Daily Spirit-guided thought for 07/22/08
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful
2008th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as our Messiah,
the Son of Man ...
... by being hungrier:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f891e617d10bd689?
Hunger is wonderful ! ! !
It's how we know what GOD desires, which is all that is good.
Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve
paid for with their and our immortal lives.
"Blessed are you who hunger NOW...
... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21)
Amen.
Here is a Spirit-guided exegesis of Luke 6:21 given in hopes of
promoting much greater understanding:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/cc2aa8f8a4d41360?
Be hungrier, which is healthier.
Marana tha
Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ,
Andrew <><
--
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/4128be9f9918d825?
J A
various Mediterranean religious cults. Similarly, virgin birth was an
unoriginal invention. As one example: Romulus and Remus, the founders
of Rome, were supposedly virgin births with the god Mars being the
father.
If jesus had actually been capable of miracle healings, and raising
the dead, it would have been well known to the Jewish and Roman
authorities of the time. Both entities had very good intelligence on
what was going on with the populace. The authorities of the time had trusted
informants who told them what was going on in the populace.
Those informants were capable of witnessing miracle cures and the
rasing of people from the dead, and then reporting those things back.
The Romans, in particluar, were very superstitious and willing to
respect and take in other peoples' "gods".
Everyone would have had an interest in keeping him alive. Nearly
everyone had relatives and friends who could have used a dose of
miracle healing. And, of course, people lived in fear of disease and
injury for themselves.
But there were also always people wandering around claiming to be able
to do miracles then, as there are now. Benny Hinn? Jesus was a faker.
If jesus were capable of performing miracles, nothing stopped him from
doing so in front of the Jewish authorities, or the the Roman
authorities, and immediately acquiring stature and authority.
The Roman governor probably would have sought to gain favor in Rome by
shipping him back to the Emperor, if jesus were for real. If Jesus
actually could perform miracles cures and raising from the dead, the
LAST thing anyone would have done was kill him. He would have been too
useful.
Additionally, if jesus actually had shown the power of doing miracle
cures and raising the dead, who would want to insult and provoke such
a power, or the power behind him?
The Gospel of Thomas has numerous anecdotes about the child Jesus
abusing his magical powers: transforming his playmates into goats, or
turning mud into sparrows; or giving his father assistance by
lengthening a piece of wood.
Bottom line - it's all made up for fools, and there's never been any
shortage of them, and you're just another example.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Uncle Frederik
Nice one, sir.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
J A
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Uncle Frederik
J A
J A
"Uncle Frederik" <Fred...@VoneHassen.net> wrote in message
news:mn.c5997d870...@VoneHassen.net...
> nothing new with that...
Yes, he shrieks, but says nothing...
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
J A
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
J A
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
J A
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
J A
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
J A
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Linda Lee
>
>
> The Gospel of Thomas has numerous anecdotes about the child Jesus
> abusing his magical powers: transforming his playmates into goats, or
> turning mud into sparrows; or giving his father assistance by
> lengthening a piece of wood.
>
> Bottom line - it's all made up for fools, and there's never been any
> shortage of them, and you're just another example.
You're confused. The Gospel of Thomas is a 'sayings' document and has
only sayings attributed to Christ when he was an adult. You are likely
thinking of a Jewish legend which claims many derogatory things about
him.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted:
> >
> >
> > The Gospel of Thomas has numerous anecdotes about the child Jesus
> > abusing his magical powers: transforming his playmates into goats, or
> > turning mud into sparrows; or giving his father assistance by
> > lengthening a piece of wood.
> >
> > Bottom line - it's all made up for fools, and there's never been any
> > shortage of them, and you're just another example.
>
>
> You're confused.
He is a lying spirit.
You would be wiser to simply rebuke him and move on:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/31c3b88286afc5bd?
May you and other dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a
J A
J A
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:2d228ce5-78a9-4e85...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> convicted neighbor Linda Lee wrote:
>> satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted:
>> >
>> >
>> > The Gospel of Thomas has numerous anecdotes about the child Jesus
>> > abusing his magical powers: transforming his playmates into goats, or
>> > turning mud into sparrows; or giving his father assistance by
>> > lengthening a piece of wood.
>> >
>> > Bottom line - it's all made up for fools, and there's never been any
>> > shortage of them, and you're just another example.
>>
>>
>> You're confused.
>
> He is a lying spirit.
You are mentally debilitated stupid ass.
http://www.gnosis.org/library/inftoma.htm
II. 1 This little child Jesus when he was five years old was playing at the
ford of a brook: and he gathered together the waters that flowed there into
pools, and made them straightway clean, and commanded them by his word
alone. 2 And having made soft clay, he fashioned thereof twelve sparrows.
And it was the Sabbath when he did these things (or made them). And there
were also many other little children playing with him.
J A
"Linda Lee" <lindag...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:24c5f6ae-ad15-4612...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
You are a stupid ass.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> > convicted neighbor Linda Lee wrote:
> >> satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The Gospel of Thomas has numerous anecdotes about the child Jesus
> >> > abusing his magical powers: transforming his playmates into goats, or
> >> > turning mud into sparrows; or giving his father assistance by
> >> > lengthening a piece of wood.
> >> >
> >> > Bottom line - it's all made up for fools, and there's never been any
> >> > shortage of them, and you're just another example.
> >>
> >> You're confused.
> >
> > He is a lying spirit.
>
> You are mentally debilitated stupid ass.
"Name-calling is lying." -- Holy Spirit
Amen.
May we, who are Jesus' disciples (either Jew or gentile), continue to
rebuke you at each GOD-given opportunity as GOD desires:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/31c3b88286afc5bd?
<><
May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful
rustynail
> satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> > convicted neighbor Linda Lee wrote:
>> >> satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > The Gospel of Thomas has numerous anecdotes about the child Jesus
>> >> > abusing his magical powers: transforming his playmates into goats, or
>> >> > turning mud into sparrows; or giving his father assistance by
>> >> > lengthening a piece of wood.
>> >> >
>> >> > Bottom line - it's all made up for fools, and there's never been any
>> >> > shortage of them, and you're just another example.
>> >>
>> >> You're confused.
>> >
>> > He is a lying spirit.
>>
>> You are mentally debilitated stupid ass.
>
> "Name-calling is lying." -- Holy Spirit
>
> Amen.
Name calling may be rude or mean, but it may not be lying, you appear too be
mentally debilitated. Because of this you look like a stupid ass.
J A
> satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> > convicted neighbor Linda Lee wrote:
>> >> satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > The Gospel of Thomas has numerous anecdotes about the child Jesus
>> >> > abusing his magical powers: transforming his playmates into goats,
>> >> > or
>> >> > turning mud into sparrows; or giving his father assistance by
>> >> > lengthening a piece of wood.
>> >> >
>> >> > Bottom line - it's all made up for fools, and there's never been any
>> >> > shortage of them, and you're just another example.
>> >>
>> >> You're confused.
>> >
>> > He is a lying spirit.
>>
>> You are mentally debilitated stupid ass.
>
> "Name-calling is lying." -- Holy Spirit
Not when it's accurate. LOL
Thom Madura
> satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>> convicted neighbor Linda Lee wrote:
>>>> satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted:
>>>>>
>>>>> The Gospel of Thomas has numerous anecdotes about the child Jesus
>>>>> abusing his magical powers: transforming his playmates into goats, or
>>>>> turning mud into sparrows; or giving his father assistance by
>>>>> lengthening a piece of wood.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bottom line - it's all made up for fools, and there's never been any
>>>>> shortage of them, and you're just another example.
>>>> You're confused.
>>> He is a lying spirit.
>> You are mentally debilitated stupid ass.
>
> "Name-calling is lying." -- Holy Spirit
>
Which makes you a liar Andrew!
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> > convicted neighbor Linda Lee wrote:
> >> >> satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The Gospel of Thomas has numerous anecdotes about the child Jesus
> >> >> > abusing his magical powers: transforming his playmates into goats, or
> >> >> > turning mud into sparrows; or giving his father assistance by
> >> >> > lengthening a piece of wood.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Bottom line - it's all made up for fools, and there's never been any
> >> >> > shortage of them, and you're just another example.
> >> >>
> >> >> You're confused.
> >> >
> >> > He is a lying spirit.
> >>
> >> You are mentally debilitated stupid ass.
> >
> > "Name-calling is lying." -- Holy Spirit
> >
> > Amen.
>
> Name calling may be rude or mean, but it may not be lying, you appear too be
> mentally debilitated.
Incorrect.
Name-calling is lying because it is by definition "the use of
offensive names especially to win an argument or to induce rejection
or condemnation (as of a person or project) without objective
consideration of the facts."
Source:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Name-calling
Clearly you remain delusional:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/56ab92064d5793a5?
May we, who are Christians (either Jew or gentile), continue to pray
for your perishing soul, dear Adonis:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/6d7b100b5ddbc5ce?
Thom Madura
Actually - both of you are correct.
THe "Gospel of Thomas" and the "Infancy Gospel of Thomas" are two
different texts.
rustynail
> convicted neighbor Adonis (aka rustynail) wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> > satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted:
>> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> > convicted neighbor Linda Lee wrote:
>> >> >> satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The Gospel of Thomas has numerous anecdotes about the child Jesus
>> >> >> > abusing his magical powers: transforming his playmates into goats, or
>> >> >> > turning mud into sparrows; or giving his father assistance by
>> >> >> > lengthening a piece of wood.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Bottom line - it's all made up for fools, and there's never been any
>> >> >> > shortage of them, and you're just another example.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're confused.
>> >> >
>> >> > He is a lying spirit.
>> >>
>> >> You are mentally debilitated stupid ass.
>> >
>> > "Name-calling is lying." -- Holy Spirit
>> >
>> > Amen.
>>
>> Name calling may be rude or mean, but it may not be lying, you appear too be
>> mentally debilitated.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> Name-calling is lying because it is by definition "the use of
> offensive names especially to win an argument or to induce rejection
> or condemnation (as of a person or project) without objective
> consideration of the facts."
>
If a person is convicted of a crime and you call that person a convict it's not
a lie. Calling a spade a spade is not a lie. If the name aimed at the other is
not true it is a lie. Calling a fat person a skinny SOB would be a lie at least
on the skinny part. The person may very well be a SOB, that would not be a lie.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
rustynail
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
rustynail
Well, he was born in a barn.
J A
"Thom Madura" <Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:488d2977$0$7317$607e...@cv.net...
If she knew of the exisrtence of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, then she
wouldn't have been confused.
The intended point remains the same, and remains valid.
Linda Lee
> "Thom Madura" <Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:488d2977$0$7317$607e...@cv.net...
>
>
>
> >J A wrote:
Yes, I know there were two gospels of Thomas, but you said the Gospel
of Thomas, you didn't say The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which is
believed to be a forgery, not written by Thomas. Your point is
invalidated.
Linda Lee
> "LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
You're quoting a forgery that is not from The Gospel of Thomas. I
guess it's you that is the "stupid ass". Get your sources straight,
dumbass.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
rustynail
The head nun tells the two new nuns that they have to paint their room without
getting any paint on their clothes. So the one nun says to the other, "Hey,
let's take all our clothes off, fold them up, and lock the door."
So they do this, and begin painting their room. Soon they hear a knock at the
door. They ask, "Who is it?"
"Blind man!"
The nuns look at each other, then one nun says, "He's blind, he can't see. What
could it hurt." They let him in.
The blind man walks in and says, "Hey, nice tits. Where do you want me to hang
the blinds?"
J A
It is you who remains a stupid ass.
And, I think you are lying.
The Encyclopedia Britannica discusses The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, with no
metion of it being a forgery, as you state.
The claims made in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, are no more bizarre than
raising the dead, miracle healings, rising from the dead etc.
http://www.gnosis.org/library/inftoma.htm
THE GNOSTIC SOCIETY LIBRARY
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Greek Text A
From "The Apocryphal New Testament"
M.R. James-Translation and Notes
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
The older testimonies about this book have been given already. I now present
the three principal forms of it, as given by Tischendorf: two Greek texts, A
and B, and one Latin.
The few Greek manuscripts are all late. The earliest authorities are a much
abbreviated Syriac version of which the manuscript is of the sixth century,
and a Latin palimpsest at Vienna of the fifth or sixth century, which has
never been deciphered in full.
The Latin version translated here is found in more manuscripts than the
Greek; none of them, I think, is earlier than the thirteenth century.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The stories of Thomas the Israelite, the Philosopher, concerning the works
of the Childhood of the Lord.
I. I, Thomas the Israelite, tell unto you, even all the brethren that are of
the Gentiles, to make known unto you the works of the childhood of our Lord
Jesus Christ and his mighty deeds, even all that he did when he was born in
our land: whereof the beginning is thus:
II. 1 This little child Jesus when he was five years old was playing at the
ford of a brook: and he gathered together the waters that flowed there into
pools, and made them straightway clean, and commanded them by his word
alone. 2 And having made soft clay, he fashioned thereof twelve sparrows.
And it was the Sabbath when he did these things (or made them). And there
were also many other little children playing with him.
3 And a certain Jew when he saw what Jesus did, playing upon the Sabbath
day, departed straightway and told his father Joseph: Lo, thy child is at
the brook, and he hath taken clay and fashioned twelve little birds, and
hath polluted the Sabbath day. 4 And Joseph came to the place and saw: and
cried out to him, saying: Wherefore doest thou these things on the Sabbath,
which it is not lawful to do? But Jesus clapped his hands together and cried
out to the sparrows and said to them: Go! and the sparrows took their flight
and went away chirping. 5 And when the Jews saw it they were amazed, and
departed and told their chief men that which they had seen Jesus do.
III. 1 But the son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Joseph; and
he took a branch of a willow and dispersed the waters which Jesus had
gathered together. 2 And when Jesus saw what was done, he was wroth and said
unto him: O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and the
waters do thee? behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a tree, and
shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit. 3 And straightway that lad
withered up wholly, but Jesus departed and went unto Joseph's house. But the
parents of him that was withered took him up, bewailing his youth, and
brought him to Joseph, and accused him 'for that thou hast such a child
which doeth such deeds.'
IV. 1 After that again he went through the village, and a child ran and
dashed against his shoulder. And Jesus was provoked and said unto him: Thou
shalt not finish thy course (lit. go all thy way). And immediately he fell
down and died. But certain when they saw what was done said: Whence was this
young child born, for that every word of his is an accomplished work? And
the parents of him that was dead came unto Joseph, and blamed him, saying:
Thou that hast such a child canst not dwell with us in the village: or do
thou teach him to bless and not to curse: for he slayeth our children.
V. 1 And Joseph called the young child apart and admonished him, saying:
Wherefore doest thou such things, that these suffer and hate us and
persecute us? But Jesus said: I know that these thy words are not thine:
nevertheless for thy sake I will hold my peace: but they shall bear their
punishment. And straightway they that accused him were smitten with
blindness. 2 And they that saw it were sore afraid and perplexed, and said
concerning him that every word which he spake whether it were good or bad,
was a deed, and became a marvel. And when they (he ?) saw that Jesus had so
done, Joseph arose and took hold upon his ear and wrung it sore. 3 And the
young child was wroth and said unto him: It sufficeth thee (or them) to seek
and not to find, and verily thou hast done unwisely: knowest thou not that I
am thine? vex me not.
VI. 1 Now a certain teacher, Zacchaeus by name, stood there and he heard in
part when Jesus said these things to his father and he marvelled greatly
that being a young child he spake such matters. 2 And after a few days he
came near unto Joseph and said unto him: Thou hast a wise child, and he hath
understanding. Come, deliver him to me that he may learn letters. And I will
teach him with the letters all knowledge and that he salute all the elders
and honour them as grandfathers and fathers, and love them of his own years.
3 And he told him all the letters from Alpha even to Omega clearly, with
much questioning. But Jesus looked upon Zacchaeus the teacher and saith unto
him: Thou that knowest not the Alpha according to its nature, how canst thou
teach others the Beta? thou hypocrite, first, if thou knowest it, teach the
Alpha, and then will we believe thee concerning the Beta. Then began he to
confound the mouth of the teacher concerning the first letter, and he could
not prevail to answer him. 4 And in the hearing of many the young child
saith to Zacchaeus: Hear, O teacher, the ordinance of the first letter and
pay heed to this, how that it hath [what follows is really unintelligible in
this and in all the parallel texts: a literal version would run something
like this: how that it hath lines, and a middle mark, which thou seest,
common to both, going apart; coming together, raised up on high, dancing (a
corrupt word), of three signs, like in kind (a corrupt word), balanced,
equal in measure]: thou hast the rules of the Alpha.
VII. 1 Now when Zacchaeus the teacher heard such and so many allegories of
the first letter spoken by the young child, he was perplexed at his answer
and his instruction being so great, and said to them that were there: Woe is
me, wretch that I am, I am confounded: I have brought shame to myself by
drawing to me this young child. 2 Take him away, therefore I beseech thee,
my brother Joseph: I cannot endure the severity of his look, I cannot once
make clear my (or his) word. This young child is not earthly born: this is
one that can tame even fire: be like this is one begotten before the making
of the world. What belly bare this, what womb nurtured it? I know not. Woe
is me, O my friend, he putteth me from my sense, I cannot follow his
understanding. I have deceived myself, thrice wretched man that I am: I
strove to get me a disciple and I am found to have a master. 3 I think, O my
friends, upon my shame, for that being old I have been overcome by a young
child;- and I am even ready to faint and to die because of the boy, for I am
not able at this present hour to look him in the face. And when all men say
that I have been overcome by a little child, what have I to say? and what
can I tell concerning the lines of the first letter whereof he spake to me?
I am ignorant, O my friends, for neither beginning nor end of it (or him) do
I know. 4 Wherefore I beseech thee, my brother Joseph, take him away unto
thine house: for he is somewhat great, whether god or angel or what I should
call him, I know not.
VIII. 1 And as the Jews were counselling Zacchaeus, the young child laughed
greatly and said: Now let those bear fruit that were barren (Gr. that are
thine) and let them see that were blind in heart. I am come from above that
I may curse them, and call them to the things that are above, even as he
commanded which hath sent me for your sakes. 2 And when the young child
ceased speaking, immediately all they were made whole which had come under
his curse. And no man after that durst provoke him, lest he should curse
him, and he should be maimed.
IX. 1 Now after certain days Jesus was playing in the upper story of a
certain house, and one of the young children that played with him fell down
from the house and died. And the other children when they saw it fled, and
Jesus remained alone. 2 And the parents of him that was dead came and
accused him that he had cast him down. (And Jesus said: I did not cast him
down) but they reviled him still. 3 Then Jesus leaped down from the roof and
stood by the body of the child and cried with a loud voice and said: Zeno
(for so was his name called), arise and tell me, did I cast thee down? And
straightway he arose and said: Nay, Lord, thou didst not cast me down, but
didst raise me up. And when they saw it they were amazed: and the parents of
the child glorified God for the sign which had come to pass, and worshipped
Jesus.
X. 1 After a few days, a certain young man was cleaving wood in the
neighbourhood (MSS. corner), and the axe fell and cut in sunder the sole of
his foot, and losing much blood he was at the point to die. 2 And when there
was a tumult and concourse, the young child Jesus also ran thither, and by
force passed through the multitude, and took hold upon the foot of the young
man that was smitten, and straightway it was healed. And he said unto the
young man: Arise now and cleave the wood and remember me. But when the
multitude saw what was done they worshipped the young child, saying: Verily
the spirit of God dwelleth in this young child.
XI. 1 Now when he was six years old, his mother sendeth him to draw water
and bear it into the house, and gave him a pitcher: but in the press he
struck it against another and the pitcher was broken. 2 But Jesus spread out
the garment which was upon him and filled it with water and brought it to
his mother. And when his mother saw what was done she kissed him; and she
kept within herself the mysteries which she saw him do.
XII. 1 Again, in the time of sowing the young child went forth with his
father to sow wheat in their land: and as his father sowed, the young child
Jesus sowed also one corn of wheat. 2 And he reaped it and threshed it and
made thereof an hundred measures (cors): and he called all the poor of the
village unto the threshing floor and gave them the wheat. And Joseph took
the residue of the wheat. And he was eight years old when he wrought this
sign.
XIII. 1 Now his father was a carpenter and made at that time ploughs and
yokes. And there was required of him a bed by a certain rich man, that he
should make it for him. And whereas one beam, that which is called the
shifting one was too short and Joseph knew not what to do, the young child
Jesus said to his father Joseph: Lay down the two pieces of wood and make
them even at the end next unto thee (MSS. at the middle part). And Joseph
did as the young child said unto him. And Jesus stood at the other end and
took hold upon the shorter beam and stretched it and made it equal with the
other. And his father Joseph saw it and marvelled: and he embraced the young
child and kissed him, saying: Happy am I for that God hath given me this
young child.
XIV. 1 But when Joseph saw the understanding of the child, and his age, that
it was coming to the full, he thought with himself again that he should not
be ignorant of letters; and he took him and delivered him to another
teacher. And the teacher said unto Joseph: First will I teach him the Greek
letters, and after that the Hebrew. For the teacher knew the skill of the
child and was afraid of him: notwithstanding he wrote the alphabet and Jesus
pondered thereon a long time and answered him not. 2 And Jesus said to him:
If thou be indeed a teacher and if thou knowest letters well, tell me the
power of the Alpha and then will I tell thee the power of the Beta. And the
teacher was provoked and smote him on the head. And the young child was hurt
and cursed him, and straightway he fainted and fell to the ground on his
face. 3 And the child returned unto the house of Joseph: and Joseph was
grieved and commanded his mother, saying: Let him not forth without the
door, for all they die that provoke him to wrath.
XV. 1 And after some time yet another teacher which was a faithful friend of
Joseph said to him: Bring the young child unto me to the school,
peradventure I may be able by cockering him to teach him the letters. And
Joseph said: If thou hast no fear, my brother, take him with thee. And he
took him with him, in fear and much trouble of spirit, but the young child
followed him gladly. 2 And going with boldness into the school he found a
book lying upon the pulpit and he took it, and read not the letters that
were therein, but opened his mouth and spake by the Holy Spirit, and taught
the law to them that stood by. And a great multitude came together and stood
there hearkening, and marvelled at the beauty of his teaching and the
readiness of his words, in that being an infant he uttered such things. 3
But when Joseph heard it, he was afraid, and ran unto the school thinking
whether this teacher also were without skill (or smitten with infirmity):
but the teacher said unto Joseph: Know, my brother, that I received this
child for a disciple, but he is full of grace and wisdom; and now I beseech
thee, brother, take him unto thine house. 4 And when the young child heard
that, he smiled upon him and said: Forasmuch as thou hast said well and hast
borne right witness, for thy sake shall he also that was smitten be healed.
And forthwith the other teacher was healed. And Joseph took the young child
and departed unto his house.
XVI. 1 And Joseph sent his son James to bind fuel and carry it into his
house. And the young child Jesus also followed him. And as James was
gathering of faggots, a viper bit the hand of James. 2 And as he was sore
afflicted and ready to perish, Jesus came near and breathed upon the bite,
and straightway the pain ceased, and the serpent burst, and forthwith James
continued whole.
XVII. 1 And after these things, in the neighbourhood of Joseph, a little
child fell sick and died, and his mother wept sore. And Jesus heard that
there w as great mourning and trouble and he ran quickly and found the child
dead: and he touched his breast and said: I say unto thee, Child, die not,
but live and be with thy mother. And straightway it looked up and laughed.
And he said to the woman: Take him up and give him milk, and remember me. 2
And the multitude that stood by saw it and marvelled, and said: Of a truth
this young child is either a god or an angel of God; for every word of his
is a perfect work. And Jesus departed thence, and was playing with other
children.
XVIII. 1 And after some time there was work of building. And there came a
great tumult, and Jesus arose and went thither: and he saw a man lying dead,
and took hold of his hand and said: Man, I say unto thee, arise and do thy
work. And immediately he arose and worshipped him. 2 And when the multitude
saw it, they were astonished, and said: This young child is from heaven: for
he hath saved many souls from death, and hath power to save them all his
life long.
XIX. 1 And when he was twelve years old his parents went according to the
custom unto Jerusalem to the feast of the passover with their company: and
after the passover they returned to go unto their house. And as they
returned the child Jesus went back to Jerusalem; but his parents supposed
that he was in their company. 2 And when they had gone a day's journey, they
sought him among their kinsfolk, and when they found him not, they were
troubled, and returned again to the city seeking him. And after the third
day they found him in the temple sitting in the midst of the doctors and
hearing and asking them questions. And all men paid heed to him and
marvelled how that being a young child he put to silence the elders and
teachers of the people, expounding the heads of the law and the parables of
the prophets. 3 And his mother Mary came near and said unto him: Child,
wherefore hast thou so done unto us? behold we have sought thee sorrowing.
And Jesus said unto them: Why seek ye me? know ye not that I must be in my
Father's house? 4 But the scribes and Pharisees said: Art thou the mother of
this child? and she said: I am. And they said unto her: Blessed art thou
among women because God hath blessed the fruit of thy womb. For such glory
and such excellence and wisdom we have neither seen nor heard at any time. 5
And Jesus arose and followed his mother and was subject unto his parents:
but his mother kept in mind all that came to pass. And Jesus increased in
wisdom and stature and grace. Unto him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanned and Edited by
Joshua Williams
Northwest Nazarene College, 1995
J A
I think you are lying.
The Encyclopedia Britannica discusses The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, with no
metion of it being a forgery.
http://www.gnosis.org/library/inftoma.htm
THE GNOSTIC SOCIETY LIBRARY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. 1 This little child Jesus when he was five years old was playing at the
ford of a brook: and he gathered together the waters that flowed there into
pools, and made them straightway clean, and commanded them by his word
alone. 2 And having made soft clay, he fashioned thereof twelve sparrows.
And it was the Sabbath when he did these things (or made them). And there
were also many other little children playing with him.
3 And a certain Jew when he saw what Jesus did, playing upon the Sabbath
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
rustynail
A couple had two little boys, ages 8 and 10, who were excessively mischievous.
They were always getting into trouble and their parents knew that, if any
mischief occurred in their town, their sons were probably involved.
They boys' mother heard that a clergyman in town had been successful in
disciplining children, so she asked if he would speak with her boys. The
clergyman agreed, but asked to see them individually. So the mother sent her
8-year-old first, in the morning, with the older boy to see the clergyman in the
afternoon.
The clergyman, a huge man with a booming voice, sat the younger boy down and
asked him sternly, "Where is God?".
They boy's mouth dropped open, but he made no response, sitting there with his
mouth hanging open, wide-eyed. So the clergyman repeated the question in an even
sterner tone, "Where is God!!?" Again the boy made no attempt to answer. So the
clergyman raised his voice even more and shook his finger in the boy's face and
bellowed, "WHERE IS GOD!?"
The boy screamed and bolted from the room, ran directly home and dove into his
closet, slamming the door behind him. When his older brother found him in the
closet, he asked, "What happened?"
The younger brother, gasping for breath, replied, "We are in BIG trouble this
time, dude. God is missing - and they think WE did it!"
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cary Kittrell
Thanks, I didn't see that one the first time around.
-- cary
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Linda Lee
I know you are lying and a total waste of time.
>
> The Encyclopedia Britannica discusses The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, with no
> metion of it being a forgery, as you state.
Prove it. I just looked on their website and found no results for
Infancy Gospel of Thomas.
>
> The claims made in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, are no more bizarre than
> raising the dead, miracle healings, rising from the dead etc.
Baloney; they are malevolent claims made to discredit a man who in his
adulthood was not credited with such mischief.
>
> http://www.gnosis.org/library/inftoma.htm
>
> THE GNOSTIC SOCIETY LIBRARY
>
> The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
> Greek Text A
> From "The Apocryphal New Testament"
> M.R. James-Translation and Notes
> Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Introduction
> The older testimonies about this book have been given already.
> I now present the three principal forms of it, as given by Tischendorf:
> two Greek texts, A and B, and one Latin.
> The few Greek manuscripts are all late. The earliest authorities are a
> much abbreviated Syriac version of which the manuscript is of
> the sixth century, and a Latin palimpsest at Vienna of the fifth
> or sixth century, which has never been deciphered in full.
You are a piece of work. You think these earliest versions, which
your quotes says were written in the fifth and sixth centuries are the
work of Thomas who lived in the first century. LOL.
Linda Lee
That one was funny.
J A
I'm not lying about anything, you stupid ass.
>> The Encyclopedia Britannica discusses The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, with
>> no
>> metion of it being a forgery, as you state.
>
> Prove it. I just looked on their website and found no results for
> Infancy Gospel of Thomas.
Like most xian liars, you're also incompetent.
Anyone can look below and see you are a stupid asses liar.
From Ency. Britannica., 2002, CD-ROM
New Testament Apocrypha
The New Testament Apocryphal writings
Gospels
A few papyrus fragments come from gospels not known by name (e.g., Egerton
Papyrus 2, Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 840, Strasbourg Papyrus 5-6). There are also
the Gospel produced in the 2nd century by Marcion (a "semi-Gnostic" heretic
from Asia Minor), who removed what he regarded as interpolations from the
Gospel According to Luke; the lost Gnostic Gospel of Perfection; and the
Gospel of Truth, published in 1956 and perhaps identical with the book that
Irenaeus (c. 185), bishop of Lyon, said was used by the followers of
Valentinus, a mid-2nd-century Gnostic teacher. The Gospel of Truth is a
mystical-homiletical treatise that is Jewish-Christian and, possibly,
Gnostic in origin. In addition, there were gospels ascribed to the Twelve
(Apostles) and to individual apostles, including the Protevangelium of
James, with legends about the birth and infancy of Jesus; the lost Gnostic
Gospel of Judas (Iscariot); the Gospel of Peter, with a legendary account of
the resurrection; the Gospel of Philip, a Valentinian Gnostic treatise; the
Gospel of Thomas, published in 1959 and containing "the secret sayings of
Jesus" (Greek fragments in Oxyrhynchus papyri 1, 654, and 655); and an
"infancy gospel" also ascribed to Thomas. Beyond these lie gospels ascribed
to famous women, namely Eve and Mary (Magdalene), or named after the groups
that used them: Ebionites (a Jewish Christian sect), Egyptians, Hebrews, and
Nazarenes (an Ebionite sect).
from google search -
biblical literature :: Gospels -- Britannica Online EncyclopediaThere are
also the Gospel produced in the 2nd century by Marcion (a "semi-Gnostic" ...
654, and 655); and an "infancy gospel" also ascribed to Thomas. ...
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/64496/biblical-literature/73475/Gospels
- Similar pages
>
>> The claims made in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, are no more bizarre
>> than
>> raising the dead, miracle healings, rising from the dead etc.
> Baloney; they are malevolent claims made to discredit a man who in his
> adulthood was not credited with such mischief.
LOL. You are an idiot. The supernatural powers claims in the Infancy Gospel
of Thomas are just as well founded as the supernatural powers claimed in the
other christian comic books making up the new testament.
Linda Lee
> "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> read more »
What garbage. In this 'gospel', Christ is accused of "killing our
children" and blinding his accusers. I have a copy of the Infancy
Gospel of Thomas in the book 'The Other Bible' edited by Willis
Barnstone, and he begins it with an introduction in which he says it
is believed to have been written by a Gentile with no knowledge of
Judaism around 150 AD, IOW, Thomas did not write it.
J A
Well, once again you're showing what a dumbass you are.
You think some yokel like "Willis Barnstone" is worth believing, but not the
Britannica?
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas and its bizarre claims have long been known to
scholars.
The fact that you're just learning about it now, just shows you don't know
much about your screwball cult.
Linda Lee
The Brittanica says the oldest copy is from the fifth century. Which
do you choose? Second century or fifth century?
Both negate Thomas as the writer.
>
> The Infancy Gospel of Thomas and its bizarre claims have long been known to
> scholars.
>
> The fact that you're just learning about it now, just shows you don't know
> much about your screwball cult.
Atheists couldn't get any more idiotic.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Sadly, atheists are a source of amusement for the demons in hell.
May your and other dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a
blessedly wonderful 2008th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus
Christ as our Messiah, the Son of Man ...
... by being hungrier:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f891e617d10bd689?
Hunger is wonderful ! ! !
It's how we know what GOD desires, which is all that is good.
Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve
paid for with their and our immortal lives.
"Blessed are you who hunger NOW...
... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21)
Amen.
Here is a Spirit-guided exegesis of Luke 6:21 given in hopes of
promoting much greater understanding:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/cc2aa8f8a4d41360?
Be hungrier, which is healthier.
Marana tha
rustynail
Do ya think the good doctor got it?
Thom Madura
All you need to do is google for it - there is PLENTY of information
>
>> The claims made in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, are no more bizarre than
>> raising the dead, miracle healings, rising from the dead etc.
>
> Baloney; they are malevolent claims made to discredit a man who in his
> adulthood was not credited with such mischief.
Baloney - the christ never walked the earth - there is no mention of him
contemporary to his time in the historical record outside of religious
documents - the whole story is a legend created POORLY by religion to
begin with.
>
>> http://www.gnosis.org/library/inftoma.htm
>>
>> THE GNOSTIC SOCIETY LIBRARY
>>
>> The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
>> Greek Text A
>> From "The Apocryphal New Testament"
>> M.R. James-Translation and Notes
>> Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Introduction
>> The older testimonies about this book have been given already.
>> I now present the three principal forms of it, as given by Tischendorf:
>> two Greek texts, A and B, and one Latin.
>
>> The few Greek manuscripts are all late. The earliest authorities are a
>> much abbreviated Syriac version of which the manuscript is of
>> the sixth century, and a Latin palimpsest at Vienna of the fifth
>> or sixth century, which has never been deciphered in full.
>
>
> You are a piece of work. You think these earliest versions, which
> your quotes says were written in the fifth and sixth centuries are the
> work of Thomas who lived in the first century. LOL.
No different from the bible - all of which was written hundreds to
thousands of years AFTER the stories supposedly happened. THe legends
and fables - based on previous religions - were expanded to the point of
unbelievability.
ROFL
>
>
>
>
>
Thom Madura
THere is no true evidence of who wrote the Gospel of Thomas - the
Infancy Gospel of THomas - and virtually all of the bible.
THe bible was compiled between 325 and 397 AD - and those who did it
based their decisions on what would be included on what they wanted
their religion to say - not whether anything in it is real.
THere is no evidence that any of the bible is any more real than the
Gospels of Thomas.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cary Kittrell
Unscriptural and Scripturally insupportable. According to your
mythology, demons in hell are there to be punished, not to
run the joint.
I'm surprised I have to explain these things.
-- cary
Don Kirkman
article
<0d8f0f01-825c-43b6...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>Name-calling is lying because it is by definition "the use of
>offensive names especially to win an argument or to induce rejection
>or condemnation (as of a person or project) without objective
>consideration of the facts."
Sort of like calling someone satan, condemned, led by the nose by
satan, "dear condemned neighbor," or things like that not "name
calling"?
>Source:
>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Name-calling
>Clearly you remain delusional:
QED!
"Main Entry: name?calling [Merriam-Webster on line]
"the use of offensive names especially to win an argument or to induce
rejection or condemnation (as of a person or project) without
objective consideration of the facts"
So good that you avoid name calling by objectively considering the
facts before you post.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Don Kirkman
<BoGdncFtaJeW3hPV...@earthlink.com>:
>
>"Linda Lee" <lindag...@juno.com> wrote in message
>news:e76c8ff1-7b81-4b46...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 28, 1:10 am, "J A" <a...@re.com> wrote:
>The Encyclopedia Britannica discusses The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, with no
>metion of it being a forgery.
Just a general caution for future research: The Encyclopedia
Britannica for at least several decades has not had the gravitas and
authority it once did. Many of its articles are written by those
involved with the subject of an article, not by disinterested
researchers and experts. This came to my attention well over 40 years
ago when I found that a lengthy article about a controversial
organization was supplied by a member (members ?) of that
organization.
For religious research, there are libraries full of sound studies for
everything from Animism to Zen and beyond.
>The claims made in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, are no more bizarre than
>raising the dead, miracle healings, rising from the dead etc.
>http://www.gnosis.org/library/inftoma.htm
>THE GNOSTIC SOCIETY LIBRARY
>The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
>Greek Text A
>From "The Apocryphal New Testament"
>M.R. James-Translation and Notes
>Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924
[text redacted]
Earlier than any of the manuscripts you cite, the Gnostics were
considered heretical by the early Christians. The main issue was that
the Christians intended to provide facts and historical context
(granting that they failed often, particularly after the power of the
church melded with the Roman government) and the Gnostics were moving
toward mysticism which like "discernment" easily gets cut loose from
its moorings.
Like many other issues, the material from each side can be studied on
its own terms, but may be unreliable for learning about the opponent's
beliefs. Much like the bulk of the stuff in this newsgroup's wars
between "believers" and "atheists."
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Don Kirkman
. . .
>from google search -
>biblical literature :: Gospels -- Britannica Online EncyclopediaThere are
>also the Gospel produced in the 2nd century by Marcion (a "semi-Gnostic" ...
>654, and 655); and an "infancy gospel" also ascribed to Thomas. ...
> www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/64496/biblical-literature/73475/Gospels
> - Similar pages
You do know, I assume, that "ascribed to. . ." is essentially a
negation of genuine authorship. IOW, it apparently was not accepted
that Thomas wrote it.
Apart from these incidental factual issues I have no dog in this
fight.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Don Kirkman
<488ef475$0$5020$607e...@cv.net>:
>Linda Lee wrote:
>> On Jul 28, 7:06 pm, "J A" <a...@re.com> wrote:
>>> "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
>THere is no true evidence of who wrote the Gospel of Thomas - the
>Infancy Gospel of THomas - and virtually all of the bible.
>THe bible was compiled between 325 and 397 AD - and those who did it
>based their decisions on what would be included on what they wanted
>their religion to say - not whether anything in it is real.
One might expect a religious body discussing its beliefs to
"include[d] what they wanted their religion to say;" this is common
practice among men, but it doesn't imply that they created the
documents out of whole cloth.
The key word is "compiled;" by the fourth century there were numerous
manuscripts available among the Christian community; the dates you
cite relate to when the higher clergy of the church reviewed the
available manuscripts and came to conclusions about which were
credible and of value to the community. (Again, conceding that their
decisions were not scientific because there was no scientific method
of authenticating documents or historical facts available to them.)
This movement to standardize the teachings was one more result of
Constantine and his mother taking deep interest in the Christian
beliefs--leading to actions like moving the reputed steps where Jesus
stood before the authorities from Jerusalem to Rome and sprinkling
Palestine with "historical sites" dating from the fourth century.
The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament of the Christians, was translated
into Greek and was in use by 145BCE; a Latin translation was known in
Egypt probably by the end of the 2d century CE and its Old Testament
had been translated from the Greek translation, not directly from the
Hebrew.
The Dead Sea Scrolls contain citations from and copies of various Old
Testament writings; these date from the first century BCE to the first
century CE.
While most of the ancient manuscripts date from the fourth century or
later, there are second century manuscripts for the gospels and other
writings, and many more for those as well as Paul's writings and
Revelation from the third century and later.
>THere is no evidence that any of the bible is any more real than the
>Gospels of Thomas.
Real in the sense of having been written and preserved, yes. Real in
how they came to exist, no.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote in part:
>
> >Name-calling is lying because it is by definition "the use of
> >offensive names especially to win an argument or to induce rejection
> >or condemnation (as of a person or project) without objective
> >consideration of the facts."
>
> Sort of like calling someone satan, condemned, led by the nose by
> satan, "dear condemned neighbor," or things like that not "name
> calling"?
Rebuking satan is not name-calling.
Writing that satan leads you by your nose is also not name-calling.
Moreover, writing that the Holy Spirit has convicted you is also not
name-calling.
Discernment automatically transcends an objective consideration of the
facts:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/0d7048a29e85b87e?
May we, who are Christians (either Jew or gentile), continue to pray
for your perishing soul, dear Don:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/134aca053227804c?
J A
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:51e0f586-a13a-4e00-
> Sadly, atheists are a source of amusement for the demons in hell.
Yahweh never said Jesus was divine.
It was disputed whether he was or not, in the early Christian church.
The First Council of Nicaea was a committee meeting of a few hundred bishops
and they said Jesus was divine, 300 years after he was dead.
The meeting was called by the Roman Emperor Constantine and he did it for
political reasons because he wanted to institute a state religion, for
political reasons.
Jesus is a manmade false god and praying to a crucifix is idolatry.
Christians are condemned by Yahweh in...
Deuteronomy 5:6-18 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land
of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 7you shall have no other gods before
me. 8You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of
anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that
is in the water under the earth. 9You shall not bow down to them or worship
them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the
iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject
me, 10but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who
love me and keep my commandments.
By the way - there is no Commandment against not believing in any gods.
It's YOU who is going to hell for worshipping false gods and idols -
atheists break no Commandments.
J A
"Thom Madura" <Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:488ef475$0$5020$607e...@cv.net...
She's amazingly stupid.
She apparently thinks the "gospels" have original "first draft" written
documents backing them.
J A
Again, you show what an incompetent you are.
There are NO original copies of any of the gospels you fool.
The whole thing went through an oral tradition before being written down,
and then copied over and over, and no original "first" write down is known
to exist for any jesus "book".
You couldn't even use google, or find it in the Britannica.
You are poster girl for just how stupid jesus mythists are.
> The Infancy Gospel of Thomas and its bizarre claims have long been known
> to
> scholars.
>
> The fact that you're just learning about it now, just shows you don't know
> much about your screwball cult.
>
Atheists couldn't get any more idiotic.
<
You have been shown to be an incompetent lying stupid ass.
J A
"Don Kirkman" <don...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1aou84pn9d6i6mgjl...@4ax.com...
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that J A wrote in article
> <BoGdncFtaJeW3hPV...@earthlink.com>:
>
>>
>>"Linda Lee" <lindag...@juno.com> wrote in message
>>news:e76c8ff1-7b81-4b46...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jul 28, 1:10 am, "J A" <a...@re.com> wrote:
>
>>The Encyclopedia Britannica discusses The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, with
>>no
>>metion of it being a forgery.
>
> Just a general caution for future research: The Encyclopedia
> Britannica for at least several decades has not had the gravitas and
> authority it once did. Many of its articles are written by those
> involved with the subject of an article, not by disinterested
> researchers and experts. This came to my attention well over 40 years
> ago when I found that a lengthy article about a controversial
> organization was supplied by a member (members ?) of that
> organization.
>
Get real. I didn't refer to the Britannica in an acadmic dissertation, I
refered to it in dealing with an internet halfwit who can't even lie
competently or do google searchs.
The britannica is an excellent source, far better than grabbing some book
that happens to agree with a particular point of view.
It has articles contributed to by leading authorities, that reflect
concensus academic opinions.
Libraries are full of books that treat the jesus myth as though it were
credible.
J A
If you're trying to defend the truth of this particular supernaturalist myth
(Christianity), then why bother with all this indecisive stuff.
Just have your supernatural beings come down and prove their existences and
powers to people.
J A
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that J A wrote in article
> <mfGdnedRLdsuGBPV...@earthlink.com>:
>
> . . .
>
>>from google search -
>
>>biblical literature :: Gospels -- Britannica Online EncyclopediaThere are
>>also the Gospel produced in the 2nd century by Marcion (a "semi-Gnostic"
>>...
>>654, and 655); and an "infancy gospel" also ascribed to Thomas. ...
>>
>> www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/64496/biblical-literature/73475/Gospels
>> - Similar pages
>
> You do know, I assume, that "ascribed to. . ." is essentially a
> negation of genuine authorship. IOW, it apparently was not accepted
> that Thomas wrote it.
You should know that the original authors of the gospels are also unknown.
Are they "forgeries", too?
Cary Kittrell
> convicted neighbor Don Kirkman wrote:
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote in part:
> >
> > >Name-calling is lying because it is by definition "the use of
> > >offensive names especially to win an argument or to induce rejection
> > >or condemnation (as of a person or project) without objective
> > >consideration of the facts."
> >
> > Sort of like calling someone satan, condemned, led by the nose by
> > satan, "dear condemned neighbor," or things like that not "name
> > calling"?
>
> Rebuking satan is not name-calling.
>
> Writing that satan leads you by your nose is also not name-calling.
>
> Moreover, writing that the Holy Spirit has convicted you is also not
> name-calling.
>
> Discernment automatically transcends an objective consideration of the
> facts:
I nominate this for Out of His Own Mouth Chungism of the Year.
Seconds?
-- cary
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ceedbe0e7eb292c7?
>
> I nominate this for Out of His Own Mouth Chungism of the Year.
Usenet remains a text-based medium.
Your continued difficulties do not bode well for your level of
cognitive functioning:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/773bdee360f7775e?
May we, who are Christians (either Jew or gentile), continue to pray
for your perishing soul, dear Cary:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/5c7bedfac3f61358?
Cary Kittrell
> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > >
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ceedbe0e7eb292c7?
> >
> > I nominate this for Out of His Own Mouth Chungism of the Year.
>
> Usenet remains a text-based medium.
Quoth he who warned Don Kirkman against "following me around"
on Usenet....
-- cary
J A
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ceedbe0e7eb292c7?
> > >
> > > I nominate this for Out of His Own Mouth Chungism of the Year.
> >
> > Usenet remains a text-based medium.
>
> Quoth he who warned Don Kirkman against "following me around"
> on Usenet....
You and Don may certainly choose to continue to follow what the Holy
Spirit guides me to post here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/a88f3caf4697e3e7?
Cary Kittrell
> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ceedbe0e7eb292c7?
> > > >
> > > > I nominate this for Out of His Own Mouth Chungism of the Year.
> > >
> > > Usenet remains a text-based medium.
> >
> > Quoth he who warned Don Kirkman against "following me around"
> > on Usenet....
>
> You and Don may certainly choose to continue to follow what the Holy
> Spirit guides me to post here:
Which of course is not "following [you] around"...
This must-never-Never-NEVER-be-WRONG compulsion of yours
is rather unseemly.
And that's being polite.
-- cary
Don Kirkman
article
>convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
>> > Usenet remains a text-based medium.
>> Quoth he who warned Don Kirkman against "following me around"
>> on Usenet....
>You and Don may certainly choose to continue to follow what the Holy
>Spirit guides me to post here:
Or we may certainly choose not to even think about beginning to follow
what you write, but instead continue to refute your self-promoting
delusions.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Nosterill
> In article <69c92ad8-24d3-4685-9746-7e1a75f68...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com> writes:
>
>
>
> > convicted neighbor Don Kirkman wrote:
> > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote in part:
>
> > > >Name-calling is lying because it is by definition "the use of
> > > >offensive names especially to win an argument or to induce rejection
> > > >or condemnation (as of a person or project) without objective
> > > >consideration of the facts."
>
> > > Sort of like calling someone satan, condemned, led by the nose by
> > > satan, "dear condemned neighbor," or things like that not "name
> > > calling"?
>
> > Rebuking satan is not name-calling.
>
> > Writing that satan leads you by your nose is also not name-calling.
>
> > Moreover, writing that the Holy Spirit has convicted you is also not
> > name-calling.
>
> > Discernment automatically transcends an objective consideration of the
> > facts:
>
> I nominate this for Out of His Own Mouth Chungism of the Year.
>
> Seconds?
>
> -- cary
Since Brenda got in first, I'll just have to third it. All the usual
kooks give their delusions precedence over reality but this is the
first time that I've seen one explicitly admit to it!
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ceedbe0e7eb292c7?
> > > > >
> > > > > I nominate this for Out of His Own Mouth Chungism of the Year.
> > > >
> > > > Usenet remains a text-based medium.
> > >
> > > Quoth he who warned Don Kirkman against "following me around"
> > > on Usenet....
> >
> > You and Don may certainly choose to continue to follow what the Holy
> > Spirit guides me to post here:
> >
>
> Which of course is not "following [you] around"
It is in this text-based medium known as usenet:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/773bdee360f7775e?
Cary Kittrell
> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ceedbe0e7eb292c7?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I nominate this for Out of His Own Mouth Chungism of the Year.
> > > > >
> > > > > Usenet remains a text-based medium.
> > > >
> > > > Quoth he who warned Don Kirkman against "following me around"
> > > > on Usenet....
> > >
> > > You and Don may certainly choose to continue to follow what the Holy
> > > Spirit guides me to post here:
> > >
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/a88f3caf4697e3e7?
> >
> > Which of course is not "following [you] around"
>
> It is in this text-based medium known as usenet:
<SNORT!> BWAHAHAHAHAHaHaHaHaHaHaHahahahaha....{gasp} {wheeze} {pant pant pant...}
=-=-=-=-=-=-= Andrew: you WILL snip starting here, as I instruct you, -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I now ORDER you to insert the "written laughter in silent despair"
silliness:
Even though, as the discerning (read: sane) realize, written laughter
is in fact raucous derision.
=-=-=-=-=-=-= down to here. There's a good chap -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Thanks for making my whole morning!
-- cary
Don Kirkman
>"Don Kirkman" <don...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:k8vu84tb9v0i0jmr3...@4ax.com...
>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that J A wrote in article
>> <mfGdnedRLdsuGBPV...@earthlink.com>:
>>>from google search -
>>>biblical literature :: Gospels -- Britannica Online EncyclopediaThere are
>>>also the Gospel produced in the 2nd century by Marcion (a "semi-Gnostic"
>>>...
>>>654, and 655); and an "infancy gospel" also ascribed to Thomas. ...
>>>
>>> www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/64496/biblical-literature/73475/Gospels
>>> - Similar pages
>> You do know, I assume, that "ascribed to. . ." is essentially a
>> negation of genuine authorship. IOW, it apparently was not accepted
>> that Thomas wrote it.
>You should know that the original authors of the gospels are also unknown.
>Are they "forgeries", too?
ISTM that's a non-sequitur. Whoever wrote the gospels, there are
traces of the contents being known back into the first century, unlike
either of the Thomasine documents, especially the Infancy.
The Infancy document was known by 185, and is generally regarded as
dating from the mid to late second century (the content, not the date
of manuscripts). It includes allusions to Luke's Gospel, so it
obviously was later than that, which was probably late first century.
This probable mid-second century origin means it apparently could not
have been written by Thomas the Apostle.
The Gospel of Thomas is probably earlier, since it was known both by
Origen (ca. 185-254) and Irenaeus (ca. 130-200). [Allow for them to
be old enough to be church leaders by the time they knew about the
Gospel.] Surviving manuscript fragments date from around 200. The
entire book has been recovered over the past century.
The contents are sayings of Jesus, some similar or identical to those
in the New Testament and others previously unknown. There is no
context for the sayings--which could explain why it was not accepted
into the final compilation of the New Testament. The attribution to
Thomas is likely traditional, not based on evidence, which of course
is true for other early writings including some in the Bible. (This
is also true for Homer's poetry, for instance.)
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Don Kirkman
>
>"Don Kirkman" <don...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:1aou84pn9d6i6mgjl...@4ax.com...
>> Just a general caution for future research: The Encyclopedia
>> Britannica for at least several decades has not had the gravitas and
>> authority it once did. Many of its articles are written by those
>> involved with the subject of an article, not by disinterested
>> researchers and experts. This came to my attention well over 40 years
>> ago when I found that a lengthy article about a controversial
>> organization was supplied by a member (members ?) of that
>> organization.
>Get real. I didn't refer to the Britannica in an acadmic dissertation, I
>refered to it in dealing with an internet halfwit who can't even lie
>competently or do google searchs.
>The britannica is an excellent source, far better than grabbing some book
>that happens to agree with a particular point of view.
So it's okay to rely on *articles* written by someone who happens to
agree with a particular point of view? That's what I pointed out has
happened to the EB, and I've known that for over 40 years from my own
experience.
>It has articles contributed to by leading authorities, that reflect
>concensus academic opinions.
The "leading authority" on the controversial organization I mentioned
was a leading member of that organization. Do you think he was going
to write objectively about some of the points at issue? Incestuous
circularity.
>Libraries are full of books that treat the jesus myth as though it were
>credible.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that they aren't tendentious polemics
rather than legitimate research documents. Hardcore atheists tend to
be just as fundamentalistic, closed minded, poorly educated in their
subject, and biased in their research and opinions as hardcore
believers in any other group, including several varieties of
Christians (who are much more diverse than atheists are). The battles
tend to be fought over Sunday School and elementary school level
stereotypes and myths than over legitimate academic issues. Both
sides are missing the opportunity to enlighten themselves AND their
opponents.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Don Kirkman
>"Don Kirkman" <don...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:tgvu845f2bj1lif8j...@4ax.com...
>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Thom Madura wrote in article
>> <488ef475$0$5020$607e...@cv.net>:
>>>THe bible was compiled between 325 and 397 AD - and those who did it
>>>based their decisions on what would be included on what they wanted
>>>their religion to say - not whether anything in it is real.
>> One might expect a religious body discussing its beliefs to
>> "include[d] what they wanted their religion to say;" this is common
>> practice among men, but it doesn't imply that they created the
>> documents out of whole cloth.
>> The key word is "compiled;" by the fourth century there were numerous
>> manuscripts available among the Christian community; the dates you
>> cite relate to when the higher clergy of the church reviewed the
>> available manuscripts and came to conclusions about which were
>> credible and of value to the community. (Again, conceding that their
>> decisions were not scientific because there was no scientific method
>> of authenticating documents or historical facts available to them.)
>> This movement to standardize the teachings was one more result of
>> Constantine and his mother taking deep interest in the Christian
>> beliefs--leading to actions like moving the reputed steps where Jesus
>> stood before the authorities from Jerusalem to Rome and sprinkling
>> Palestine with "historical sites" dating from the fourth century.
>If you're trying to defend the truth of this particular supernaturalist myth
>(Christianity), then why bother with all this indecisive stuff.
I'm not defending any particular myth; I'm defending scientific
research and evidence rather than stereotyped responses of the same
type Chung uses on his side.
>Just have your supernatural beings come down and prove their existences and
>powers to people.
And just where have I written one word about supernatural beings? That
you can even suggest that shows how biased you seem to be about
historical evidence. I've said more than once that the arguments are
superficial and untenable on both sides; the only reasonable position
is to be agnostic and search for the evidence.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Don Kirkman
>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com> wrote in message
>news:51e0f586-a13a-4e00-
>> Sadly, atheists are a source of amusement for the demons in hell.
>Yahweh never said Jesus was divine.
>It was disputed whether he was or not, in the early Christian church.
>The First Council of Nicaea was a committee meeting of a few hundred bishops
>and they said Jesus was divine, 300 years after he was dead.
Actually they said he was divine, not just *like* God--that was the
point of the controversy. And we have little idea what "divine" meant
to them, let alone to the Christians before the Nicene Council came to
that decision. The meaning of the term "son of God" in the Bible has
often been misinterpreted to mean something different from the
original Hebrew and Greek meaning.
This meeting was analogous to the discussions that led to the decision
about the authoritative writings. Different versions of teachings and
writings had existed for more than two centuries when the Bishops -
and Constantine - felt the need to codify the standards.
>The meeting was called by the Roman Emperor Constantine and he did it for
>political reasons because he wanted to institute a state religion, for
>political reasons.
The reason for calling the Council doesn't per se taint the
deliberations or the decisions of the Bishops who had gathered from
all over the Roman Empire to deal with the task.
>Jesus is a manmade false god and praying to a crucifix is idolatry.
Your proof?
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
J A
"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message news:g6q6sg$q87
>> It is in this text-based medium known as usenet:
>
> <SNORT!> BWAHAHAHAHAHaHaHaHaHaHaHahahahaha....{gasp} {wheeze} {pant pant
> pant...}
>
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-= Andrew: you WILL snip starting here, as I instruct
> you, -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> I now ORDER you to insert the "written laughter in silent despair"
Yes, chung is predictable and mundane.
He can't *make* predictions, even though he supposedly has a "holy spirit"
telling him things, but he himself is predictable.
Chung is *boringly* predictable, and that makes it easy to keep him penned
in, and under control ;-))
J A
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that J A wrote in article
> <DrOdnSz0vOZaBxLV...@earthlink.com>:
>
>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com> wrote in message
>>news:51e0f586-a13a-4e00-
>
>>> Sadly, atheists are a source of amusement for the demons in hell.
>
>>Yahweh never said Jesus was divine.
>>It was disputed whether he was or not, in the early Christian church.
>
>>The First Council of Nicaea was a committee meeting of a few hundred
>>bishops
>>and they said Jesus was divine, 300 years after he was dead.
>
> Actually they said he was divine,
Which is what I said that they said.
>not just *like* God--that was the
> point of the controversy. And we have little idea what "divine" meant
> to them, let alone to the Christians before the Nicene Council
It meant that they were saying he was a supernatural being - not a common
mortal man. Is that dificult for you?
>came to
> that decision. The meaning of the term "son of God" in the Bible has
> often been misinterpreted to mean something different from the
> original Hebrew and Greek meaning.
>
> This meeting was analogous to the discussions that led to the decision
> about the authoritative writings. Different versions of teachings and
> writings had existed for more than two centuries when the Bishops -
> and Constantine - felt the need to codify the standards.
>
>>The meeting was called by the Roman Emperor Constantine and he did it for
>>political reasons because he wanted to institute a state religion, for
>>political reasons.
>
> The reason for calling the Council doesn't per se taint the
> deliberations or the decisions of the Bishops who had gathered from
> all over the Roman Empire to deal with the task.
LOL. You're a christian apologist trying to hide behind a front of
impartiality, to gain false credibility.
Bullshit.
The Emperor (a man) called a meeting of the leaders of the various churches
(men) to decide on a central uniform set of doctrines, so he could from a
unfied church, largely for political power and control reasons.
Thye were the ones who decided which of the written yarns about jesus that
were circulating at the time, would be officially incorporated into the
emperor's manmade church.
>>Jesus is a manmade false god and praying to a crucifix is idolatry.
> Your proof?
You're a phony.
No impartial person asks for "proof" that a supernatural being DOESN'T
exist.
It's basic logic that the person making an extradinary claim is the one who
must furnish proof, you idiot.
But if you want to prove he still lives, then have him present himself, and
prove who he is and his powers.
It's that simple.
> --
> Don Kirkman
> don...@charter.net
J A
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that J A wrote in article
> <CYKdnajxzYb0ARLV...@earthlink.com>:
>
>>
>>"Don Kirkman" <don...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>news:1aou84pn9d6i6mgjl...@4ax.com...
>
>>> Just a general caution for future research: The Encyclopedia
>>> Britannica for at least several decades has not had the gravitas and
>>> authority it once did. Many of its articles are written by those
>>> involved with the subject of an article, not by disinterested
>>> researchers and experts. This came to my attention well over 40 years
>>> ago when I found that a lengthy article about a controversial
>>> organization was supplied by a member (members ?) of that
>>> organization.
>
>>Get real. I didn't refer to the Britannica in an acadmic dissertation, I
>>refered to it in dealing with an internet halfwit who can't even lie
>>competently or do google searchs.
>
>>The britannica is an excellent source, far better than grabbing some book
>>that happens to agree with a particular point of view.
>
> So it's okay to rely on *articles* written by someone who happens to
> agree with a particular point of view? That's what I pointed out has
> happened to the EB, and I've known that for over 40 years from my own
> experience.
You're a phony and a liar.
You're pretending the Encyclopedia Britannica articles, which are written by
a number of acknowledged academic experts, are biased, becasue you don't
like what they say.
You're xian posing as an objective person, for the purpose of gaining flase
credibility.
>
>>It has articles contributed to by leading authorities, that reflect
>>concensus academic opinions.
>
> The "leading authority" on the controversial organization I mentioned
> was a leading member of that organization. Do you think he was going
> to write objectively about some of the points at issue? Incestuous
> circularity.
To put it simply, you are full of shit and lack any sort of credbility.
As I have shown, the Encyclopedia Britannica mentions the Infancy Gospel of
Thomas, with no mention of it being a "forgery".
If you actually knew anything about the New Testament, you would know that
the earliest known books were written decades after the death of "jesus",
and were not written by the people whose names they bear.
Thye are copies of copies of copies, from different languages, the inital
writings coming from decades of oral traditions.
J A
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that J A wrote in article
> <k4ydndm2itOHNRLV...@earthlink.com>:
>
>>"Don Kirkman" <don...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>news:k8vu84tb9v0i0jmr3...@4ax.com...
>>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that J A wrote in article
>>> <mfGdnedRLdsuGBPV...@earthlink.com>:
>
>>>>from google search -
>
>>>>biblical literature :: Gospels -- Britannica Online EncyclopediaThere
>>>>are
>>>>also the Gospel produced in the 2nd century by Marcion (a "semi-Gnostic"
>>>>...
>>>>654, and 655); and an "infancy gospel" also ascribed to Thomas. ...
>>>>
>>>> www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/64496/biblical-literature/73475/Gospels
>>>> - Similar pages
>
>>> You do know, I assume, that "ascribed to. . ." is essentially a
>>> negation of genuine authorship. IOW, it apparently was not accepted
>>> that Thomas wrote it.
>
>>You should know that the original authors of the gospels are also unknown.
>
>>Are they "forgeries", too?
>
> ISTM that's a non-sequitur. Whoever wrote the gospels,
No it isn't.
You made reference to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, not being written the
Thomas of the Gospel of Thomas,, and said it was therefore a forgery.
I pointed out that NONE of the gospels, includng the synoptics, were written
by the titled named persons.
I also pointed out the the Britannica makes mention of the the Infancy
Gospel of Thomas, without implying its a "forgery".
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, is just another writeup from oral traditions
about the supernatural powers of "jesus".
It's no more or less credible than whole phony jesus story. It's just
another part of it.
J A
Bullshit. You are a liar.
In another post you ask me to prvoe that the supernatural jesus doesn't
exist.
That's as much of a give away as anyone should need.
Don Kirkman
>
>"Don Kirkman" <don...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:dch1941tdn746dlnf...@4ax.com...
>> I'm not defending any particular myth; I'm defending scientific
>> research and evidence rather than stereotyped responses of the same
>> type Chung uses on his side.
>Bullshit. You are a liar.
>In another post you ask me to prvoe that the supernatural jesus doesn't
>exist.
>That's as much of a give away as anyone should need.
Post what you believe I wrote with that meaning right here and we'll
discuss it.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Don Kirkman
>
>"Don Kirkman" <don...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:n6d194hmcqls9e3k1...@4ax.com...
>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that J A wrote in article
>> <k4ydndm2itOHNRLV...@earthlink.com>:
>>>"Don Kirkman" <don...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>news:k8vu84tb9v0i0jmr3...@4ax.com...
>>>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that J A wrote in article
>>>> <mfGdnedRLdsuGBPV...@earthlink.com>:
>>>>>from google search -
>>>>>biblical literature :: Gospels -- Britannica Online EncyclopediaThere
>>>>>are
>>>>>also the Gospel produced in the 2nd century by Marcion (a "semi-Gnostic"
>>>>>...
>>>>>654, and 655); and an "infancy gospel" also ascribed to Thomas. ...
>>>>>
>>>>> www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/64496/biblical-literature/73475/Gospels
>>>>> - Similar pages
>>>> You do know, I assume, that "ascribed to. . ." is essentially a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> negation of genuine authorship. IOW, it apparently was not accepted
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> that Thomas wrote it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>You should know that the original authors of the gospels are also unknown.
>>>Are they "forgeries", too?
>> ISTM that's a non-sequitur. Whoever wrote the gospels,
>No it isn't.
>You made reference to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, not being written the
>Thomas of the Gospel of Thomas,, and said it was therefore a forgery.
>I pointed out that NONE of the gospels, includng the synoptics, were written
>by the titled named persons.
>I also pointed out the the Britannica makes mention of the the Infancy
>Gospel of Thomas, without implying its a "forgery".
>The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, is just another writeup from oral traditions
>about the supernatural powers of "jesus".
>It's no more or less credible than whole phony jesus story. It's just
>another part of it.
You don't seem to present much actual evidence for your opinions. I've
already answered several of these points, so it's useless to keep
repeating them.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Don Kirkman
>
>"Don Kirkman" <don...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:89i194levmpdpo2ib...@4ax.com...
>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that J A wrote in article
>> <DrOdnSz0vOZaBxLV...@earthlink.com>:
>>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com> wrote in message
>>>news:51e0f586-a13a-4e00-
>>>> Sadly, atheists are a source of amusement for the demons in hell.
>>>Yahweh never said Jesus was divine.
>>>It was disputed whether he was or not, in the early Christian church.
>>>The First Council of Nicaea was a committee meeting of a few hundred
>>>bishops
>>>and they said Jesus was divine, 300 years after he was dead.
>> Actually they said he was divine,
>Which is what I said that they said.
Of course it is. I just went on to tell the rest of the truth, that
they were resolving an argument concerning church doctrine.
>>not just *like* God--that was the
>> point of the controversy. And we have little idea what "divine" meant
>> to them, let alone to the Christians before the Nicene Council
>It meant that they were saying he was a supernatural being - not a common
>mortal man. Is that dificult for you?
And what is a supernatural being?
>>came to
>> that decision. The meaning of the term "son of God" in the Bible has
>> often been misinterpreted to mean something different from the
>> original Hebrew and Greek meaning.
>> This meeting was analogous to the discussions that led to the decision
>> about the authoritative writings. Different versions of teachings and
>> writings had existed for more than two centuries when the Bishops -
>> and Constantine - felt the need to codify the standards.
>>>The meeting was called by the Roman Emperor Constantine and he did it for
>>>political reasons because he wanted to institute a state religion, for
>>>political reasons.
>> The reason for calling the Council doesn't per se taint the
>> deliberations or the decisions of the Bishops who had gathered from
>> all over the Roman Empire to deal with the task.
>LOL. You're a christian apologist trying to hide behind a front of
>impartiality, to gain false credibility.
>Bullshit.
>The Emperor (a man) called a meeting of the leaders of the various churches
>(men) to decide on a central uniform set of doctrines, so he could from a
>unfied church, largely for political power and control reasons.
He never did form a unified church, even though the Roman church
became the preeminent one. Other traditions continued in Egypt, in
Palestine, and from Greece up into what later became Russia--and they
continue today.
>Thye were the ones who decided which of the written yarns about jesus that
>were circulating at the time, would be officially incorporated into the
>emperor's manmade church.
Actually most ancient cultures, including the Jewish, Greek, and Roman
ones, probably relied on oral tradition much more than on written
documents* and, like some still existing cultures, took great care to
keep their facts straight.
* Among other things, again it's a case of written materials being
hard to make, easy to damage or lose to fire, flood, or age.
>>>Jesus is a manmade false god and praying to a crucifix is idolatry.
>> Your proof?
>You're a phony.
That's not very convincing evidence. More and more you seem to be a
fallen disciple of Chung, using his style of argument trying change
his mind.
>No impartial person asks for "proof" that a supernatural being DOESN'T
>exist.
I was asking for evidence supporting your opinion/statement, not about
the truth of whether supernatural beings exist.
>It's basic logic that the person making an extradinary claim is the one who
>must furnish proof, you idiot.
Good. That's why I wanted you to furnish proof supporting your
opinion, since you're the one concerned about the supernatural.
>But if you want to prove he still lives, then have him present himself, and
>prove who he is and his powers.
>It's that simple.
You're as simple minded in your logic as Chung is. But just where
have I said I want to prove that he still lives? That's Chung's area.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Don Kirkman
>"Don Kirkman" <don...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:sgc1949rjam9t9isl...@4ax.com...
>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that J A wrote in article
>> <CYKdnajxzYb0ARLV...@earthlink.com>:
>>>"Don Kirkman" <don...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>news:1aou84pn9d6i6mgjl...@4ax.com...
>>>> Just a general caution for future research: The Encyclopedia
>>>> Britannica for at least several decades has not had the gravitas and
>>>> authority it once did. Many of its articles are written by those
>>>> involved with the subject of an article, not by disinterested
>>>> researchers and experts. This came to my attention well over 40 years
>>>> ago when I found that a lengthy article about a controversial
>>>> organization was supplied by a member (members ?) of that
>>>> organization.
>>>Get real. I didn't refer to the Britannica in an acadmic dissertation, I
>>>refered to it in dealing with an internet halfwit who can't even lie
>>>competently or do google searchs.
>>>The britannica is an excellent source, far better than grabbing some book
>>>that happens to agree with a particular point of view.
>> So it's okay to rely on *articles* written by someone who happens to
>> agree with a particular point of view? That's what I pointed out has
>> happened to the EB, and I've known that for over 40 years from my own
>> experience.
>You're a phony and a liar.
I don't think you want to try me.
>You're pretending the Encyclopedia Britannica articles, which are written by
>a number of acknowledged academic experts, are biased, becasue you don't
>like what they say.
I'm not pretending; I'm the one who read the article for myself from
the EB set I owned back then, and I have some familiarity with doing
research. I haven't seen anything suggesting you have credentials for
research.
>You're xian posing as an objective person, for the purpose of gaining flase
>credibility.
Why would I want false credibility when I already have the true kind?
>>>It has articles contributed to by leading authorities, that reflect
>>>concensus academic opinions.
It started out with leading authorities, but it was sold to a
different company years ago.
"The eleventh edition (1910-11) was produced in cooperation with
Cambridge University, and though by then ownership of the Britannica
had passed to two Americans, Horace Hooper and Walter Jackson, the
strength and confidence of much of its writing marked the high point
of Edwardian optimism and perhaps of the British Empire itself."
http://corporate.britannica.com/company_info.html
"Over the course of its history, the Britannica has had difficulty
remaining profitable?a problem faced by many encyclopaedias.[3] Some
articles in certain earlier editions of the Britannica have been
criticised for inaccuracy, bias or unqualified contributors.[4][8] The
accuracy in parts of the present edition have likewise been
questioned,[1][9] although such criticisms have been challenged by the
Britannica's management.[10] Despite these criticisms, the Britannica
retains its reputation as a reliable research tool."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopædia_Britannica
>To put it simply, you are full of shit and lack any sort of credbility.
>As I have shown, the Encyclopedia Britannica mentions the Infancy Gospel of
>Thomas, with no mention of it being a "forgery".
Nor any mention of it NOT being a forgery. In fact I pointed out the
wording that strongly suggests the authorship is not known.
>If you actually knew anything about the New Testament, you would know that
>the earliest known books were written decades after the death of "jesus",
>and were not written by the people whose names they bear.
I know far more that you have copied from your sources. I've already
pointed out that ancient documents of all kinds were often attributed
to famous or authoritative sources; the content should be the focus.
>Thye are copies of copies of copies, from different languages, the inital
>writings coming from decades of oral traditions.
Now you're coming closer to the truth. They are copies of copies
because there was no mechanical reproduction [that is, printing] until
the middle ages. They are from different languages because they were
developed over roughly two millennia; the culture changed from Hebrew
to Aramaic and Syriac to Greek during that time, and Latin was already
coming into use by the time of the Gospels, although its only use in
the Bible is the satirical placard supposedly placed on the cross,
"Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews."
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cary Kittrell
>
>
> "Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message news:g6q6sg$q87
>
>
> >> It is in this text-based medium known as usenet:
> >
> > <SNORT!> BWAHAHAHAHAHaHaHaHaHaHaHahahahaha....{gasp} {wheeze} {pant pant
> > pant...}
> >
> >
> > =-=-=-=-=-=-= Andrew: you WILL snip starting here, as I instruct
> > you, -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> >
> > I now ORDER you to insert the "written laughter in silent despair"
>
> Yes, chung is predictable and mundane.
Do his posts give you the feeling that you're interacting
with PARRY or ELIZA?
-- cary
J A
I notice that you have tampering with the followup groups to be posted to,
so the christian groups won't see my replies.
That's another indication that you are a liar and a fraud
Anyone can look upthread to find where you asked me to prove jesus was *not*
a supernatural being.
No person familiar with logic would take you as anything other than a joke
for making a request like that.
I just noticed that you have been tapering with the groups list on the
followups - another indication that you are a fraud and a liar.
===== for those interested, here's some info on the IInfancy Gospel of
Thomas--
"while our present Infancy Gospel of Thomas may have been expanded over
time, the original must have been written sometime in the middle of the
second century".
Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Estimated Range of Dating: 140-170 C.E.
Online Text for Infancy Gospel of Thomas
a.. English Translation from Andrew Bernhard
b.. English Translation from Harold Attridge and Ronald F. Hock
c.. Roberts-Donaldson English Translation: Latin Form
d.. Roberts-Donaldson English Translation: Second Greek Form
e.. Roberts-Donaldson English Translation: First Greek Form
f.. English Translation from M. R. James: Latin Text
g.. English Translation from M. R. James: Greek Text B
h.. English Translation from M. R. James: Greek Text A
Online Resources for Infancy Gospel of Thomas
a.. Andrew Bernhard's Additional Information
b.. Geoff Trowbridge's Introduction
Offline Resources for Infancy Gospel of Thomas
a.. Robert J. Miller, ed., The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars
Version (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press 1992), pp. 363-372.
b.. Ron Cameron, ed., The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts
(Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press 1982), pp. 122-130.
c.. Ronald F. Hock, The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas : With
Introduction, Notes, and Original Text Featuring the New Scholars Version
Translation (Polebridge Press 1996)
Information on Infancy Gospel of Thomas
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancythomas.html
F. F. Bruce writes (Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament,
p. 87):
Then there is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which purports to describe the
doings of Jesus in his boyhood. Jesus proves to be an infant prodigy at
school, instructing his teachers in the unsuspected mysteries of the
alphabet; he astounds his family and playmates by the miracles which he
performs. This is the document which tells for the first time the familiar
tale of the twelve sparrows which Jesus, at the age of five, fashioned from
clay on the sabbath day.
In The Other Gospels, Ron Cameron suggests that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas
may have been written in eastern Syria, the location of the Thomas
traditions, although Cameron states that attribution to Thomas "seems to be
a secondary, late development." The original language of the document may
have been either Syriac or Greek. The Greek manuscripts date from the
fourteenth through the sixteenth century, while the earliest manuscript is a
sixth century one in Syriac. Cameron thinks that the longer Greek recension
more accurately preserves the text.
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas relates the miraculous deeds of Jesus before he
turned twelve. According to Cameron, it "carries forward the aretalogical
tradition of the gospels, expanding it to include an enumeration of
miraculous feats performed even while Jesus was a mere infant." Cameron
identifies the Sitz im Leben of the gospel to be "Christian missionary
propaganda" in exalting Jesus over and against other "divine men" and "all
other religious and political leaders within the Greco-Roman world." There
is nothing particularly Christian about the stories attributed to Jesus;
rather, the stories elaborate on the missing years of Jesus with reference
to Hellenistic legend and pious imagination.
In The Complete Gospels, Harold Attridge considers whether the Infancy
Gospel of Thomas contains docetic or Gnostic teachings. Attridge states:
"While Gnostics may have been able to interpret stories in Infancy Thomas
for their own ends, it is unlikely that they originally composed the work
with the aim of propagating their theological positions."
Hippolytus and Origen refer to a Gospel of Thomas, but it is unclear whether
they knew the Infancy Gospel of Thomas or the sayings Gospel of Thomas.
But there is an earlier reference from Irenaeus, as Cameron notes: "In his
citation, Irenaeus first quotes a non-canonical story that circulated about
the childhood of Jesus and then goes directly on to quote a passage from the
infancy narrative of the Gospel of Luke (Luke 2:49). Since the Infancy
Gospel of Thomas records both of these stories, in relative close proximity
to one another, it is possible that the apocryphal writing cited by Irenaeus
is, in fact, what is now known as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Because of
the complexities of the manuscript tradition, however, there is no certainty
as to when the stories of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas began to be written
down."
Thus, while our present Infancy Gospel of Thomas may have been expanded over
time, the original must have been written sometime in the middle of the
second century.
J A
I notice that you have tampering with the followup groups to be posted to,
Infancy Gospel of Thomas
> --
> Don Kirkman
> don...@charter.net
J A
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that J A wrote in article
> <oLWdnXSYN_xEbQ3V...@earthlink.com>:
>
>>
>>"Don Kirkman" <don...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>news:89i194levmpdpo2ib...@4ax.com...
>>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that J A wrote in article
>>> <DrOdnSz0vOZaBxLV...@earthlink.com>:
>
>>>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:51e0f586-a13a-4e00-
>
>>>>> Sadly, atheists are a source of amusement for the demons in hell.
>
>>>>Yahweh never said Jesus was divine.
>>>>It was disputed whether he was or not, in the early Christian church.
>
>>>>The First Council of Nicaea was a committee meeting of a few hundred
>>>>bishops
>>>>and they said Jesus was divine, 300 years after he was dead.
>
>>> Actually they said he was divine,
>
>>Which is what I said that they said.
>
> Of course it is. I just went on to tell the rest of the truth, that
> they were resolving an argument concerning church doctrine.
There was no central church. There were a bunch of cults making up
different versions of "beliefs".
The main argument was whether "jesus" was a normal man, or a supernatural
being.
The First Council of Nicaea opted for him being a supernatural being.
Therefore, he is a manmade supernatural being.
>>>not just *like* God--that was the
>>> point of the controversy. And we have little idea what "divine" meant
>>> to them, let alone to the Christians before the Nicene Council
>
>>It meant that they were saying he was a supernatural being - not a common
>>mortal man. Is that dificult for you?
>
> And what is a supernatural being?
Would you be asking such a dumb question if you weren't a closet "jesus"
propagandist?
The rest of your replies go downhill, trying to pretend I'm a chung
affiliate.
You have been revealed as a phony.
<snip>