn respects Brian's wishes and hopes he finds the happiness he's
searching for."
Not long after that announcement, Welch shared his story with the
congregation of Valley Bible Fellowship in Bakersfield, California. "I
thought I had it all, everything I thought was important when I was a
kid-money, fame, pretty women-but I came to a point where I didn't want to
live," he testified. He told the congregation-filled with kids wearing
Korn shirts-that he had come to the church in hopes of kicking a furious
addiction to methamphetamines.
"With Korn, I got the money, all kinds of drugs of choice, everything, but
this is my life now," he told MTV. "I'm never gonna change. That drug
[meth] is known for making people crazy, but I'm in my right mind."
Since that time, Welch was baptized in Israel, launched an orphanage in
India, and began recording a new record reflecting his new beliefs. Welch
is not the only one speaking out about the change in his life.
"I've tried everything in my life," heavy metal superstar Dave Mustaine of
Megadeth told CanWest News. "I was baptized Lutheran and brought up as a
Jehovah's Witness. My mom was Jewish. I experimented with black magic and
witchcraft and read the satanic bible. But I became a Christian about
three years ago, and that's a positive thing."
Blues guitar prodigy Jonny Lang went to the crossroads and came out a
Christian on the other side. "Aspects of the entertainment industry not
really related to music began to sidetrack me," he confessed to the
Lexington Herald Leader. "For a while, I was headed down not such a good
path. But God brought me out of that. He totally saved me."
ALICE COOPER
A few years ago, the spooky granddaddy of shock rock Alice Cooper stunned
the London Sunday Times by stating: "Drinking beer is easy. Trashing your
hotel room is easy. But being a Christian, that's a tough call. That's
rebellion." That's an especially interesting perspective coming from a man
who works with a guillotine every night.
At the height of his worldwide fame, Cooper drank a bottle of whiskey a
day. But the bottle almost destroyed his marriage to Sheryl, his wife of
twenty-five years. He started heading off to church with her and felt as
if God was speaking to him every Sunday. Even at the pinnacle of his
ghoulish career (which he believed was no more provocative than a horror
movie musical) he still believed in God. The son and grandson of
preachers, Cooper's faith was crippled by the weight of fame and the
toxicity of alcoholism.
He experienced every pleasure that money could buy but found it did not
satisfy. "I was the prodigal son. I left the house, achieved fame and
fortune, and found out that that was not what I wanted," he tells HM
magazine. "Now I read the Bible every day, I pray every day. That's really
what I'm about." He continues: "I was one thing at one time, and I'm
something new. I'm a new creature now. Don't judge Alice by what he used
to be. Praise God for what I am now."
Cooper has taken the opportunity to speak to curious fellow musicians
about the reality of the devil and the change in his life. "I have talked
to some big stars about this, some really horrific characters . . . and
you'd be surprised," he says. "The ones that you would think are the
farthest gone, are the ones that are the most apt to listen."
In describing the importance of his Christian faith, he says, "It's
everything. It's what I live for. If you gave me a choice between rock and
roll and my faith, I'd take my faith," Cooper told the Observer in
Australia. "Rock and roll is fun-it's what I do for a living. But it's not
what I live on. I believe in classic Christianity. I've given my whole
life to the Lord. But I don't think that means you can't be a rock and
roller." After all, as Cooper has said, "I must be the only father that
bangs on the bedroom door and says, 'Turn that music up!'"
. CONVERSION SUPERSTARS
I don't imagine that there will be politicians, movie stars, lawyers,
baseball players, musicians, generals, or theologians in heaven. There
will only be believers. It seems that selflessness and humility-and a
singular focus on God-will be the prevailing ethos of eternity. Christian
"superstars" whose egos are stroked here on earth will find an entirely
different modus operandi on the other side. If there are superstars, I
don't imagine that most of us will have ever heard of them. I have a
sneaking suspicion that there is a different set of requirements to be
well-known on the streets of heaven than here on earth.
All of this is to say that celebrity conversion is no more impressive to
the great cloud of witnesses than the changed life of one who is known
only by a small community. As Jesus said, "There is more rejoicing in
heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons
who do not need to repent" (Luke 15:7). Having said that, we are often
captured by the interesting and eccentric testimonies of celebrity
prodigals. When I was young, I paid far more attention to the testimony of
a professional football player than I did to my youth pastor.
I'm not attempting to justify my reaction-only pointing out that we all
have gatekeepers who help us process truth. Perhaps it is a favorite
author, a professor, pastor, or poet. Perhaps we are drawn to artists
because they are more prone to deal with the mystical issues of love,
betrayal, purpose, disillusionment, hope, despair, and truth because they
are subjects that make great books, movies, and songs. They often bring
splashes of color into our black and white worlds.
Writing in a different era, G. K. Chesterton once said: "I don't deny . .
. that there should be priests to remind men that they will one day die. I
only say . . . it is necessary to have another kind of priests, called
poets, actually to remind men that they are not dead yet." While it's safe
to say that Chesterton would be appalled at most aspects of the rock 'n'
roll world, he would be gratified that so many of the unkempt troubadours
are now giving the prince of darkness one devil of a time.
Steve Beard is the editor of Good News magazine, editor-in-chief of Risen
magazine, and the creator of www.thunderstruck.ws-a website devoted to
faith and pop culture. He is also a contributing author of Spiritual
Journeys: How Faith Has Influenced Twelve Music Icons (Relevant, 2003).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Articles on the BreakPoint website are the responsibility of the authors
and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Chuck Colson or PFM.
Links to outside articles or websites are for informational purposes only
and do not necessarily imply endorsement of their content.
--
St. Jackanapes
LARRY JACKOWSKI 3304 DELANEY ST DAYTON, OH 45420
(937) 293-7179
http://www.jackanapes.ws
==================================
Father Haskell
wrote:
I wonder if he saw little anvils and bluebirds flying around his
resonating head, like in an old Tom and Jerry cartoon?