Isaiah and Revelations, Jesus is the Devil.
Rev Peter
christain context is known as the "morning star", or the "son of the
dawn". Yet christians have failed to realize that Jesus is the Devil,
and their own holy book provides the evidence of this interesting fact.
Isaiah 14: 12 [NASB] "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the
morning, son of the dawn!" You have been cut down to the earth, You who
have weakened the nations!"
Isaiah 14: 12 [KJV] "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of
the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the
nations."
[Verses 13 onward can be easily seen as applying to Jesus.] To further
reinforce the idea that Jesus is actually the Devil, we now go to
Revelations.
Rev 22: 16 [NASB] "I Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these
things for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the
bright MORNING STAR." [emphasis mine]
Rev 22: 16 [KJV] "I Jesus have sent mine angel unto you these things in
the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright
and MORNING STAR." [emphasis mine]
It should be noted, throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the Messiah is
never referred to as the "son of the morning", or the "morning star";
for the two refer to the planet venus, which is the first star to arise
with the dawn, and refer to the Devil. It is also reasonable, for
christians maintain that Jesus is the source of salvation, therefore
breaking the 1st commandment; Jesus himself broke the commandments
repeatedly, he taught people to hate their parents, dishonored his
mother in public, and even worked on the Sabbath collecting food --
which was a capital offence by the Commandments, for the Day of
Preparation was to be used for such purposes. Is Jesus the Devil,
according to Isaiah, YES.
peace
Rev Peter
ps: I am not the one who made the connection on this, but unfortunately
cannot recall the name of the person who brought it up. Anyway, to that
person I offer my thanks.
--
http://members.xoom.com/grgaud/
"In revealed religions, you have blasphemy and heresy.
In Deism, you have questions and free speech."
-- Ladyhank.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
aar...@my-deja.com
Stick with the King James man, all your problems disappear.
Satan is the son of the morning, not sun.
Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the
morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the
nations!
Jesus is the morning star.
Re 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things
in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the
bright and morning star.
Unlike Satan, Jesus is seen as the sun, see Malachi 4:2.
Aaron...
Craig
wrote:
We find petey mumbling under his breath...
>It has been accepted for centuries that the Devil, or Satan, in the
>christain context is known as the "morning star", or the "son of the
>dawn". Yet christians have failed to realize that Jesus is the Devil,
>and their own holy book provides the evidence of this interesting fact.
Oh, goody. Let's take a trip down "out of context" lane...
>
>Isaiah 14: 12 [NASB] "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the
>morning, son of the dawn!" You have been cut down to the earth, You who
>have weakened the nations!"
>
>Isaiah 14: 12 [KJV] "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of
>the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the
>nations."
>
>[Verses 13 onward can be easily seen as applying to Jesus.]
Verse 13 onward refers to the subject of verse 12 as there has been NO
change in pronoun.
Your venomous agenda manifests its ugly head again as you continue to
misinterpret the Scriptures. If only you had some scholastic insight
into the crap you peddle, you'd realize how foolish you look.
> To further
>reinforce the idea that Jesus is actually the Devil, we now go to
>Revelations.
You've not shown any connection yet, as all you've done is provide
Isaiah's description of satan, so you have some might rigorous
digging to produce the evidence to convince anyone.
>
>Rev 22: 16 [NASB] "I Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these
>things for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the
>bright MORNING STAR." [emphasis mine]
>
>Rev 22: 16 [KJV] "I Jesus have sent mine angel unto you these things in
>the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright
>and MORNING STAR." [emphasis mine]
AGain, the CONTEXT of the Scriptures exposes your REAL agenda. I can
now understand why you turned your back on Christianity; you never
were a Christian. You NEVER studied the Word.
However, the reader will note that the CONTEXT of Rev. 22 Jesus is
talking about Himself. He also says He is the BRIGHT and morning
star, NOT son of the morning or any other such unscholastic nonsense.
This misinterpretation is the usual critique that can be expected from
the Scripturally unlearned who try, at all cost of logic, to disparage
Christ, the Bible and those that hold them dear. These fools do so
inorder to feel superior; as their egos are as wet noodles.
>
>It should be noted, throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the Messiah is
>never referred to as the "son of the morning", or the "morning star";
Very good. And He isn't referred to as such in Rev 22.
>for the two refer to the planet venus, which is the first star to arise
>with the dawn, and refer to the Devil. It is also reasonable, for
>christians maintain that Jesus is the source of salvation,
That is correct. This was taught as far back as Genesis.
> therefore
>breaking the 1st commandment; Jesus himself broke the commandments
>repeatedly,
Jesus can't break the commandments as He is the One of whom the 1st
commandment speaks.
> he taught people to hate their parents, dishonored his
>mother in public, and even worked on the Sabbath collecting food --
He showed the people that there was NO way that, by their deeds, they
could become acceptable to God. There was only one way; faith in the
work of Christ.
>which was a capital offence by the Commandments,
And Jesus showed the religious leaders the hypocrisy of their own
condemnation; they, themselves, violated the commandments. How than
could any be saved? Only the Blood of Christ.
> for the Day of
>Preparation was to be used for such purposes. Is Jesus the Devil,
>according to Isaiah, YES.
Not when you look at it carefully and note the terms used to describe
satan and Jesus. The CONTEXT will also show you that the two aren't
the same person. Finally, the term "son of the morning" as used in
Isaiah and "bright and morning star" are two different terms; they
refer to two different entities.
No, you've shown nothing in regards to equating Jesus with satan.
What you have succeeded in is cementing in the mind of believers what
a fool you remain and how the venom of your hate has clouded your
ability to reasonably discern truth from fiction.
Rev. G. R. Gaudreau
Craig <nott...@ohno.net> wrote in message
news:387e2b71.347856828@news-server...
We find petey mumbling under his breath...
Oh, goody. Let's take a trip down "out of context" lane...
Your venomous agenda manifests its ugly head again as you continue to
misinterpret the Scriptures. If only you had some scholastic insight
into the crap you peddle, you'd realize how foolish you look.
This misinterpretation is the usual critique that can be expected from
the Scripturally unlearned who try, at all cost of logic, to disparage
Christ, the Bible and those that hold them dear. These fools do so
inorder to feel superior; as their egos are as wet noodles.
Very good. And He isn't referred to as such in Rev 22.
Jesus can't break the commandments as He is the One of whom the 1st
commandment speaks.
<Huge snippage for the sake of my poor delicate stomach>
REVGR
Oh my, look at this: First it was Davy (Moe) and now it's Craigy
(Larry). I wonder when Curly will show up? Larry thinks himself the
scholar and Moe the Punisher. What a lovely couple they make. Please
keep it up, Moe and Larry, Sceptics have no better allies in their fight
against ignorance and superstition. Good Job, lads!
--
Reverend G.R. Gaudreau, H.M.C.
grg...@bigfoot.com
http://members.xoom.com/grgaud/
"Christian reason: One of the most underrated of oxymorons."
Hunter Int.
Don't you just love how 'Rev. Peter' simply grabs up anything that someone
else has written, doesn't check it out, review it, or study it, and then
puts here as if it's his and has been researched? I mean, what *sane*
person acts like that?
Amazingly stupid, but something you would expect from a self professed
"moron." I wonder how it is that Ladyhank finds this guy's babble worth
defending, as if *we* did the very same thing as the goofy 'Revs,' well,
she'd be on our case as lunatics, idiots, and who knows what else.
One thing she *wouldn't* be doing is supporting, let alone defending, our
"reasoning."
Oh, and that "trip down out of context lane" line was just beautiful!
Warmest regards,
Dave...
Craig wrote in message <387e2b71.347856828@news-server>...
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:43:39 GMT, Rev Peter <gadfl...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>We find petey mumbling under his breath...
>
>>It has been accepted for centuries that the Devil, or Satan, in the
>>christain context is known as the "morning star", or the "son of the
>>dawn". Yet christians have failed to realize that Jesus is the Devil,
>>and their own holy book provides the evidence of this interesting fact.
>
>Oh, goody. Let's take a trip down "out of context" lane...
>>
>>Isaiah 14: 12 [NASB] "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the
>>morning, son of the dawn!" You have been cut down to the earth, You who
>>have weakened the nations!"
>>
>>Isaiah 14: 12 [KJV] "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of
>>the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the
>>nations."
>>
>>[Verses 13 onward can be easily seen as applying to Jesus.]
>
>Verse 13 onward refers to the subject of verse 12 as there has been NO
>change in pronoun.
>
>Your venomous agenda manifests its ugly head again as you continue to
>misinterpret the Scriptures. If only you had some scholastic insight
>into the crap you peddle, you'd realize how foolish you look.
>
>> To further
>>reinforce the idea that Jesus is actually the Devil, we now go to
>>Revelations.
>
>You've not shown any connection yet, as all you've done is provide
>Isaiah's description of satan, so you have some might rigorous
>digging to produce the evidence to convince anyone.
>>
>>Rev 22: 16 [NASB] "I Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these
>>things for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the
>>bright MORNING STAR." [emphasis mine]
>>
>>Rev 22: 16 [KJV] "I Jesus have sent mine angel unto you these things in
>>the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright
>>and MORNING STAR." [emphasis mine]
>
>AGain, the CONTEXT of the Scriptures exposes your REAL agenda. I can
>now understand why you turned your back on Christianity; you never
>were a Christian. You NEVER studied the Word.
>
>However, the reader will note that the CONTEXT of Rev. 22 Jesus is
>talking about Himself. He also says He is the BRIGHT and morning
>star, NOT son of the morning or any other such unscholastic nonsense.
>
>
>This misinterpretation is the usual critique that can be expected from
>the Scripturally unlearned who try, at all cost of logic, to disparage
>Christ, the Bible and those that hold them dear. These fools do so
>inorder to feel superior; as their egos are as wet noodles.
>>
>>It should be noted, throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the Messiah is
>>never referred to as the "son of the morning", or the "morning star";
>
>Very good. And He isn't referred to as such in Rev 22.
>
>>for the two refer to the planet venus, which is the first star to arise
>>with the dawn, and refer to the Devil. It is also reasonable, for
>>christians maintain that Jesus is the source of salvation,
>
>That is correct. This was taught as far back as Genesis.
>
>
>> therefore
>>breaking the 1st commandment; Jesus himself broke the commandments
>>repeatedly,
>
>Jesus can't break the commandments as He is the One of whom the 1st
>commandment speaks.
>
Loki
<snip>
>Stick with the King James man, all your problems disappear.
Man, now if only the KJV was an accurate translation! Then all of our
problems would be solved!
<snip Jesus vs. Satan stuff>
--
Et in Arcadia Ego...
Loki
-[E-Mail]- lo...@shadrach.com
-[WWW]- http://members.xoom.com/balsebub
-[ICQ]- #13134728
"I'll survive, I'll survive,
"Then I'll defy the laws of nature and come out alive,
"Then I'll get you!" - Freddie Mercury, "7 Seas of Rhye"
Phil Grabowski
Revelations 22:16 " I, Jesus, sent my angel to give you this testimony for
the
churches. I am the root and offspring of David,* the bright morning star.
Goto Revelations 2, 26-28 " ' " To the victor, * who keeps to my ways*
until
the end, I will give authority over the nations. He will rule them with an
iron
rod. Like clay vessels will they be smashed, just as I received authority
from
my Father. And to him I will give the morning star.
Explained, The Christian who perservers in faith will share in Christ's
messianic authority and resurrection victory over death, symbolized by the
morning star.
Revelations 5:5 One of the elders said to me, "Do not weep. The lion
of the
tribe of Judah, the root of David, * has triumphed, enabling him to open the
scroll with its seven seals."
The lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David: these are messianic
titles
applied to Christ to symbolize his victory.
In no words does it say Lucifer. It it's Christ victory.
Phil Grabowski
Keeper of the Catholic Faith
Rev Peter wrote:
> It has been accepted for centuries that the Devil, or Satan, in the
> christain context is known as the "morning star", or the "son of the
> dawn". Yet christians have failed to realize that Jesus is the Devil,
> and their own holy book provides the evidence of this interesting fact.
>
> Isaiah 14: 12 [NASB] "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the
> morning, son of the dawn!" You have been cut down to the earth, You who
> have weakened the nations!"
>
> Isaiah 14: 12 [KJV] "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of
> the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the
> nations."
>
> [Verses 13 onward can be easily seen as applying to Jesus.] To further
> reinforce the idea that Jesus is actually the Devil, we now go to
> Revelations.
>
> Rev 22: 16 [NASB] "I Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these
> things for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the
> bright MORNING STAR." [emphasis mine]
>
> Rev 22: 16 [KJV] "I Jesus have sent mine angel unto you these things in
> the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright
> and MORNING STAR." [emphasis mine]
>
> It should be noted, throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the Messiah is
> never referred to as the "son of the morning", or the "morning star";
> for the two refer to the planet venus, which is the first star to arise
> with the dawn, and refer to the Devil. It is also reasonable, for
> christians maintain that Jesus is the source of salvation, therefore
> breaking the 1st commandment; Jesus himself broke the commandments
> repeatedly, he taught people to hate their parents, dishonored his
> mother in public, and even worked on the Sabbath collecting food --
> which was a capital offence by the Commandments, for the Day of
> Preparation was to be used for such purposes. Is Jesus the Devil,
> according to Isaiah, YES.
>
ladyhank
Hunter Int. wrote in message <387e52df$0$29...@news.execpc.com>...
>Amazingly stupid, but something you would expect from a self
professed
>"moron." I wonder how it is that Ladyhank finds this guy's babble
worth
>defending, as if *we* did the very same thing as the goofy 'Revs,'
well,
>she'd be on our case as lunatics, idiots, and who knows what else.
>
>One thing she *wouldn't* be doing is supporting, let alone defending,
our
>"reasoning."
Ladyhank: I'm deeply touched by your concern. I wasn't even in this
thread. I didn't realize how often you thought of me. Sweet dreams.
Rev. G. R. Gaudreau
news:85lhe3$kr6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
In article <85kvbn$604$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Rev Peter <gadfl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> It has been accepted for centuries that the Devil, or Satan, in the
> christain context is known as the "morning star", or the "son of the
> dawn". Yet christians have failed to realize that Jesus is the Devil,
> and their own holy book provides the evidence of this interesting
fact.
>
> Isaiah 14: 12 [NASB] "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the
> morning, son of the dawn!" You have been cut down to the earth, You
who
> have weakened the nations!"
>
> Isaiah 14: 12 [KJV] "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son
of
> the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken
the
> nations."
>
> [Verses 13 onward can be easily seen as applying to Jesus.] To further
> reinforce the idea that Jesus is actually the Devil, we now go to
> Revelations.
>
> Rev 22: 16 [NASB] "I Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these
> things for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the
> bright MORNING STAR." [emphasis mine]
AARON
Stick with the King James man, all your problems disappear.
REVGR
Right! The KJV will solve all your problems, RevP.... NOT!!!
<snipped>
AARON
Unlike Satan, Jesus is seen as the sun, see Malachi 4:2.
Aaron...
REVGR
Malachi 4:1 ś For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven;
and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and
the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it
shall leave them neither root nor branch.
2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise
with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves
of the stall.
3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the
soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of
hosts.
Just when did Jesus do the things mentioned above, Aaron? When did Jesus
enable the Jews to "tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under
the soles of your feet?" If memory serves me right, the Jews got their
butts whooped good 'n proper by the Romans, circa A.D. 70. So, Aaron,
just when did Jesus do these things?
The "Sun of righteousness" arising "with healing on his wings" is about
a DAY when YHWH would restore Israel and not about Jesus. Note that the
Jews are still waiting for ol' YHWH to do that; just like Xians are
still waiting, after 2 000 years, for Jesus to return. Don't hold your
breath waiting.
Rev. G. R. Gaudreau
news:387E5C4F...@starget.net...
Revelations 22:16 " I, Jesus, sent my angel to give you this testimony
for the churches. I am the root and offspring of David,* the bright
morning star.
Goto Revelations 2, 26-28 " ' " To the victor, * who keeps to my ways*
until the end, I will give authority over the nations. He will rule
them with an iron rod. Like clay vessels will they be smashed, just as
I received authority from my Father. And to him I will give the morning
star.
Explained, The Christian who perservers in faith will share in
Christ's messianic authority and resurrection victory over death,
symbolized by the morning star.
REVGR
Sure, Phil, in your dreams.
PHIL
Revelations 5:5 One of the elders said to me, "Do not weep. The lion
of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, * has triumphed, enabling him
to open the scroll with its seven seals."
The lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David: these are messianic
titles applied to Christ to symbolize his victory.
In no words does it say Lucifer. It it's Christ victory.
REVGR
Christ's victory??? Please!!! Jesus didn't even have physical ties to
king David, or haven't you read the genealogies in "Matthew" and "Luke"?
No physical ties to David, no messianic titles. No messainic titles, no
victories.
Messiah HAD to have physical ties to king David, but because of the myth
of virgin-birth, stolen from other pagan myths, Jesus was just another
bastard. The reasons the Jesus myth scored down through history is 1)
because it had a good press agent, i.e., Paul, 2) because Xianity had
political help from Constantine who made it the state religion and last
but not least, 3) because people like you were gullible enough to buy
into this superstitious crap.
aar...@my-deja.com
lo...@shadrach.com (Loki) wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 21:52:10 GMT, aar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> problems would be solved!
>
> <snip Jesus vs. Satan stuff>
>
> --
> Et in Arcadia Ego...
>
> Loki
> -[E-Mail]- lo...@shadrach.com
> -[WWW]- http://members.xoom.com/balsebub
> -[ICQ]- #13134728
>
> "I'll survive, I'll survive,
> "Then I'll defy the laws of nature and come out alive,
> "Then I'll get you!" - Freddie Mercury, "7 Seas of Rhye"
>
has.
Aaron...
Loki
<snip>
>They've tried to the tune of over 200 Bibles to match it, but no one
>has.
You're right. Every time they've tried to match it, they've actually
surpassed it.
>Aaron...
Craig
<grgaud...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>REVGR
>Oh my, look at this: First it was Davy (Moe) and now it's Craigy
>(Larry). I wonder when Curly will show up? Larry thinks himself the
>scholar and Moe the Punisher. What a lovely couple they make. Please
>keep it up, Moe and Larry, Sceptics have no better allies in their fight
>against ignorance and superstition. Good Job, lads!
Atta boy, Rick. Show all the lurkers the level of your intelligence
and immaturity. Believers have no better examples of the stupidity of
the skeptic and their lack of credible contradictions than you and
your kind. Keep up the great job, pal!!!
>
Rick Forester
Gaudreau" <grgaud...@sprint.ca> writes:
>Messiah HAD to have physical ties to king David, but because of the myth
>of virgin-birth, stolen from other pagan myths, Jesus was just another
>bastard.
Very interesting...I never realized this aspect? How is it possible for me and
for so many Christians to attend church, bible study and other activities for
many years and NOT SEE THE REALITY?
Indeed gentlemen and ladies, if Mary was a virgin, then Joseph has nothing to
do with the genealogy of Jesus and his links to David are inexistent. Or, on
the other hand, if he was the father, then Mary was not a virgin and the whole
virgin birth is a hoax!
Indeed we have a reason and it works only if we use it! Cogito Ergo Sum ! I am
so grateful to these wonderful Deists who opened my eyes.
But why in the world then Dr. Luke made the inexcusable boo-boo of saying that
Jesus was (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, etc.?
(OK, put your hands on the car...you have the right to an attorney...everything
you say can be used against you in the court of law....).
Rick Forester
==========================================================
rick s. forester
"Stand up for something or you'll fall for anything".
==========================================================
Hunter Int.
What a loon. You said..
>Oh my, look at this: First it was Davy (Moe) and now it's Craigy
>(Larry). I wonder when Curly will show up? Larry thinks himself the
>scholar and Moe the Punisher. What a lovely couple they make. Please
>keep it up, Moe and Larry, Sceptics have no better allies in their fight
>against ignorance and superstition. Good Job, lads!
I guess this is supposed to be funny? I guess when someone deflates the
argument of your fellow atheist (there are *no* deists, by the way...) then
"reason" leaves you and the comedy hour begins. Fine charade, my friend,
fine job.
And certainly, of course, we will be happy to continue doing our jobs! Why
wouldn't we? And since we never stop, why do you keep asking us continue in
the first place? Your attempts at 'psychology' are pretty lame, you
impotent old frog, you.
Warmest regards,
Dave...
Loki
<cle...@starnetinc.com> wrote:
>Rick,
>
>What a loon. You said..
>
>>Oh my, look at this: First it was Davy (Moe) and now it's Craigy
>>(Larry). I wonder when Curly will show up? Larry thinks himself the
>>scholar and Moe the Punisher. What a lovely couple they make. Please
>>keep it up, Moe and Larry, Sceptics have no better allies in their fight
>>against ignorance and superstition. Good Job, lads!
>
>
>I guess this is supposed to be funny? I guess when someone deflates the
>argument of your fellow atheist (there are *no* deists, by the way...) then
>"reason" leaves you and the comedy hour begins. Fine charade, my friend,
>fine job.
Yeah, it's not possible for someone to simply believe in god without
the trappings of nonsensical religions. Great argument there. But
since I haven't met any Christians who would give to me whatever I
asked of them, we can safely say there are no true followers of
Christ, either.
>Warmest regards,
>
>Dave...
Rev Peter
ricksf...@cs.comingless (Rick Forester) wrote:
> In article <Rdwf4.18998$2x3.3...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, "Rev. G.
> R.
> Gaudreau" <grgaud...@sprint.ca> writes:
>
> >Messiah HAD to have physical ties to king David, but because of the
> >myth
> >of virgin-birth, stolen from other pagan myths, Jesus was just
> >another
> >bastard.
Rick:
>
> Very interesting...I never realized this aspect? How is it possible
> for me and
> for so many Christians to attend church, bible study and other
> activities for
> many years and NOT SEE THE REALITY?
RevP:
I was a christian for over 30 years and also failed to see it. Being
religious is to be a person of conviction, and as Nietzsche pointed out,
men of conviction are prisoners to those convictions, convictions
prevent one from seeing far enough.
Rick:
> Indeed gentlemen and ladies, if Mary was a virgin, then Joseph has
> nothing to
> do with the genealogy of Jesus and his links to David are inexistent.
RevP:
Exactly, for example, in the NT, we have these two passages: Acts. 2:
30, and Romans 1: 3; christians for centuries attempted to resolve the
problem by claiming [without a shred of biblical evidence] that Mary was
physically descended from David, and this applied to Jesus. But the
Tanakh is very specific, for both of the passages above originate with
this messanic passage: Psalms 132: 11-18, which clearly shows that the
Messiah will be physically descended through the MALE line.
Rick:
> Or, on
> the other hand, if he was the father, then Mary was not a virgin and
> the whole
> virgin birth is a hoax!
RevP:
The only NT writer who makes the virgin myth is whoever wrote the gospel
known as Matthew. Historically the virgin birth story was important, it
served to impress the ignorant that one's god was real. For example:
"Mithra, the Iranian god of light and of sacred contracts, is described
as a divine child of radiant heavenly beams. Mithra was born from the
rock of a cave, the birth witnessed by shepherds on a day December (25)
that was later claimed by Christians as the Nativity of Christ." -- .
"History of the Christian myth and legend" Encyclopedia Britannica.
Rick:
> Indeed we have a reason and it works only if we use it! Cogito Ergo
> Sum ! I am
> so grateful to these wonderful Deists who opened my eyes.
RevP:
Your Reason opened your eyes, we simply provided the subject.
Rick:
> But why in the world then Dr. Luke made the inexcusable boo-boo of
> saying that
> Jesus was (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, etc.?
RevP:
A careful reading of Luke shows that the angel told Mary, a virgin at
the time, that she would have a child; not that she would have a virgin
birth. As for Joseph, in the primary sources the geneology of Joseph in
Luke clearly identifies Joseph as the father of Jesus, but translators
desiring to make it conform with Matthew, put in brackets "as was
supposed" -- Luke? does not write this! Also, in the temple incident,
Mary publicly identifies Joseph as the father of Jesus. What we see is
the translators deliberately distorting the text to serve their
theological interests.
peace
Rev Peter
ps: So far everyone missed the point I hoped to make with this post,
which is that Isaiah can be distorted to make it appear to support
Jesus, but a more literal reading condemns the basic tenents of
christinanity.
--
http://members.xoom.com/grgaud/
"In revealed religions, you have blasphemy and heresy.
In Deism, you have questions and free speech."
-- Ladyhank.
ladyhank
Rick Forester wrote in message <20000114111747.16127.00000066@nso-
RICK F
>Indeed gentlemen and ladies, if Mary was a virgin, then Joseph has
nothing to
>do with the genealogy of Jesus and his links to David are inexistent.
Or, on
>the other hand, if he was the father, then Mary was not a virgin and
the whole
>virgin birth is a hoax!
Ladyhank: Bingo! You win the jackpot!
RICK F:
>Indeed we have a reason and it works only if we use it! Cogito Ergo
Sum ! I am
>so grateful to these wonderful Deists who opened my eyes.
Ladyhank: And in all seriousness, I really do think that's the
greatest prize of all. By seeing the problems of revealed religions,
in this case, xianity, you actually get to see so much more in the
world than by relying on fables for your sense of God or truth. I'm
not saying fables don't have their place in culture, but I am saying
celebrating the reality of life is much more satisfying that
celebrating an imitation, IMHO.
aar...@my-deja.com
lo...@shadrach.com (Loki) wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 02:40:19 GMT, aar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >They've tried to the tune of over 200 Bibles to match it, but no one
> >has.
>
> You're right. Every time they've tried to match it, they've actually
> surpassed it.
>
> >Aaron...
>
> Et in Arcadia Ego...
>
> Loki
> -[E-Mail]- lo...@shadrach.com
> -[WWW]- http://members.xoom.com/balsebub
> -[ICQ]- #13134728
>
> "I'll survive, I'll survive,
> "Then I'll defy the laws of nature and come out alive,
> "Then I'll get you!" - Freddie Mercury, "7 Seas of Rhye"
>
simply using the KJV. You can't say that for the other trash.
Aaron...
ladyhank
Rev Peter wrote in message <85o4nl$hgd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>RevP wrote:
>
>I was a christian for over 30 years and also failed to see it. Being
>religious is to be a person of conviction, and as Nietzsche pointed
out,
>men of conviction are prisoners to those convictions, convictions
>prevent one from seeing far enough.
Ladyhank: I like this point that you made. One of my favorite books
is called "The Sacred Tree", and it talks about a spiritual approach
to living and living a life in balance. It talks in earth-centered
terms and the example it gave was of a field mouse busily gathering
seeds. She concentrates solely on her job at hand with all of her
being and is quite good at it. This skill is necessary for her
survival. Without such a sharp focus to find those seeds and an
immense ability to immerse herself in the task, she would starve. The
problem is she is so focused on her single purpose, that she is
unaware of the predator owl swooping down upon her. She is oblivious
to the danger and her life is in great peril. What she needed to do
was pay attention to those inner warning signs that animals (including
humans) have and to raise up her head from time to time to get the big
picture.
The convictions that Nietzsche speaks of is that sharp focus, IMO,
that many Fundies display towards their religion. I certainly would
agree that a belief in God makes us better humans. But those
convictions can cause us to ignore the inner warning signs of reason
that speak to us, that little tell-tale voice that says something just
isn't right. Focusing on what is the *one, right way*, you fail to
see the big picture of what is around you. In reality, the world is
made up of many different peoples who need to stop feeling as if they
live in a constantly combative atmosphere, one of prey and predator.
This simply isn't healthy for life.
As a Deist, I believe a spiritual life is so important to our
well-being. I applaud anyone who works to truly achieve that. But
such work, IMO, cannot include forgetting that we are neighbors on
this planet and that we must take care of each other, and it, to
continue to survive, and survive well. Focusing our vision simply
must be kept in balance with widening our view for the benefit of all.
Idealistically, I think if everyone were Deists, that end would be
accomplished. Deists seem to me to be naturally inquisitive folks who
love to look at a wide range of things with a studious eye.
Realistically, I don't see that happening any time soon. But I see no
harm in pointing out the view from here in the hopes that someone
else's may be broadened.
I don't want to sound too preachy, but I'd like for people to
understand what Deism is, at least to me. Maybe they will be
encouraged to at least check into it for themselves. Frequently, we
have a tendency to talk about all the the things Deism is not, but I
like to take time once in a while, to emphasize the great things it
is.
Peace, ladyhank
Rev. G. R. Gaudreau
>
>What a loon. You said..
>
>>Oh my, look at this: First it was Davy (Moe) and now it's Craigy
>>(Larry). I wonder when Curly will show up? Larry thinks himself the
>>scholar and Moe the Punisher. What a lovely couple they make. Please
>>keep it up, Moe and Larry, Sceptics have no better allies in their
fight
>>against ignorance and superstition. Good Job, lads!
>
>
>I guess this is supposed to be funny? I guess when someone deflates
the
>argument of your fellow atheist (there are *no* deists, by the way...)
then
>"reason" leaves you and the comedy hour begins. Fine charade, my
friend,
>fine job.
LOKI
Yeah, it's not possible for someone to simply believe in god without the
trappings of nonsensical religions. Great argument there. But since I
haven't met any Christians who would give to me whatever I asked of
them, we can safely say there are no true followers of
Christ, either.
REVGR
BINGO BANGO!!! You've nailed it right on the head, my friend: There
isn't a Xian to be found anywhere, since the only true Xian died on a
cross, assuming, for the sake of arguent, that he even existed. What
passes for Xians these days couldn't follow Jesus if their lives
depended on it. Jesus told them to give up their possessions, sell them
and give the proceeds to the poor. Do they do that? NO! He asked them to
envite bums off the street to their parties. Do they do that? NO! He
said they could move mountains with their faith? Can they do that? NO,
not even symbolically! All they can do is talk the talk. Walking the
walk is not on their agenda. Yes indeed, we CAN safely say that there
are no true followers of Christ.
Rev. G. R. Gaudreau
In article <Rdwf4.18998$2x3.3...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, "Rev. G.
R.
Gaudreau" <grgaud...@sprint.ca> writes:
Messiah HAD to have physical ties to king David, but because of the myth
of virgin-birth, stolen from other pagan myths, Jesus was just another
bastard.
RICK F
Very interesting...I never realized this aspect? How is it possible for
me and for so many Christians to attend church, bible study and other
activities for many years and NOT SEE THE REALITY?
REVGR
Join the club. I was a Fundie for 18 years and never saw it until a
persistant Sceptic challenged me to take a good look at it. I got the
shock of my life when I did.
RICK F
Indeed gentlemen and ladies, if Mary was a virgin, then Joseph has
nothing to do with the genealogy of Jesus and his links to David are
inexistent. Or, on the other hand, if he was the father, then Mary was
not a virgin and the whole virgin birth is a hoax!
REVGR
They painted themselves in a corner trying to make Jesus into something
he wasn't; assuming he even existed. And even if they hadn't stolen the
virgin birth myth from the pagans and that Joseph had really been his
father, the genealogies would still have precluded his being Messiah. In
"Mathew's" genealogy, king Jeconiah was cursed of YHWH and told that
none of his descendants would prosper on Israel's throne. In "Luke's"
genealogy, he has Jesus descending from the line of Nathan, Solomon's
brother, yet God had said that Messiah would come through Solomon's
line. One way or the other, reality eventually catches up with
inventions such as these.
RICK F
Indeed we have a reason and it works only if we use it! Cogito Ergo Sum
! I am so grateful to these wonderful Deists who opened my eyes. But why
in the world then Dr. Luke made the inexcusable boo-boo of saying that
Jesus was (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, etc.?
(OK, put your hands on the car...you have the right to an attorney...
everything you say can be used against you in the court of law....).
REVGR
It was probably a later addition on the part of a Xian scribe who
realized that Luke had made a boo boo saying Joseph was Jesus' father.
But even if it wasn't, it changes nothing because the genealogy is based
on the supposition that Joseph was Jesus' father, so it's Joseph's
genealogy. Note too that Jospeh has a different father in this one. In
Matthew's his father is Jacob, while in Luke's it's Heli. You'd think
that an omniscient "God" could have foreseen these problems, right?
BTW, what Descartes should have said was: Cogito cogito, ergo, cogito
sum. ;-)
Rev. G. R. Gaudreau
<aar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:85obe0$mfu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
REVGR
COUNTLESS contradictions were cleared up??? Yeah, right! In your dreams,
maybe! You've cleared up exactly NOTHING with your KJV, but I'll give
you another chance, Aaron. Here, clear this one up if you can:
2 Kings 23:29 In his days Pharaohnechoh king of Egypt went up against
the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates: and king Josiah went against
him; and he slew him at Megiddo, when he had seen him. 30 And his
servants carried him in a chariot dead from Megiddo, and brought him to
Jerusalem, and buried him in his own sepulchre. And the people of the
land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and anointed him, and made him
king in his father's stead. (KJV)
2 Chronicles 35:23 And the archers shot at king Josiah; and the king
said to his servants, Have me away; for I am sore wounded. 24 His
servants therefore took him out of that chariot, and put him in the
second chariot that he had; and they brought him to Jerusalem, and he
died, and was buried in one of the sepulchres of his fathers. And all
Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah. (KJV)
OK, Aaron, where did king Josiah die? Did he die in Megiddo, as per
2Kings 23, or did he die in Jerusalem, as per 2Chronicles? Now Aaron,
I'm going to ignore any other posts but yours one this one, especially
those from Davy and Craigy, the two Stooges from alt.bible. Go ahead,
I'm listening.
ladyhank
aar...@my-deja.com wrote in message <85odr8$o71$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
><SNIP>
> Ge 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between
>thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise
>his heel.
>
>The first prophecy of the virgin birth is found here in Genesis three.
>Why? Becuase women don't carry the reproductive seed, men do. For
Mary
>to have concieved meant God had to put the seed in her. This verse
also
>shows us that it wasn't a divine working of God through Josephs seed
>either, Christ was the product of "the womans seed."
>Aaron...
Ladyhank: I'm confused here. Where in Genesis does it say the man's
seed is the reproductive seed and the woman's seed is not? If I recall
my biology class, reproduction cannot exist without both seeds, of
which, btw, the women's is larger and she needs only one to get the job
done. I also had difficulty finding anything referencing Christ in
Genesis 3.
If I thought this verse were referring to the seeds of Adam and Eve, I'd
have to say they are spoken of equally. I must admit it's conjuring up
quite a mental image as to how her seed shall bruise his head and his
seed shall bruise her heel. ;-)
However, the passage is biblegod talking to the snake about enmity
between the snake's seed (offspring) and the woman's seed (offspring).
Adam's seed seems to be missing from this discussion. Hmmm...where was
he with his seed and what was he doing with it?
aar...@my-deja.com
> RevP:
>
> Exactly, for example, in the NT, we have these two passages: Acts. 2:
> 30, and Romans 1: 3; christians for centuries attempted to resolve the
> problem by claiming [without a shred of biblical evidence] that Mary
was
> physically descended from David, and this applied to Jesus. But the
> Tanakh is very specific, for both of the passages above originate with
> this messanic passage: Psalms 132: 11-18, which clearly shows that the
> Messiah will be physically descended through the MALE line.
>
Ge 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between
thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise
his heel.
The first prophecy of the virgin birth is found here in Genesis three.
Why? Becuase women don't carry the reproductive seed, men do. For Mary
to have concieved meant God had to put the seed in her. This verse also
shows us that it wasn't a divine working of God through Josephs seed
either, Christ was the product of "the womans seed."
Aaron...
<SNIP>
Rev Peter
"ladyhank" <lady...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Rev Peter wrote in message <85o4nl$hgd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> >RevP wrote:
> >
> >I was a christian for over 30 years and also failed to see it. Being
> >religious is to be a person of conviction, and as Nietzsche pointed
> out,
> >men of conviction are prisoners to those convictions, convictions
> >prevent one from seeing far enough.
>
> Ladyhank: I like this point that you made. One of my favorite books
> is called "The Sacred Tree", and it talks about a spiritual approach
> to living and living a life in balance. It talks in earth-centered
> terms and the example it gave was of a field mouse busily gathering
> seeds. She concentrates solely on her job at hand with all of her
> being and is quite good at it. This skill is necessary for her
> survival. Without such a sharp focus to find those seeds and an
> immense ability to immerse herself in the task, she would starve. The
> problem is she is so focused on her single purpose, that she is
> unaware of the predator owl swooping down upon her. She is oblivious
> to the danger and her life is in great peril. What she needed to do
> was pay attention to those inner warning signs that animals (including
> humans) have and to raise up her head from time to time to get the big
> picture.
RevP:
I would completely agree.
Ladyhank:
>
> The convictions that Nietzsche speaks of is that sharp focus, IMO,
> that many Fundies display towards their religion. I certainly would
> agree that a belief in God makes us better humans. But those
> convictions can cause us to ignore the inner warning signs of reason
> that speak to us, that little tell-tale voice that says something just
> isn't right. Focusing on what is the *one, right way*, you fail to
> see the big picture of what is around you. In reality, the world is
> made up of many different peoples who need to stop feeling as if they
> live in a constantly combative atmosphere, one of prey and predator.
> This simply isn't healthy for life.
RevP:
A historian was quoted to me over lunch, the quote I remember, but
cannot recall the name. Anyway, it was along these lines: "A good man
does not need religion to do good, and a bad man does not need a lack of
religion to do bad; but, a good man needs religion to do bad." One need
only think of the Crusades to see the truth of those words. I am
impressed [seriously] at how you seen the point Nietzsche was making, it
is amazing how few can actually understand him.
Ladyhank:
>
> As a Deist, I believe a spiritual life is so important to our
> well-being. I applaud anyone who works to truly achieve that. But
> such work, IMO, cannot include forgetting that we are neighbors on
> this planet and that we must take care of each other, and it, to
> continue to survive, and survive well. Focusing our vision simply
> must be kept in balance with widening our view for the benefit of all.
RevP:
Again I agree.
Ladyhank:
>
> Idealistically, I think if everyone were Deists, that end would be
> accomplished. Deists seem to me to be naturally inquisitive folks who
> love to look at a wide range of things with a studious eye.
> Realistically, I don't see that happening any time soon. But I see no
> harm in pointing out the view from here in the hopes that someone
> else's may be broadened.
RevP:
And Deists, as people of Reason, are natually Reasonable -- and
Reasonable people are not dogmatic or revengeful. There is only two
religions in the world: Deism and Paganism, the revealed religions fall
into the latter.
Ladyhank:
>
> I don't want to sound too preachy, but I'd like for people to
> understand what Deism is, at least to me. Maybe they will be
> encouraged to at least check into it for themselves. Frequently, we
> have a tendency to talk about all the the things Deism is not, but I
> like to take time once in a while, to emphasize the great things it
> is.
RevP:
Amen! :-)
peace sister
Rev Peter
--
http://members.xoom.com/grgaud/
"In revealed religions, you have blasphemy and heresy.
In Deism, you have questions and free speech."
-- Ladyhank.
Rev Peter
aar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> > RevP:
> >
> > Exactly, for example, in the NT, we have these two passages: Acts.
> > 2:
> > 30, and Romans 1: 3; christians for centuries attempted to resolve
> > the
> > problem by claiming [without a shred of biblical evidence] that Mary
> >was
> > physically descended from David, and this applied to Jesus. But the
> > Tanakh is very specific, for both of the passages above originate
> > with
> > this messanic passage: Psalms 132: 11-18, which clearly shows that
> > the
> > Messiah will be physically descended through the MALE line.
> >
>
> Ge 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between
> thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise
> his heel.
RevP:
Has nothing to do with Jesus, you are reading Jesus into a vague passage
and ignoring a passage in Psalms which clearly disqualifies him as the
Messiah.
>
> The first prophecy of the virgin birth is found here in Genesis three.
RevP:
Wrong. That is a conviction on your part, which you have been
indoctrinated into believing. It is not a prophecy, for it was written
after the so-called event, and second, it is simply a priestly
explanation for the hatred and fear that humans and snakes have for each
other. It is "fulfilled" whenever a man, or woman, stomps on a snake.
ONLY the gospel of Matthew makes the virgin birth argument, and distorts
the Tanakh in an attempt to prove it; the gospel of Luke is better
written, and it is clear that Mary was a virgin at the time of the
visit, but that her child was the son of Joseph. Take Paul for example,
if Jesus was of a virgin birth, he would have said so in his letters
trying to convince the Gentiles of his religion. The reason he is
silent, is because there was no virgin birth.
> Why? Becuase women don't carry the reproductive seed, men do.
RevP:
Your biology is 2000 years out of date. There is no reproductive "seed",
both male and female contribute to the genetic makeup which allows a
creature to exist.
> For Mary
> to have concieved meant God had to put the seed in her.
RevP:
Which is based in Paganism, for nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures does
such a profane idea exist. The Messiah in the Hebrew Scriptures is the
son of a normal man and woman, the man just happens to be a sitting king
in Israel. The Messiah is the legal king.
> This verse also
> shows us that it wasn't a divine working of God through Josephs seed
> either, Christ was the product of "the womans seed."
RevP:
Which disqualifies him from the Messiahship. Psalms is specific. In the
Hebrew context, the antiMessiah would be called the "son of god" and
Isaiah the morning star is the devil, and in Revelations Jesus
"supposedly" identifies himself as such. Jesus isn't the promised
Messiah, but the way christinanes have painted him, he fits the roll of
antiMessiah near perfectly. Even in the Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q246, the
antiMessiah is called the "Son of God." Stop reading the New Testament
into the Hebrew Scriptures, and read the Tanakh in light of itself --
you may actually learn something useful.
Your belief of a virgin birth is the result of the conviction of a
virgin birth; it is not in itself EVIDENCE of a virgin birth. If the
gospel of Matthew had been left out of the Canon, the virgin birth story
would not exist in christinanity. NOWHERE in the New Testament, with the
SOLE exception of Matthew [who also claimed the Jeremiah SPOKE a
prophecy that the Messiah would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver,
which is not true; if you can provide a passage, SPOKEN by Jeremiah to
that effect, let me know], are any claims made that Jesus would be born
of a virgin.
peace
Rev Peter
that he died once, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. The
previous postings on Jesus' Credentials refute such a fictions on
the ground that the accounts are so inherently flawed and contradictory
as to be without credibility. Here is another verse taken from the
bible, which shows that according to Jesus, he died once before,
and previously rose from the dead.
Note: this error does not exist in the more carefully translated
version, nor in the primary sources, but does exist in the KJV and NASB.
Therefore, it is proof of carelessness, and still constitutes a biblical
error.
John 20: 9, "9 For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He
must rise AGAIN from the dead." The one who does not understand the
bible is Jesus. I would like some christian to show where Jesus died
twice, and where this double dying was in the OT. This alone destroys
the KJV as a viable bible.
If the bible is inerrant, than the burden of proof lies on Christians to
show where Jesus died and resurrected previously, failure to do so, is
an admission of defeat for Christian doctrines and claims to an
infallible bible. So Aaron, if the KJV resolves all contradictions and
errors, then provide chapter and verse of Jesus' PREVIOUS death and
resurrection. Maybe Jesus was a poor learner, and just couldn't get it
right. ;->
peace
Reverend Peter
Rev Peter
"Rev. G. R. Gaudreau" <grgaud...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>
> <aar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:85obe0$mfu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <387f0fb...@news.giganews.com>,
> lo...@shadrach.com (Loki) wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 02:40:19 GMT, aar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >They've tried to the tune of over 200 Bibles to match it, but no
> > >one
> > >has.
> >
> > You're right. Every time they've tried to match it, they've
RevP:
Hello Reverend Gaudreau. Aaron is either too much the coward to answer,
of he will resort to the most shameful circular reasioning in a pathetic
attempt to answer. He is a KJV worshipper, his god is the KJV. The KJV
also CLAIMS that Paul went and fetched a compass; only problem is that
the "compass" was invented by the Muslims 1000+ years later.
All these decadents resort to the same tactic. CLAIM the problem has
been solved. Christinanity is a religion of utter decadence, and it
appeals to those who are vengeful and morally sick.
"The Christian movement has been from the very first a collective
movement of outcast and refuse elements of every kind (-- these want to
come to power through Christianity). -- Nietzsche
Aaron thinks christinanity will give him power as a prince in heaven;
what a conceited idiot.
"'Rejoice ye that day, and leap for joy: for behold, your reward is
great in heaven: for in like manner did their fathers unto the
prophets.' (Luke 6: 23) -- Impudent rabble! It already compares itself
with the prophets...." -- Nietzsche
peace brother
Rev Peter
aar...@my-deja.com
Everything in its time.
He is a KJV worshipper, his god is the KJV.
What I am is someone who desires to build, keep, or restore anyone's
faith in the Bible that I believe God has provided without error for us.
Although only a novice in the subject of the Bible, I do my best to
defend it.
The KJV
> also CLAIMS that Paul went and fetched a compass; only problem is that
> the "compass" was invented by the Muslims 1000+ years later.
>
Either you didn't read my reply to this issue or you are a liar. The
term compass refers to a circular boundary of travel, i.e. a trade
route. Our word encompass coming from this word.
> All these decadents resort to the same tactic. CLAIM the problem has
> been solved. Christinanity is a religion of utter decadence, and it
> appeals to those who are vengeful and morally sick.
>
> "The Christian movement has been from the very first a collective
> movement of outcast and refuse elements of every kind (-- these want
to
> come to power through Christianity). -- Nietzsche
>
> Aaron thinks christinanity will give him power as a prince in heaven;
> what a conceited idiot.
>
You make claims as to what my motives are without knowing me?
Interesting.
aar...@my-deja.com
I don't need to as I can understand the English I read. Hence I know
that "rise again" refers to life from the dead vice "rise from the dead,
AGAIN."
Aaron...
> peace
>
> Reverend Peter
aar...@my-deja.com
Actually it explains why women have a greater fear of snakes than men.
> It is "fulfilled" whenever a man, or woman, stomps on a snake.
The verse has nothing to do with stomping on snake heads.
It has to do with Calvary~ as far as bruising the heel that is.
Bruising thy head deals with a physical blow to satans head, which is
still future, not done at Calvary as some believe according to Rom
16:20. (see Rev 13, 19; Jud 5:26, 9:53; 1 Sam 17:51; Ps 7:16, 68:21,
110:6, 140:9; Hab 3:13). Here the KJB also is in no fault in using the
word "it" to refer to Christ instead of he, as all the others do.
> ONLY the gospel of Matthew makes the virgin birth argument, and
distorts
> the Tanakh in an attempt to prove it; the gospel of Luke is better
> written, and it is clear that Mary was a virgin at the time of the
> visit, but that her child was the son of Joseph. Take Paul for
example,
> if Jesus was of a virgin birth, he would have said so in his letters
> trying to convince the Gentiles of his religion. The reason he is
> silent, is because there was no virgin birth.
The reason is because the issue was settled as far as Christians were
concerned. Didn't you say only Matthew claimed a virgin birth? The
other NT verses concerning The virgin birth are:
John 6:42, 8:19, 8:41, 8:44.
I've covered this with you before as well. When it says "spoken" you
may or may not locate the reference. Why, you ask? Because God was
there when Jeremiah spoke those words, and God was fully capable of
revealing to Matthew the EXACT WORDS that Jeremiah had spoken. It is
not out of his realm or right to do so. The words written and spoken
are spelled differently, because they are different.
It's called inspiration, God reveals to men what he wants.
2Ti 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness:"
> peace
>
> Rev Peter
aar...@my-deja.com
"ladyhank" <lady...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> aar...@my-deja.com wrote in message <85odr8$o71$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> ><SNIP>
>
> > Ge 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and
between
> >thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt
bruise
> >his heel.
> >
three.
> Mary
> >to have concieved meant God had to put the seed in her. This verse
> also
> >shows us that it wasn't a divine working of God through Josephs seed
> >either, Christ was the product of "the womans seed."
>
> Ladyhank: I'm confused here. Where in Genesis does it say the man's
> seed is the reproductive seed and the woman's seed is not? If I
recall
> my biology class, reproduction cannot exist without both seeds, of
> which, btw, the women's is larger and she needs only one to get the
job
> done. I also had difficulty finding anything referencing Christ in
> Genesis 3.
>
> If I thought this verse were referring to the seeds of Adam and Eve,
I'd
> have to say they are spoken of equally. I must admit it's conjuring
up
> quite a mental image as to how her seed shall bruise his head and his
> seed shall bruise her heel. ;-)
>
> However, the passage is biblegod talking to the snake about enmity
> between the snake's seed (offspring) and the woman's seed (offspring).
> Adam's seed seems to be missing from this discussion. Hmmm...where
was
> he with his seed and what was he doing with it?
>
More important is what was satan's seed?
Aaron...
ladyhank
> > >RevP wrote:
> > >
> > >I was a christian for over 30 years and also failed to see it.
Being
> > >religious is to be a person of conviction, and as Nietzsche pointed
> > out,
> > >men of conviction are prisoners to those convictions, convictions
> > >prevent one from seeing far enough.
> >
> > Ladyhank: I like this point that you made. One of my favorite
books
> > is called "The Sacred Tree", and it talks about a spiritual approach
> > to living and living a life in balance. It talks in earth-centered
> > terms and the example it gave was of a field mouse busily gathering
> > seeds.
<snipped for brevity>
Rev Peter wrote:
>I am impressed [seriously] at how you seen the point Nietzsche was
making, it is amazing how few can actually understand him.
Ladyhank: Thanks for the kind words. I shared the story because it
seemed to fit, and also because it is an example of one way that I
approach the study of Creation. As I'm sure you have heard the most
basic definition of Deism as belief in god through reason and nature.
When we talk of studying nature, a lot of times we discuss the science
aspect which Deism supports. I do this to the limited extent of
scientific understanding that I have. I also personally enjoy just
examining the activites of the world around me and seeing how animals,
plants, or other natural entities and elements behave. What are the
benefits they receive from certain behaviors and what consequences do
they suffer from others? What are their attributes and is that
attribute apparent in me as well? Again, to what benefit or
consequence? Can it be altered in me for a better life?
Most things in nature are what they are. They behave based on instinct
or innate attributes which they do not control. They don't have the
great power of choice, or free will, that we humans do. Maybe some
would think it simpler and even more harmonious to not have this power
of choice, but the fact is that we do. I can't speak that it would be
better not to have it, as I've never experienced life without it. So a
reality check tells me that I must make choices and decisions regarding
how I will live my life, like it or not. To do that effectively, I
study what's working for the rest of the creation of which I am a part.
Anyway, that's just my take on a way that I approach Deism by studying
the Creation to know the Creator. It's a little science, a little
philosophy, and a little poetry. Just posted for those lurkers who
might think a Deist's rational look at God would somehow deny their
deep sense of appreciation and awe of the Creator's work and become a
dry, sterile viewpoint. Not so.
> RevP:
> And Deists, as people of Reason, are natually Reasonable -- and
> Reasonable people are not dogmatic or revengeful. There is only two
> religions in the world: Deism and Paganism, the revealed religions
fall into the latter.
Ladyhank: Agreed. I still like your point that Deism is the First
Religion. I use it often on my snailmail. Peace.
ladyhank
aar...@my-deja.com wrote in message <85padg$b2d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Rev Peter wrote:
>The KJV
>> also CLAIMS that Paul went and fetched a compass; only problem is
that
>> the "compass" was invented by the Muslims 1000+ years later.
Aaron wrote:
>Either you didn't read my reply to this issue or you are a liar. The
>term compass refers to a circular boundary of travel, i.e. a trade
>route. Our word encompass coming from this word.
Ladyhank: From the University of Virginia KJV Bible search online: Acts
28 Ch13: And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and
after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli:
Confused again. How exactly did Paul, or they including Paul, fetch a
circular boundary of travel, i.e. a trade route?
Rev. G. R. Gaudreau
news:85pc2o$d4b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
In article <85oq4n$kt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Rev Peter <gadfl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> How many times did Jesus die? The answer according to christians, is
> that he died once, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. The
> previous postings on Jesus' Credentials refute such a fictions on
> the ground that the accounts are so inherently flawed and
contradictory
> show where Jesus died and resurrected previously, failure to do so, is
> an admission of defeat for Christian doctrines and claims to an
> infallible bible. So Aaron, if the KJV resolves all contradictions and
> errors, then provide chapter and verse of Jesus' PREVIOUS death and
> resurrection. Maybe Jesus was a poor learner, and just couldn't get it
> right. ;->
>
AARON
I don't need to as I can understand the English I read. Hence I know
that "rise again" refers to life from the dead vice "rise from the dead,
AGAIN."
REVGR
Well Aaron, if you can understand plain English, then why don't you show
us your understanding of the passages I quoted, from the KJV no less,
and tell us where king Josiah died. Di he die in Megiddo, as per 2Kings,
or did he die in Jerusalem, as per 2Chornicles. Are you going to get
around to answering it?
Rev Peter
RevP:
I knew Aaron would say something inane, and he did. :-D ha ha ha ha ha.
The KJV does mention "compass", Paul no more "fetched" a compass than he
"fetched" a steam engine.
The only liar around here is the KJV.
peace sister
Rev Peter
--
http://members.xoom.com/grgaud/
"In revealed religions, you have blasphemy and heresy.
In Deism, you have questions and free speech."
-- Ladyhank.
Rev Peter
Unfortunately, my deja just told me the reply I sent was lost, so I am
posting a condensed reply.
I agree with you and would like to expand on the idea that there are
only two religions: Deism and Paganism. All Pagan religions were at some
point revealed religions, some god interacting with some hero or priest.
Christinanity and Islaminanity are two religions which are nihilistic;
both essentially reject this "life" and this "creation" as something
beneath them, and DEMAND that the Creator reward their ingratitude with
an "eternal life" and a "heavenly paradise". As Nietzsche pointed out
about eternal life: "to what end". These decadents are intolerable, and
the idea that God should reward their fictions and sophism is the height
of decadence. If there was an eternal life, then the framework of our
existence would lose its meaning. We are driven to improve ourselves by
the knowledge that time is limited and death will come; if that
incentive was removed, then there would be no improvement. Existence
would become static and meaningless; the christinanity and islaminanity
versions of heaven are nothing more than an eternal welfare office where
everone sits around drinking beer waiting for the next check.
Considering how fickle their gods are, it follows that sooner or latter
he would tire of these lazy parasites and cast them into the void:
afterall, one need only imagine an "eternal" Peter, Paul, Craig, Aaron,
Dave, helpu, whatever, to see that they would be intolerable, even for a
God.
An eternal life would be meaningless, what we are would die anyway; for
existence would be so profoundly changed that we would not survive it
intact, anymore than someone survives massive brain damage intact.
Hunter Int.
Listen up Bible beater, your atheist pal 'Loki' called you a coward the
other day. Why are you not saying the same things about him that you say
about *us* after *we* call you what you are?
Hmmmmm?
Why not? Could it be because you are a HYPOCRITE...?
Of course it could! And is...
Warmest regards,
Dave...
Rev Peter wrote in message <85p1oq$5m5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <jHPf4.20584$2x3.3...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>,
> "Rev. G. R. Gaudreau" <grgaud...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>>
>> <aar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>attempt to answer. He is a KJV worshipper, his god is the KJV. The KJV
>also CLAIMS that Paul went and fetched a compass; only problem is that
>the "compass" was invented by the Muslims 1000+ years later.
>
>All these decadents resort to the same tactic. CLAIM the problem has
>been solved. Christinanity is a religion of utter decadence, and it
>appeals to those who are vengeful and morally sick.
>
>"The Christian movement has been from the very first a collective
>movement of outcast and refuse elements of every kind (-- these want to
>come to power through Christianity). -- Nietzsche
>
>Aaron thinks christinanity will give him power as a prince in heaven;
>what a conceited idiot.
>
>"'Rejoice ye that day, and leap for joy: for behold, your reward is
>great in heaven: for in like manner did their fathers unto the
>prophets.' (Luke 6: 23) -- Impudent rabble! It already compares itself
>with the prophets...." -- Nietzsche
>
>peace brother
>
Rev Peter
Phil Grabowski <grab...@starget.net> wrote:
> Universal Church, the ordained minister. Don't you know that
> Universal in
> Greek means CATHOLIC!
RevP:
We know. Unlike your sect, the ULC accepts ALL religions.
Phil:
> I used the Catholic bible to explain the morning star.
RevP:
No, you resorted to subterfuge. In the Tanakh, the "morning star" is a
title for Satan, and Jesus calls himself "the morning star" in your book
of fables.
[snipped]
Phil:
> >
> > Revelations 22:16 " I, Jesus, sent my angel to give you this
> > testimony
> > for the churches. I am the root and offspring of David,* the bright
> > morning star.
> >
> > Goto Revelations 2, 26-28 " ' " To the victor, * who keeps to my
> > ways*
> > until the end, I will give authority over the nations. He will rule
> > them with an iron rod. Like clay vessels will they be smashed, just
> > as
> > I received authority from my Father. And to him I will give the
> > morning
> > star.
> >
> > Explained, The Christian who perservers in faith will share in
> > Christ's messianic authority and resurrection victory over death,
> > symbolized by the morning star.
> >
> > REVGR
> > Sure, Phil, in your dreams.
Phil:
>
> And the good ones they are.
RevP:
According to the New Testament, all have sinned; and even Jesus broke
several commandments: he placed himself as the font of salvation,
although the Hebrew Scriptures leave that to God alone; he dishonored
his mother in public and taught people to hate their parents; and he
worked on the Sabbath; also, he prophesied that he would return before
his apostles "taste death". The normal apologetic is that it means
"spiritual" death; in which case, it means the apostles will suffer
"spiritual death". No matter how you cut it, your christ cannot
deliever.
Phil:
> You the fake.
RevP:
The fake is Jesus. The Messiah is the physical descendent, in the FLESH,
from King David, and he is the son of kings.
Phil:
> Jesus warned there
> would
> be both good and bad members of the church.
RevP:
And Isaiah warns us that the devil is the "morning star".
Phil:
> You Bad!
RevP:
Why? Because he sees your religion as false.
Phil:
> I read some of
> your
> hideous articles. They are hideous.
RevP:
Only if you find the truth: "hideous".
> > PHIL
> > Revelations 5:5 One of the elders said to me, "Do not weep. The
> > lion
> > of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, * has triumphed, enabling
> > him
> > to open the scroll with its seven seals."
> >
> > The lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David: these are
> > messianic
> > titles applied to Christ to symbolize his victory.
> >
> > In no words does it say Lucifer. It it's Christ victory.
> >
> > REVGR
> > Christ's victory??? Please!!! Jesus didn't even have physical ties
> > to
> > king David, or haven't you read the genealogies in "Matthew" and
> > "Luke"?
> > No physical ties to David, no messianic titles. No messainic titles,
> > no
> > victories.
RevP:
And it does not change the FACT that Jesus identifies himself as the
"morning star", which is also the name of Lucifer. You Phil are
worshipping Lucifer, the "morning star".
Phil;
>
> These are not my interpretations it is the works of the Scholar
> Twhich
> you are clearly not.
RevP:
No, they are not scholars, they are sophists.
Phil:
> Matthew builds on the old Testament through David.
RevP:
Matthew also places Jesus birthdate 12 years before Luke's; Matthew also
distorted Hosea 11: 1, conviently leaving out verse 2; for verse 2 shows
that YHWH is displeased with this "son" for worshipping the Baals.
Matthew also CLAIMS that Jeremiah "spoke" a prophecy about the messiah
being betrayed for 30 pieces of silver -- guess what? Jeremiah never
"spoke" any such thing. Matthew also CLAIMS that Jesus rode into
Jersualem on "two" asses like a circus clown. Matthew also CLAIMS that
the women met "angels" at the tomb, but Mark clearly states the women
met a "young man".
Phil:
>
> Matthew 16:17-19
> Simon you are the Kephas, and upon this rock I will build my
> Church.
RevP:
When I was a Catholic, I also fell for that rubbish. Only problem is
that since Matthew totally misrepresented the Tanakh, it follows that
anything else he wrote is questionable. Luke Clearly states in the
beginnning of his gospel that he is writing an "exact truth" and there
is no such speech made to Peter; therefore, since Luke is an "exact
truth" and Matthew is an obvious distortion, if follows that Jesus never
said any such thing -- if Luke left it out, then it would not be an
"exact truth".
Phil:
>
> Kephas is the Aramaic word masculine for MASSIVE ROCK! Petra or
> Petros in
> Greek is Rock or Stone. Petra is the feminine form. PETER IS THE
> ROCK.
> The Authority of the first Catholic Church.
RevP:
Wrong. There is no evidence anywhere in the New Testament that the
others accepted Peter as the sole leader. Peter never went to Rome, it
was illegal for a Jew to enter Rome after Claudius I. And since Peter
supposedly preached obedience to the civil authorities, it follows that
he obeyed this law as well. Also according to Galatians, Peter agreed
with Paul to limit his work to the Jews, while Paul to the Gentiles; and
since there was no Jews in Rome ....
RevG:
> >
> > Messiah HAD to have physical ties to king David, but because of the
> > myth
> > of virgin-birth, stolen from other pagan myths, Jesus was just
> > another
> > bastard. The reasons the Jesus myth scored down through history is
> > 1)
> > because it had a good press agent, i.e., Paul, 2) because Xianity
> > had
> > political help from Constantine who made it the state religion and
> > last
> > but not least, 3) because people like you were gullible enough to
> > buy
> > into this superstitious crap.
Phil:
>
> I have faith which is more than you can say about yourself.
RevP:
"'Faith' means not wanting to know what is true." -- Nietzsche
Phil:
>
> It was St. Ignatious that used the term Catholic to describe the
> Church
> Jesus founded way back in 107 AD. The term was considered old then.
RevP:
Jesus founded a church back in 107AD. You have just denied Penticost as
the beginning of the formal church. Also, Jesus was long dead by 107AD,
Jerusalem no longer existed as a Jewish city.
Phil:
>
> Now go make up a new religion and play with your xoom webpage, and
> burn that
> stupid KJV worthless bible. "Ye art thou whoeth cometh hearken!"
RevP:
Oh, one last thing. Your priesthood is a complete fraud. For Jesus was
not a priest on earth, and therefore could not offer himself on the
cross, which means your priesthood is a pagan priesthood.
Heb 8: 4, "4 Now if He [Jesus] were on earth, He would NOT be a priest
at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law."
If Jesus cannot be a priest on earth, imagine how much less that child
molester with his wine and crackers.
peace
Rev Peter
ps: And don't forget to pray to your god tonight: Lucifer, the "morning
star".
Hunter Int.
Ah, I see you came through for me with flying colors. I told Loki that you
would like his idiotic response, and if for no other reason than he simply
said anything at all.
And that's right, isn't it, Rick? All someone from your little group has to
do is speak, and it's just great, isn't it? Doesn't matter to you one bit
that what he said wasn't even close to hitting the mark, he gets points just
for ranting.
Good little atheist soldier, Rick, good little atheist soldier...
Warmest regards,
Dave...
Rev. G. R. Gaudreau wrote in message
<7vNf4.20433$2x3.3...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>...
Craig
<grgaud...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>
>REVGR
>Well Aaron, if you can understand plain English, then why don't you show
>us your understanding of the passages I quoted, from the KJV no less,
>and tell us where king Josiah died. Di he die in Megiddo, as per 2Kings,
>or did he die in Jerusalem, as per 2Chornicles. Are you going to get
>around to answering it?
Grrrrr, you've had this very question explained to you no less than 3
times in the last 12 months. Do you think that by re-asking it over
and over that it is going to finally pose a problem? Christians are
unable to help you with your poor comprehensive abilities. You've
proven time and again your ignorance and venomous hate of Christ; it's
clouded your ability to reason clearly and sadly sealed your destiny.
You're a might sad old man. I pity you.
>
aar...@my-deja.com
"ladyhank" <lady...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> aar...@my-deja.com wrote in message <85padg$b2d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> Rev Peter wrote:
> >> also CLAIMS that Paul went and fetched a compass; only problem is
> that
> >> the "compass" was invented by the Muslims 1000+ years later.
>
> >Either you didn't read my reply to this issue or you are a liar. The
> >term compass refers to a circular boundary of travel, i.e. a trade
> >route. Our word encompass coming from this word.
>
> Ladyhank: From the University of Virginia KJV Bible search online:
Acts
> 28 Ch13: And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium:
and
> after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to
Puteoli:
>
> Confused again. How exactly did Paul, or they including Paul, fetch a
> circular boundary of travel, i.e. a trade route?
>
It was a figure of speech. They were catching a boat that was
travelling in a circular manner. Look up the word compass in your
dictionary. One of the examples in mine refers to a sailboat compassing
an island. The word here may have also been refering to the pattern of
the wind which the trade route was based.
Aaron...
aar...@my-deja.com
Rev Peter <gadfl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <85q21m$o7u$1...@news.laserlink.net>,
> "ladyhank" <lady...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > aar...@my-deja.com wrote in message
<85padg$b2d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >
> > Rev Peter wrote:
> > >The KJV
> > >> also CLAIMS that Paul went and fetched a compass; only problem is
> > that
> > >> the "compass" was invented by the Muslims 1000+ years later.
> >
> > Aaron wrote:
> > >Either you didn't read my reply to this issue or you are a liar.
The
> > >term compass refers to a circular boundary of travel, i.e. a trade
> > >route. Our word encompass coming from this word.
> >
> > Ladyhank: From the University of Virginia KJV Bible search online:
> > Acts
> > 28 Ch13: And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium:
> > and
> > after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to
> Puteoli:
> >
> > Confused again. How exactly did Paul, or they including Paul, fetch
a
> > circular boundary of travel, i.e. a trade route?
>
>
> I knew Aaron would say something inane, and he did. :-D ha ha ha ha
ha.
> The KJV does mention "compass", Paul no more "fetched" a compass than
he
> "fetched" a steam engine.
>
> The only liar around here is the KJV.
>
> peace sister
>
> Rev Peter
>
> http://members.xoom.com/grgaud/
> "In revealed religions, you have blasphemy and heresy.
> In Deism, you have questions and free speech."
> -- Ladyhank.
>
set up on where the winds took them?
Rick Forester
writes, (refering to the Old Testament, namely that LUCIFER is THE MORNING
STAR):
>You've not shown any connection yet, as all you've done is provide
>Isaiah's description of satan, so you have some might rigorous
>digging to produce the evidence to convince anyone.
Hey, hey, hey! He showed a connection, dude! LUCIFER<=====>MORNING STAR
is the connection here. OK? Are you with us? Hello!
Now go easily, easily, (don't shake your brain too hard!) to the Revelation
(that means "Appocalipse" for X-tian jelly brainers, mind you) and see a new
connection there: JESUS <====>MORNING STAR. Comprendre?
Now, there is a science out there called Logic that says that: If A=C and B=C,
then A and B are the same, you moron. But, as very well stated by Rev. G.R.
Gaudreau, "X-tian Reason (or Logic) is one of the most underrated of
oxymorons."
P.S. I appologize for calling you a moron, but you see, I am sorry that
grown up American men and woman seem so confused and even irrational, and I
feel that the whole humanity suffer because of their refusing to reason. God
--I am positive-- entrusted you with a brain and a Reason, but you refuse pure
and simple to use it.
==========================================================
rick s. forester
"Stand up for something or you'll fall for anything".
==========================================================
aar...@my-deja.com
an expression. Do we really catch a large flying red colored eye? No,
the term is describing the condition of the passengers based on the
circumstances of the flight. In that case, the time it is flying.
Fetching a compass is an expression describing the route of a ship based
upon the circumstances of its means of travel, the wind.
Pastor Dave
<grab...@starget.net> wrote:
>Universal Church, the ordained minister. Don't you know that Universal in
>Greek means CATHOLIC!
That does not mean that an organization that decides to
call itself catholic, is the universal church, no more
than my company is the home of chocolate, simply
because I call it the "The Catholic Home of Chocolate
Candy Co.", nor does it mean that the "Catholic Church"
is associated with me any more than it means that the
Catholic Church was associated with the first church.
And rest assured, the Catholic Church is a "company".
They fill out their tax status every year. They also
sell forgiveness of sins and eternal life, as if they
had that power.
Rev Peter
RevP;
Hello Rick, and well said. Craig is all upset because Jesus is Satan.
Paul writes that Satan can appear as an angel of light, and if so, then
that means he can appear as the Son of God, or a Messenger of God.
Simple logic exposes Jesus, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be Lucifer.
As you so correctly pointed out:
A = Lucifer, B = Jesus, C = Morning Star.
It follows then, as you pointed out, and which I am repeating here that
if A = C, and B = C, then A = B.
Think of it, the very last words in the New Testament are: "I am ... the
morning star". The Morning Star has always been Venus, and the Romans
also called Venus, Lucifer. Jesus bold faced calls himself Lucifer; or
Lucifer bold face admits to being Jesus -- it would fit, Jesus is the
antiMessiah. The religion of Lucifer, Christianity, is unworkable, has
an unworkable morality, and is responsible for some of the greatest
moral crimes in history; the fact that christians have failed to see it,
only goes to prove that paganism is alive and well.
peace
Hunter Int.
Why do you insist on being so ignorant? Why? Is this a strong desire on
your part, or an accidental one due to simple ignorance...? Maybe someone
is paying you!!
To answer your (seemingly) irreconcilable problem on the word "compass,"
start here:
NT:4014
periaireo (per-ee-ahee-reh'-o); from NT:4012 and NT:138 (including its
alternate); to remove all around, i.e. unveil, cast off (anchor);
figuratively, to expiate:
KJV-take away (up).
It's one word, the phrase "fetched a compass" is literally one word in the
Greek, and you'd know that if you ever bothered to look it up in anything
beyond your idiotic atheist handbook of nonsense.
Acts 28:13
[And from thence we fetched a compass], [perielthontes (NT:4014)]-literally,
`went around;' that is, proceeded circuitously, or (in nautical phrase)
tacked, working probably to windward, and availing themselves of the
'sinuosities' of the coast, the wind not being favourable. What follows
confirms this.
[And came to Rhegium]-now Reggio, a seaport on the southwest point of the
Italian coast, opposite the northeast point of Sicily, and at the entrance
of the narrow straits of Messina.
So, either do the math, or be shown as an idiot, much like '
Rev. Peter,' who makes a living at it around here.
Warmest regards, you disgruntled atheist, you.
Dave...
ladyhank wrote in message <85q21m$o7u$1...@news.laserlink.net>...
ladyhank
Rev Peter wrote in message <85qgid$3lq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I agree with you and would like to expand on the idea that there are
>only two religions: Deism and Paganism. All Pagan religions were at
some
>point revealed religions, some god interacting with some hero or
priest.
Ladyhank: I think I can follow you on this. I've long had an affinity
to more earth-centered religions and their adherents. I enjoy learning
about what they think, do, how they practice their religion, etc. I
found some of that "innate wisdom" by looking at and listening to what
they had to offer. But inevitably, there would come a line that I just
couldn't cross. The god would get a name, a personal name. As soon as
that god got a personal name, god also got a personality and a form.
Such things, in my mind, put boundaries and limits upon God. Now, maybe
it's possible that God has boundaries and limits, but I don't feel
qualified to state what they are. I haven't met anyone yet that I think
is qualified to do so.
Rev Peter wrote:
>Christinanity and Islaminanity are two religions which are nihilistic;
>both essentially reject this "life" and this "creation" as something
>beneath them, and DEMAND that the Creator reward their ingratitude with
>an "eternal life" and a "heavenly paradise". As Nietzsche pointed out
>about eternal life: "to what end". These decadents are intolerable, and
>the idea that God should reward their fictions and sophism is the
height
>of decadence. If there was an eternal life, then the framework of our
>existence would lose its meaning. We are driven to improve ourselves by
>the knowledge that time is limited and death will come; if that
>incentive was removed, then there would be no improvement.
Ladyhank: Right. It's also an area that I have trouble with certain
free-thought church statements that *everyone* goes to heaven (because
there is no hell). I agree with the concept of no hell. I've covered
that one before. Yet, if everyone were to be "rewarded with a heavenly
paradise", there still would be no reason to worry about one's actions
in this life. (After all, one spends much more time being dead than
alive.) This thinking, btw, is not just the domain of the free-thought
church, but the xian as well. It's just that their version limits
*everyone* to *everyone who believes in Jesus*. In both cases, IMO,
that incentive is removed. It's one area of difficulty that I have with
free-thought and new thought churches.
It's as you're referring to. The knowledge that our time is limited
makes our time all the more precious. It motivates us to be the best
that we can. As our bodies grow and mature, replace old cells with new,
so do our minds grow in acquiring knowledge and wisdom, replacing
ignorance with understanding. This constant growing and improving,
changing the former us, is what living is.
Rev Peter wrote:
>one need only imagine an "eternal" Peter, Paul, Craig, Aaron,
>Dave, helpu, whatever, to see that they would be intolerable, even for
a
>God.
Ladyhank: Side note here: I had trouble with my news server when
posting re: the existence of Deism. It was late at night, so I had to
quickly use deja.com which I had only halfway set up from before. As I
posted it to only alt.religion.deism, thought I would be fair and allow
Dave the opportunity to critique it. I emailed him privately to let him
know it was available should he wish to do so. He seems to enjoy the
activity. Needless to say, he is as uncivil privately as he is
publicly.
Rev Peter wrote:
>An eternal life would be meaningless, what we are would die anyway; for
>existence would be so profoundly changed that we would not survive it
>intact, anymore than someone survives massive brain damage intact.
Ladyhank: It's really very interesting that you brought this up. A
very nice gentleman and I were discussing this topic just last night.
His viewpoint is, basically, the Carl Sagan, dreamless sleep idea. I
realize this is very much in accordance with Deist thinking; yet, it's
also an area where I have a slight variation. What I keep falling back
to and cannot escape is that energy is constant thing. I stick on this
like Rev GR sticks on his origins issue. I can't imagine what any
existence after death would be like. I'm certain it's not the heaven as
described by xians, however. How could any place possibly be paradise
for a mother who doesn't get to finish rearing her child, or a spouse
separated too soon from their loved one whom they know they have left
behind to loneliness, or where family rivalries exist eternally?
I'm not clear on how far apart you and I are on this. You mention
existence being profoundly changed and I would definitely concur with
that. Yet, I'm not willing to say that we exist as nothing after death.
Maybe eternal life isn't a good way to say what would be in my mind, but
rather some sort of eternal existence. I keep wondering where the
energy that is mine was before I was born and then wonder if I (or it)
don't go back to there (not place so much as state of being). Then I
wonder if the experience of life in between has any effect on how that
state is experienced, if it is experienced.
But as I explained to my friend, while these trains of thoughts are some
of the favorite journeys of my mind, it's nothing I dwell on overmuch or
too seriously. The important thing is what we know, the here and now.
Whatever happens after death will happen regardless of what we think or
believe about it, and we will all know all too soon.
Thanks for expanding your thoughts. I've greatly enjoyed hearing them
and being able to share my own.
Peace to you, too, Rev Peter.
ladyhank
ladyhank
Rev Peter wrote in message <85qif6$4v6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Phil wrote re: Rev GR's articles:
>
>> I read some of
>> your
>> hideous articles. They are hideous.
>
>RevP:
>
>Only if you find the truth: "hideous".
Ladyhank: I remember when I was still new to this ng and clicked on Rev
GR's link to his website for the first time. I spent an entire
afternoon reading some of the most enjoyable, insightful, and delightful
articles I had ever read. And I'm not just saying that because I like
Rev GR for those who may wonder. At that time, I had only posted once
or twice in the newsgroup and we had not shared any discussion at all.
ladyhank
> I've picked up this NG after a few months absence, and find a new
>contributor.
Ladyhank: Welcome back, Elvis. I'm fairly new here so am not familiar
with you. I look forward to hearing some new thoughts.
Hunter Dave wrote:
>> I guess when someone deflates the
>>argument of your fellow atheist (there are *no* deists, by the way...)
Elvis wrote (okay if I call you that, or would you prefer Velvet?):
> A silly and inflammatory comment, and a blatantly false one at that,
>designed only to raise the ire of deists.
Ladyhank: You won't get anywhere with this one. His obtuseness is
exceeded only by his rudeness. He refuses to accept the worth of any
religion but his own. My ire would have been more raised by the
comment, but compared to every other insult thrown, it seemed almost a
compliment.
Elvis wrote:
>To your credit, your missives have reinforced my belief that I made the
right decision
>to abandon christianity.
Ladyhank: Well said, and if I may: Ditto.
Loki
<cle...@starnetinc.com> wrote:
>Peter Peter, Bible Beater,
>
>Listen up Bible beater, your atheist pal 'Loki' called you a coward the
>other day. Why are you not saying the same things about him that you say
>about *us* after *we* call you what you are?
I did? Wow, I see your level of reading comprehension doesn't just
stop with the Scriptures.
>Hmmmmm?
>
>Why not? Could it be because you are a HYPOCRITE...?
>
>Of course it could! And is...
>
>Warmest regards,
>
>Dave...
--
Loki
<cle...@starnetinc.com> wrote:
>Rick,
>
>Ah, I see you came through for me with flying colors. I told Loki that you
>would like his idiotic response, and if for no other reason than he simply
>said anything at all.
>
>And that's right, isn't it, Rick? All someone from your little group has to
>do is speak, and it's just great, isn't it? Doesn't matter to you one bit
>that what he said wasn't even close to hitting the mark, he gets points just
>for ranting.
Oh, then DO explain how exactly I am not "even close to hitting the
mark."
>Good little atheist soldier, Rick, good little atheist soldier...
>
Velve...@graceland.com
contributor.
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:20:09 -0600, "Hunter Int." <cle...@starnetinc.com>
wrote:
> I guess when someone deflates the
>argument of your fellow atheist (there are *no* deists, by the way...)
A silly and inflammatory comment, and a blatantly false one at that,
designed only to raise the ire of deists.
>Your attempts at 'psychology' are pretty lame, you impotent old frog, you.
After reading a dozen or so of your posts, it seems to me that your
mandate here is to hurl personal attacks. I haven't seen anything original,
refreshing, or thought-provoking in anything I've seen so far. To your
credit, your missives have reinforced my belief that I made the right decision
to abandon christianity. Sadly, it's not enough to keep me interested in your
pap.
Life is too short, and my killfile is hungry...
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Bill Gates is a monocle and a Persian Cat away
from being the villain in a James Bond movie.
-- Dennis Miller
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Craig
As you know, you can't teach anyone that doesn't want to learn.
It was informative, however.
Craig
Velve...@graceland.com
>Ladyhank: Welcome back, Elvis. I'm fairly new here so am not familiar
>with you. I look forward to hearing some new thoughts.
Thank you, but I'm more of a lurker than a regular poster.
>Elvis wrote (okay if I call you that, or would you prefer Velvet?):
>> A silly and inflammatory comment, and a blatantly false one at that,
>>designed only to raise the ire of deists.
>
>Ladyhank: You won't get anywhere with this one. His obtuseness is
>exceeded only by his rudeness. He refuses to accept the worth of any
>religion but his own. My ire would have been more raised by the
>comment, but compared to every other insult thrown, it seemed almost a
>compliment.
You can call my anything you want, as long as it's not 'Christian'. =8-)
His was an obvious, desperate attempt at eliciting a reaction. It worked,
but to his detriment. Pity, that being a voracious reader doesn't necessarily
make one wise.
>Elvis wrote:
>>To your credit, your missives have reinforced my belief that I made the
>right decision
>>to abandon christianity.
>
>Ladyhank: Well said, and if I may: Ditto.
The more I questioned Christianity, the more I became convinced that the
bible was a work of fiction. The properties that the biblical God was
supposed to reflect, didn't jive with the real world. For example, the lack
of explanation by Christians as to why God wouldn't make his presence
decisively known, for instance, I now realize, is because he doesn't exist as
the biblical entity they worship. The loving God of the Christian faith,
doesn't compute in my mind, when I see pictures of children blown to bits in
Bosnia, or dying of AIDS, virtually alone, in an understaffed orphanage in
Romania. I now enjoy reading the rationalizations of rabid Christians, when
they try to explain the myriad inconsistencies of the bible.
The deistic belief that God stepped back after his creation makes perfect
sense, as it doesn't presuppose 'God' as being anyone or anything in
particular, as far as I can determine. For all we know, this universe could
as easily have been created as a science project for some E.T. who is using it
for his/her/its own entertainment.
For me, leaving Christianity meant abandoning the Christian concept of an
afterlife, and while initially tough, was also liberating. I've developed an
internal peace and contentment that I lacked as a Christian.
BTW, I've enjoyed your posts since coming back. Thanks.
ladyhank
wrote:
>
>>Ladyhank: Welcome back, Elvis. I'm fairly new here so am not
familiar
>>with you. I look forward to hearing some new thoughts.
>
> Thank you, but I'm more of a lurker than a regular poster.
Ladyhank: That's cool. There's days I convince myself that I will join
you. Then I remember how good it felt to discover other Deists, so I
keep posting to meet them. So far, I'm still here. :-)
<snipped for brevity>
>
> His was an obvious, desperate attempt at eliciting a reaction. It
worked,
>but to his detriment. Pity, that being a voracious reader doesn't
necessarily
>make one wise.
Ladyhank: So true. One of the things I hate about engaging in debates.
It's just a matter of quoting sources one has read. People are busy
thinking about proving their next point rather than listening to the
other side. I suppose there are times debates are necessary, but I
prefer "take it or leave it" discussions. Give me a new creative idea
anytime so I have something to mull around for awhile.
Elvis wrote:
> The more I questioned Christianity, the more I became convinced that
the
>bible was a work of fiction. The properties that the biblical God was
>supposed to reflect, didn't jive with the real world. For example, the
lack
>of explanation by Christians as to why God wouldn't make his presence
>decisively known, for instance, I now realize, is because he doesn't
exist as
>the biblical entity they worship. The loving God of the Christian
faith,
>doesn't compute in my mind, when I see pictures of children blown to
bits in
>Bosnia, or dying of AIDS, virtually alone, in an understaffed orphanage
in
>Romania. I now enjoy reading the rationalizations of rabid Christians,
when
>they try to explain the myriad inconsistencies of the bible.
Ladyhank: Excellent points. When I was a child, I remember being told
God loves me, I'm one of God's children. Then they told me what God did
to Jesus who was supposed to be his only begotten son. Now if that
didn't make me feel good, NOT!
Elvis wrote:
> The deistic belief that God stepped back after his creation makes
perfect
>sense, as it doesn't presuppose 'God' as being anyone or anything in
>particular, as far as I can determine. For all we know, this universe
could
>as easily have been created as a science project for some E.T. who is
using it
>for his/her/its own entertainment.
Ladyhank: Definitely a drawing point for me for Deism. I'm not
entirely certain about God stepping back, yet. I have a tendency to
sometimes see God present in the Creation as something of an energy or
life-force, so I wonder if it's possible to draw upon that, and if so,
could we figure out the "formula" to do that all that time? I have some
problems with that thinking, too, but I go there sometimes anyway.
Most definitely concur with not presupposing "God". I don't like to
give God a form as I don't see how *I* can possibly draw the lines
around God. That would just be creating God in my image. If we are
entertainment for E.T., I think he changed the channel! ;-)
Elvis wrote:
> For me, leaving Christianity meant abandoning the Christian concept of
an
>afterlife, and while initially tough, was also liberating. I've
developed an
>internal peace and contentment that I lacked as a Christian.
Ladyhank: I've heard lots of others say that. While I haven't totally
abandoned the idea that something "comes next", I did let go of the
concepts of heaven and hell, in the sense of eternity that is. I would
say there are lots of days at work that I know I am in hell.
That letting go was tough for me as well. In fact, I was so afraid of
hell, as I've said before, that I was Agnostic for most of my life. I
couldn't believe in the Jesus stuff, but thought as long as I didn't say
so absolutely, I could somehow buy some insurance, ya' know? The peace
and contentment are beyond compare. In fact, I no longer spend time
wishing I had done this thing then instead of that thing or made that
decision when I could have made the other decision. I figure if it took
all that to get me to this place, I'd do everything exactly the same.
This is a good place. (Of course, I do have the occasional lapse of
wishing I'd learned those lessons sooner instead of later, but...
<smile>)
Elvis wrote:
> BTW, I've enjoyed your posts since coming back. Thanks.
Ladyhank: Thanks for saying so. You are much too kind, and you are
appreciated. I almost typed *but* you are appreciated. I switched it,
though, 'cause I remembered this little trick I learned that's a great
way to open your mind. When you would normally use the word "but",
substitute the word "and". Think about the difference in force or
intent of your statement.
In the above, the difference seems minimal to me. If you try it out
from time to time, though, you'll find some interesting thought places
to travel to. Just another little fun tidbit I've picked up along the
way! ;-)
Peace, ladyhank
----
This and that offers
more opportunities than this or that.
aar...@my-deja.com
> >>Ladyhank: Welcome back, Elvis. I'm fairly new here so am not
> familiar
> >>with you. I look forward to hearing some new thoughts.
> >
Give me a new creative idea
> anytime so I have something to mull around for awhile.
There is a verse that just immediataly came to mind when I read this.
You would have fit in well in Athens.
Ac 17:21 "(For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent
their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new
thing.)"
Aaron...
<SNIP>
Hunter Int.
Man, you guys make looking 'dumb' seem like a full time occupation. You
were heard blithering...
(Wondering when you called 'Rev. Peter' a coward...)
>I did?
Yes, you did. What, you're joking here, right? No one could be this
stupid, please...
>Wow, I see your level of reading comprehension doesn't just
>stop with the Scriptures.
Yeah, "wow" is right.
Look, you moron, you told me the other day that (in reference to knowing a
coward) that it "takes one to know one." Obviously making a character
judgment that *I* am a coward, but then also making one that 'Rev. Peter'
is, as well. That would be the *only* way I could "recognize" that, right?
Since I called him one, I'd have to *be* one in order to recognize that, and
since you gave *me* credit for being able to, 'Rev. Peter' is convicted by
your own idiotic assumption.
My, that was easy.
Man, you are a looser, buddy boy, a looooooser...
Warmest regards,
Dave...
Rick Forester
>IT shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
>Bruising thy head deals with a physical blow to satans head, which is
>still future, not done at Calvary as some believe according to Rom
>16:20. (see Rev 13, 19; Jud 5:26, 9:53; 1 Sam 17:51; Ps 7:16, 68:21,
>110:6, 140:9; Hab 3:13). Here the KJB also is in no fault in using the
>word "it" to refer to Christ instead of he, as all the others do.
Well, it depends on "what the word "IT" is, right <aarness>?
Do you guys remember Mr. Clinton with his legendary "what the word "IS" is?"
Same babble here. Look how they complicate the simple thing of a miserable
snake! So sad!
But praise God for the Deist approach to the TRUTH!
I think we shall continue exposing the TRUTH until all will agree with it. This
shall be our goal. Thank you.
Loki
<cle...@starnetinc.com> wrote:
>Loki,
>
>Man, you guys make looking 'dumb' seem like a full time occupation. You
>were heard blithering...
>
>(Wondering when you called 'Rev. Peter' a coward...)
>
>>I did?
>>
>Yes, you did. What, you're joking here, right? No one could be this
>stupid, please...
Yawn.
>>Wow, I see your level of reading comprehension doesn't just
>>stop with the Scriptures.
>
>Yeah, "wow" is right.
>
>Look, you moron, you told me the other day that (in reference to knowing a
>coward) that it "takes one to know one." Obviously making a character
>judgment that *I* am a coward, but then also making one that 'Rev. Peter'
>is, as well. That would be the *only* way I could "recognize" that, right?
>Since I called him one, I'd have to *be* one in order to recognize that, and
>since you gave *me* credit for being able to, 'Rev. Peter' is convicted by
>your own idiotic assumption.
It wasn't meant in that fashion, though I could see how you could
interpret it as such.
In any case, you're still a coward, no matter who or what "REv Peter"
is. Hey, ever come up with that "evidence" you had that Nietzsche
knew he was wrong on his deathbed and was in "fear"? You never did
reply...
>My, that was easy.
>
>Man, you are a looser, buddy boy, a looooooser...
>
>Warmest regards,
>
>Dave...
--
Velve...@graceland.com
>While I haven't totally
>abandoned the idea that something "comes next", I did let go of the
>concepts of heaven and hell, in the sense of eternity that is. I would
>say there are lots of days at work that I know I am in hell.
Sort of like "This isn't hell, but I can see it from here" ;-)
Heaven is the most interesting concept of christianity, to me. I keep
running these different scenarios through my head, as to what a heaven would
be like.
For instance; if we're with our loved ones, what age would they be? What
happens if I was married young, and I lost my wife in a tragic accident early
on, then remarried? Who would I be with in heaven? What if I married a
Muslim? Or what if my wife wasn't "saved", and went south instead? Wouldn't
heaven be miserable? What would xtian droids have to preach about? How would
I pass the time? What about people I didn't like in life; would I have to put
up with them for eternity? What if I didn't like heaven, seeing as there
would be no end in sight? Is sin possible in heaven? If so, could one be
'transferred'? Does one have a human form in heaven? Even if it is a state
of consciousness (!), we would have to have some form in which to rationalize
it, I'd think.
On the surface, they look mocking, but they are real questions. I'd be
very interested to hear some answers to these, and maybe a simple explanation
as to what christians think heaven would be like, in plain English. Of
course, beyond generalities, no-one can answer these with any authority.
ladyhank
Velve...@graceland.com wrote in message
<32n38s8et3ttrqos6...@4ax.com>...
><snipped>
Elvis wrote:
> Heaven is the most interesting concept of christianity, to me. I keep
>running these different scenarios through my head, as to what a heaven
would
>be like.
<snipped questions for brevity>
> On the surface, they look mocking, but they are real questions. I'd
be
>very interested to hear some answers to these, and maybe a simple
explanation
>as to what christians think heaven would be like, in plain English. Of
>course, beyond generalities, no-one can answer these with any
authority.
Ladyhank: I've asked those same questions. It's all so sweet traveling
down a tunnel and your long-lost loved one is there to greet you. It
seems such a reassuring comfort at first glance. If you really start to
think about what the actual scenario would be like, however, you are
faced with the questions such as those you posed. That sweetness turns
sour in a big hurry.
Your point about consciousness is well taken. Though, I like to think
about some eternal "energy" existence, there are problems with it. One
would be: does the energy, even without form, have some "awareness" or
consciousness? If not, then experience of eternity is a dead issue (no
pun intended). If so, then what are we using to "know" our experience?
And would we know that we are ourselves? If so, then no matter what
form we take, we'd experience the problems in the questions you gave.
Fortunately, I love the questions and line of thinking more than I have
a need for answers.
Peace, ladyhank
ladyhank
aar...@my-deja.com wrote in message <85qsh5$bpi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Aaron wrote:
>How do we now catch a red-eye? Same idea as fetching a compass. It's
>an expression. Do we really catch a large flying red colored eye? No,
>the term is describing the condition of the passengers based on the
>circumstances of the flight. In that case, the time it is flying.
>Fetching a compass is an expression describing the route of a ship
based
>upon the circumstances of its means of travel, the wind.
>Aaron...
Ladyhank: Perhaps, but you only compound the problems of the KJV, not
clear them up. A red-eye is an expression of speech, yes. You and I
know what it means, yes. The words are English, yes. But I am not
convinced that everyone who speaks English would understand the meaning
of what we are saying.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
1. Informal. A danger signal on a railroad.
2. SLANG. A late-night or overnight flight: caught the redeye from Los
Angeles to New York. (Emphasis added)
3. Any of several fishes with red eyes, as the rock bass.
4. Slang. Inferior whiskey.
Someone could easily think you are talking about bass fishing or
railroad crossings.
Same source for compass:
As a NOUN (aside from a directional object): An enclosing line or
boundary; a circumference: outside the compass of the fence.
As a VERB: To make a circuit of; circle: The sailboat compassed the
island. (Emphasis added).
As a NAUTICAL Nautical. To hold a course. To turn about; veer.
As a COMPUTER SCIENCE term: A program routine that brings a module of a
program from storage into main memory for immediate use.
Now, the way you are wanting to use the words is as an expression, or
slang. We already know that words can translate poorly and change
meaning over time. Admitting the KJV uses slang expressions, just adds
to the confusion.
Same source for slang:
1. A kind of language occurring chiefly in casual and playful speech,
made up typically of SHORT-LIVED coinages and figures of speech that are
deliberately used in place of standard terms for added raciness, humor,
irreverence, or other effect. (emphasis added)
2. Language PECULIAR TO A GROUP; argot or jargon (emphasis added)
The way Hunter Dave wants to use the words as a nautical term (nautical
slang?) limits the understanding of the passage to only those persons
who have a nautical understanding. A computer geek would think the
passage means something entirely different. In fact, future revisions
of the bible realized the problem of the KJV in that a compass is
generally thought to be a directional device and corrected it. Ergo,
the KJV is no more clear as a word of God to God's people than any other
version. It is a work of men and should be treated as such.
ladyhank
ladyhank wrote in message <85t31r$4gh$1...@news.laserlink.net>...
Ladyhank: I apologize here. I did what I often do and typed ahead of
my thinking. The above terms refer to compass. The point to have been
made that as either a thing or action in this sense, it would be
difficult to fetch it, as in:
Fetch, same source:
To come or go after and take or bring back.
These, then, are additional definitions of the word fetch, same source:
netrenc...@my-deja.com
Rev Peter <gadfl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> It has been accepted for centuries that the Devil, or Satan, in the
> christain context is known as the "morning star", or the "son of the
> dawn". Yet christians have failed to realize that Jesus is the Devil,
> and their own holy book provides the evidence of this interesting
fact.
It has been accepted, but it is an incorrect assertion. Isaiah was
referring to an earthly king that got to high and mighty, not to a
supernatural creature.
> Isaiah 14: 12 [NASB] "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the
> morning, son of the dawn!" You have been cut down to the earth, You
who
> have weakened the nations!"
>
> Isaiah 14: 12 [KJV] "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son
of
> the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken
the
> nations."
>
> [Verses 13 onward can be easily seen as applying to Jesus.]
But they weren't in reference to Jesus or any 'devil' or 'satan', they
were in reference to an actual, living, breathing king being criticized
by Isaiah. There is no connection to Lucifer (the morning star) and
Satan (Satan: contrary; adversary; enemy; accuser).
To further
> reinforce the idea that Jesus is actually the Devil, we now go to
> Revelations.
>
> Rev 22: 16 [NASB] "I Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these
> things for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the
> bright MORNING STAR." [emphasis mine]
>
> Rev 22: 16 [KJV] "I Jesus have sent mine angel unto you these things
in
> the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright
> and MORNING STAR." [emphasis mine]
>
> It should be noted, throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the Messiah is
> never referred to as the "son of the morning", or the "morning star";
> for the two refer to the planet venus, which is the first star to
arise
> with the dawn, and refer to the Devil. It is also reasonable, for
> christians maintain that Jesus is the source of salvation, therefore
> breaking the 1st commandment; Jesus himself broke the commandments
> repeatedly, he taught people to hate their parents, dishonored his
> mother in public, and even worked on the Sabbath collecting food --
> which was a capital offence by the Commandments, for the Day of
> Preparation was to be used for such purposes. Is Jesus the Devil,
> according to Isaiah, YES.
>
Is Jesus the Devil, according to Isaiah, NO. Is Jesus Lucifer
according to the Bible, NO. Are you guilty of confusing the issue as
you accuse others of doing, YES. 'The Origin Of Satan' by Pagels should
clear up some of your confusion.
Devil: (Gr. diabolos), a slanderer, the arch-enemy of man's spiritual
interest (Job 1:6; Rev. 2:10; Zech. 3:1).
Satan: adversary; accuser. When used as a proper name, the Hebrew word
so rendered has the article "the adversary" (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7).
BCNU
NEtRENCHERPRIME
--
"THE WORLD IS ON IT'S ELBOWS AND KNEES.
THEY'VE FORGOTTEN THE MESSAGE,
AND WORSHIP THE CREEDS." THE THE-THE VIOLENCE
OF TRUTH
netrenc...@my-deja.com
Rev Peter <gadfl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <20000114111747...@nso-ff.news.cs.com>,
> ricksf...@cs.comingless (Rick Forester) wrote:
> > In article <Rdwf4.18998$2x3.3...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, "Rev.
G.
> > R.
> > Gaudreau" <grgaud...@sprint.ca> writes:
> >
> > >Messiah HAD to have physical ties to king David, but because of the
> > >myth
> > >of virgin-birth, stolen from other pagan myths, Jesus was just
> > >another
> > >bastard.
The 'virgin birth' wasn't stolen from pagan myth, but from a mistake in
a mis-translation of Isaiah taken from the Hebrew into the Greek.
Translated from 'Almah' (Hebrew) it became 'parthenos' in Greek.
Someone took it and ran with it. Read Spong's 'Liberating The Gospels'
for further details.
and as Nietzsche pointed
out,
> men of conviction are prisoners to those convictions, convictions
> prevent one from seeing far enough.
>
Doesn't this statement apply to Nietzsche himself? Perhaps everyone
is included?
> Rick:
> > Indeed gentlemen and ladies, if Mary was a virgin, then Joseph has
> > nothing to
> > do with the genealogy of Jesus and his links to David are
inexistent.
>
However, if Joseph WAS his father, there you go.
aar...@my-deja.com
I thought you and your friends were interested in fun. What fun
would it be if everything in the Bible was plain Jane,
straight-forward right in front of your face? Anyway, the meaning can
be derived from the surrounding verses (vss 11-14).
2Tim 2:15.
Aaron...
Hunter Int.
Man, get with the program, you're falling apart at the seams.
You babbled...
>It wasn't meant in that fashion, though I could see how you could
>interpret it as such.
Oh PLEASE. It was the *only* way it could have been taken. And that's why
this whole group of "reasonable" atheists haven't a clue as to what "reason"
is in the first place.
It is quite obvious to anyone here who truly does *think* that none of you
have a clue as to what you're doing here, or why you're doing it. You're
simply here to mouth off and cause animosity. Which you're all quite good
at, and all under the disguise of "reason."
>In any case, you're still a coward, no matter who or what "REv Peter"
>is.
Yeah, and I'm all busted up that a the idiot 'Loki' feels that way. Yepper,
pretty much wrecks my day...
>Hey, ever come up with that "evidence" you had that Nietzsche
>knew he was wrong on his deathbed and was in "fear"? You never did
>reply...
You're an idiot. I most certainly did reply to that. All you had to do was
ASK, but hey, that would have been the "reasonable" thing to do, so pretty
much unacceptable for you, right? Do you *ever* check DejaNews before you
blabber away?
You're unbelievably dense, my friend. Loooooser...
Warmest regards,
Dave...
ladyhank
aar...@my-deja.com wrote in message <85tite$4ob$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <85t31r$4gh$1...@news.laserlink.net>,
Aaron wrote:
>I thought you and your friends were interested in fun. What fun
>would it be if everything in the Bible was plain Jane,
>straight-forward right in front of your face? Anyway, the meaning can
>be derived from the surrounding verses (vss 11-14).
>2Tim 2:15.
>Aaron...
Ladyhank: I'm not saying it can't. However, you miss the point of what
I am saying.
BTW, this particular "compass" point is actually a minor one to me. I
tend to be more liberal than Rev Peter with the bible problems in that I
allow more literary or poetic license. On the other hand, the KJV does
seem to be the preferred version by the literalist Fundies, so perhaps
the position of Rev Peter is correct.
What these minor issues do, however, is add weight to the argument that
the bible is the words of men, not God.
In this instance, I have a choice of saying this phrase is little more
than slang which will be understood only by those who use the expression
or a nautical expression (nautical slang) understood only by those
persons with nautical understanding. What this shows, giving the
argument to the original writers that whether they intended a non-"plain
Jane" expression or a nautical term, is that this passage was written by
a very SPECIFIC MAN or GROUP of MEN to a very SPECIFIC audience. I am
not a man, I do not live anywhere near the Italian coast as Hunter Dave
references (nor any of the places referenced in the bible for that
matter), I do not go sailing, as a matter of fact, with all due respect
to Idaho Bill, I hate the open water. I'd much rather go horseback
riding!
A third option, btw, would be the literal rendering of the words as
understood by the majority of the masses.
Now, again, the issue to me is a minor problem. It does, however, add
credence to the fact that this is a book by men, not God. I am no more
bound to these writers than a writer who writes a book about people
abducted by space aliens. Maybe it happens, maybe not, but until it
happens to me, I ain't buying it. I have absolutely no relationship to
the biblical writers or characters. They are as alien to me as little
green men from outer space. Like everything else in my life, if they
say something wise, I'll take it; if they say something ignorant, I'll
leave it.
There is, however, a work of God available that *everyone* participates
in and is a lot more fun and inspiring. It's called Creation. It's the
work of God that Deists use to "know" God.
BTW, thank you for not referring to me and my friends as Atheists. It's
a sign of respect and understanding on your part, and I appreciate that.
Peace, ladyhank
ladyhank
Hunter Int. wrote in message <388254e0$0$29...@news.execpc.com>...
Loki wrote
>>It wasn't meant in that fashion, though I could see how you could
>>interpret it as such.
Hunter Dave wrote:
>Oh PLEASE. It was the *only* way it could have been taken. And that's
why
>this whole group of "reasonable" atheists haven't a clue as to what
"reason"
>is in the first place.
Ladyhank: He could have said that since he is not a coward, then
perhaps he was wrong in his assessment of Rev Peter. Obviously, he
agrees with Loki that he's a coward.
Rev Peter
"ladyhank" <lady...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Rev Peter wrote in message <85qgid$3lq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >I agree with you and would like to expand on the idea that there are
> >only two religions: Deism and Paganism. All Pagan religions were at
> >some
> >point revealed religions, some god interacting with some hero or
> priest.
>
> Ladyhank: I think I can follow you on this. I've long had an
> affinity
> to more earth-centered religions and their adherents. I enjoy
> learning
> about what they think, do, how they practice their religion, etc. I
> found some of that "innate wisdom" by looking at and listening to what
> they had to offer. But inevitably, there would come a line that I
> just
> couldn't cross. The god would get a name, a personal name. As soon
> as
> that god got a personal name, god also got a personality and a form.
> Such things, in my mind, put boundaries and limits upon God. Now,
> maybe
> it's possible that God has boundaries and limits, but I don't feel
> qualified to state what they are. I haven't met anyone yet that I
> think
> is qualified to do so.
RevP:
Excellent point. Take for example the christinanity's god, it is merely
a collection of abstract terms with no substance outside the decadent
imaginations of its followers. A god of love, or mercy, or compassion,
etc; they refer to their false god as 'god is love', 'god is just'. If
god is love, then he is limited to that definition -- the christain god
is merely a collection of definitions. God as dictionary! God as a book!
RevP:
He is a decadent and his behaviour is evidence of a deep seated
viciousness.
> Rev Peter wrote:
> >An eternal life would be meaningless, what we are would die anyway;
> >for
> >existence would be so profoundly changed that we would not survive it
> >intact, anymore than someone survives massive brain damage intact.
>
> Ladyhank: It's really very interesting that you brought this up. A
> very nice gentleman and I were discussing this topic just last night.
> His viewpoint is, basically, the Carl Sagan, dreamless sleep idea. I
> realize this is very much in accordance with Deist thinking; yet, it's
> also an area where I have a slight variation. What I keep falling
> back
> to and cannot escape is that energy is constant thing. I stick on
> this
> like Rev GR sticks on his origins issue. I can't imagine what any
> existence after death would be like. I'm certain it's not the heaven
> as
> described by xians, however. How could any place possibly be paradise
> for a mother who doesn't get to finish rearing her child, or a spouse
> separated too soon from their loved one whom they know they have left
> behind to loneliness, or where family rivalries exist eternally?>
>
> I'm not clear on how far apart you and I are on this. You mention
> existence being profoundly changed and I would definitely concur with
> that. Yet, I'm not willing to say that we exist as nothing after
> death.
RevP:
My personal view is that Reason is eternal, and Reason is the very soul
of humanity.
Ladyhank:
> Maybe eternal life isn't a good way to say what would be in my mind,
> but
> rather some sort of eternal existence. I keep wondering where the
> energy that is mine was before I was born and then wonder if I (or it)
> don't go back to there (not place so much as state of being). Then I
> wonder if the experience of life in between has any effect on how that
> state is experienced, if it is experienced.
>
> But as I explained to my friend, while these trains of thoughts are
> some
> of the favorite journeys of my mind, it's nothing I dwell on overmuch
> or
> too seriously. The important thing is what we know, the here and now.
> Whatever happens after death will happen regardless of what we think
> or
> believe about it, and we will all know all too soon.
>
> Thanks for expanding your thoughts. I've greatly enjoyed hearing them
> and being able to share my own.
>
> Peace to you, too, Rev Peter.
>
> ladyhank
peace sister
Rev Peter
--
http://members.xoom.com/grgaud/
"In revealed religions, you have blasphemy and heresy.
In Deism, you have questions and free speech."
-- Ladyhank.
Rick Forester
about Rev Peter:
>No, you've shown nothing in regards to equating Jesus with satan.
>What you have succeeded in is cementing in the mind of believers what
>a fool you remain and how the venom of your hate has clouded your
>ability to reasonably discern truth from fiction.
It is NOT hate, Craig! I am perhaps not as intelligent a person like you are,
and I wonder if Jesus spoke only to people like you, who "discern truth from
fiction" so amazingly easy. I really think that Jesus did not read carefully
Isaiah 14 and he used the term "Morning Star" for himself just for the sake of
poetry. But he said it! It's not my fault to suspect him of
being...WOW!!!...Lucifer??? Even him? Who knows? Remember what his family
members and his fellows from Nazareth said about him: mad...mad...mad...WOW!
Really, you don't feel some cold sweats running down your back? I did when I
first read this.
aar...@my-deja.com
Rick, I'd like to point out that by the fact the Jesus is God, Jesus
wrote Isaiah. It's not a matter of him not carefully reading it.
In Isaiah, Lucifer is the son of the morning. In Revelation, Jesus is
the bright and morning star. They are not the same, never have been.
Aaron...
Libertarius
means "standing again." It simply implies that Jesus was BACK ON HIS FEET,
like Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus, i.e. HE DID NOT DIE!
It is impossible to prove whether this was just a denial on the part
of
his followers, or, as implied by the only claimed "eye witness" account in
the Bible, he was removed from the cross before he was dead, and was REVIVED
through the efforts of his medically skilled friends.
Rev Peter wrote:
> How many times did Jesus die? The answer according to christians, is
> that he died once, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. The
> previous postings on Jesus' Credentials refute such a fictions on
> the ground that the accounts are so inherently flawed and contradictory
> as to be without credibility. Here is another verse taken from the
> bible, which shows that according to Jesus, he died once before,
> and previously rose from the dead.
>
> Note: this error does not exist in the more carefully translated
> version, nor in the primary sources, but does exist in the KJV and NASB.
> Therefore, it is proof of carelessness, and still constitutes a biblical
> error.
>
> John 20: 9, "9 For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He
> must rise AGAIN from the dead." The one who does not understand the
> bible is Jesus. I would like some christian to show where Jesus died
> twice, and where this double dying was in the OT. This alone destroys
> the KJV as a viable bible.
>
> If the bible is inerrant, than the burden of proof lies on Christians to
> show where Jesus died and resurrected previously, failure to do so, is
> an admission of defeat for Christian doctrines and claims to an
> infallible bible. So Aaron, if the KJV resolves all contradictions and
> errors, then provide chapter and verse of Jesus' PREVIOUS death and
> resurrection. Maybe Jesus was a poor learner, and just couldn't get it
> right. ;->
>
> peace
>
> Reverend Peter
>
> --
> http://members.xoom.com/grgaud/
> "In revealed religions, you have blasphemy and heresy.
> In Deism, you have questions and free speech."
> -- Ladyhank.
>
aar...@my-deja.com
Libertarius <wak...@reality.now> wrote:
> ===>This is based on a mistranslation of the Greek word "anastasis",
which
> means "standing again." It simply implies that Jesus was BACK ON HIS
FEET,
> like Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus, i.e. HE DID NOT DIE!
> It is impossible to prove whether this was just a denial on
the part
> of
> his followers, or, as implied by the only claimed "eye witness"
account in
> the Bible, he was removed from the cross before he was dead, and was
REVIVED
> through the efforts of his medically skilled friends.
Jesus was dead, that is why the soldiers didn't break his legs, he then
had a spear stuck into his side (John 19:31-35).
Aaron...
<SNIP>
Rev Peter
Libertarius <wak...@reality.now> wrote:
> ===>This is based on a mistranslation of the Greek word "anastasis",
>which
> means "standing again." It simply implies that Jesus was BACK ON HIS
>FEET,
> like Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus, i.e. HE DID NOT DIE!
> It is impossible to prove whether this was just a denial on
>the part
> of
> his followers, or, as implied by the only claimed "eye witness"
>account in
> the Bible, he was removed from the cross before he was dead, and was
>REVIVED
> through the efforts of his medically skilled friends.
Hello Libertarius
That is the point I was trying to get across, the KJV is careless in its
translation. As for Jesus' death, if the timing given by the gospel of
Luke is correct, then Jesus was born in 6AD, started his ministry in
36AD [the year Pilate was removed from his position], and if as
christinanes maintain, that Jesus has a 3 year ministry [which would
have ended in 39AD] then Pilate COULD NOT have executed Jesus. Jesus
would have to have been condemned by Pilate's successor.
peace
Rev Peter
--
http://members.xoom.com/grgaud/
"In revealed religions, you have blasphemy and heresy.
In Deism, you have questions and free speech."
-- Ladyhank.
Craig
wrote:
>===>This is based on a mistranslation of the Greek word "anastasis", which
>means "standing again." It simply implies that Jesus was BACK ON HIS FEET,
>like Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus, i.e. HE DID NOT DIE!
> It is impossible to prove whether this was just a denial on the part
>of
>his followers, or, as implied by the only claimed "eye witness" account in
>the Bible, he was removed from the cross before he was dead, and was REVIVED
>through the efforts of his medically skilled friends.
ROTFLMAO. Bondageman, you're one desperate dude. You got spunk, but
no brains.
If Jesus wasn't dead, they would have presented His body and then, end
of salvation message/end of Christianity. But that never happened.
If Jesus wasn't dead, than the Roman guard, who were EXPERTS in death,
and the administration of death, AND was well acquainted with what
death looked like, AND who would have been killed if his assessment
was wrong; proclaimed that Jesus had died.
Or, if Jesus was "revived" after his scourging, and being impaled for
about 6 hours and stabbed in the side with a spear which in the very
least would have punctured some vital organ causing profuse bleeding
BUT somehow didn't die and His followers revived Him after they took
Him down off the cross; well, He'd look mighty bad and NOT as a risen,
powerful Savior, as He promised would happen AND how He is ALWAYS
described. Again, the salvation message/Christianity would have been
lost.
Also, it is recounted, extra biblically, that Jesus DIED as a result
of His teachings; not old age.
Finally, it's nice to note that you've again changed positions on the
existence of Jesus. First you claim He's "fictional" and now you
admit He is real. You're one mighty confused dude; but you knew that
already.
The end analysis; you're grossly uninformed and will unintelligently
try to assail that which you've never understood. In short, you're
desperate because your pride wants you to be right and if you
aren't...I wouldn't want to walk in your empty shoes.
Hunter Int.
You said,
>Ladyhank: He could have said that since he is not a coward, then
>perhaps he was wrong in his assessment of Rev Peter. Obviously, he
>agrees with Loki that he's a coward.
Thank you. I knew that finally you'd agree with something I said. Yes,
'Rev. Peter' is a coward, and yes, that is my story and I'm sticking to it.
Thank you.
Warmest regards,
Dave...
Libertarius
> In article <38838075...@reality.now>,
> Libertarius <wak...@reality.now> wrote:
> > ===>This is based on a mistranslation of the Greek word "anastasis",
> which
> > means "standing again." It simply implies that Jesus was BACK ON HIS
> FEET,
> > like Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus, i.e. HE DID NOT DIE!
> > It is impossible to prove whether this was just a denial on
> the part
> > of
> > his followers, or, as implied by the only claimed "eye witness"
> account in
> > the Bible, he was removed from the cross before he was dead, and was
> REVIVED
> > through the efforts of his medically skilled friends.
>
> Jesus was dead, that is why the soldiers didn't break his legs, he then
> had a spear stuck into his side (John 19:31-35).
===>You have a problem with reading comprehension, and are reversing
things. It is clear from the text that first they poked him (Greek ENYXEN)
with a spear to see if he was dead, and THEN, having concluded that he was,
they did not break his legs. But if he had been dead, his friends could not
have revived him.
>
> Aaron...
> <SNIP>
Libertarius
> In article <38838075...@reality.now>,
> Libertarius <wak...@reality.now> wrote:
> > ===>This is based on a mistranslation of the Greek word "anastasis",
> >which
> > means "standing again." It simply implies that Jesus was BACK ON HIS
> >FEET,
> > like Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus, i.e. HE DID NOT DIE!
> > It is impossible to prove whether this was just a denial on
> >the part
> > of
> > his followers, or, as implied by the only claimed "eye witness"
> >account in
> > the Bible, he was removed from the cross before he was dead, and was
> >REVIVED
> > through the efforts of his medically skilled friends.
>
> Hello Libertarius
>
> That is the point I was trying to get across, the KJV is careless in its
> translation. As for Jesus' death, if the timing given by the gospel of
> Luke is correct, then Jesus was born in 6AD, started his ministry in
> 36AD [the year Pilate was removed from his position], and if as
> christinanes maintain, that Jesus has a 3 year ministry [which would
> have ended in 39AD] then Pilate COULD NOT have executed Jesus. Jesus
> would have to have been condemned by Pilate's successor.
>
> peace
>
> Rev Peter
>
> --
> http://members.xoom.com/grgaud/
> "In revealed religions, you have blasphemy and heresy.
> In Deism, you have questions and free speech."
> -- Ladyhank.
>
Libertarius
> In article <38838075...@reality.now>,
> Libertarius <wak...@reality.now> wrote:
> > ===>This is based on a mistranslation of the Greek word "anastasis",
> >which
> > means "standing again." It simply implies that Jesus was BACK ON HIS
> >FEET,
> > like Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus, i.e. HE DID NOT DIE!
> > It is impossible to prove whether this was just a denial on
> >the part
> > of
> > his followers, or, as implied by the only claimed "eye witness"
> >account in
> > the Bible, he was removed from the cross before he was dead, and was
> >REVIVED
> > through the efforts of his medically skilled friends.
>
> Hello Libertarius
>
> That is the point I was trying to get across, the KJV is careless in its
> translation. As for Jesus' death, if the timing given by the gospel of
> Luke is correct, then Jesus was born in 6AD, started his ministry in
> 36AD [the year Pilate was removed from his position], and if as
> christinanes maintain, that Jesus has a 3 year ministry [which would
> have ended in 39AD] then Pilate COULD NOT have executed Jesus. Jesus
> would have to have been condemned by Pilate's successor.
===>It appears that the dating in Luke is erroneous, since there never was
such an absurd order given for people to travel to the place of their
ancestors in order to be numbered.
Libertarius
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:49:57 -0700, Libertarius <wak...@reality.now>
> wrote:
>
> >===>This is based on a mistranslation of the Greek word "anastasis", which
> >means "standing again." It simply implies that Jesus was BACK ON HIS FEET,
> >like Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus, i.e. HE DID NOT DIE!
> > It is impossible to prove whether this was just a denial on the part
> >of
> >his followers, or, as implied by the only claimed "eye witness" account in
> >the Bible, he was removed from the cross before he was dead, and was REVIVED
> >through the efforts of his medically skilled friends.
>
> If Jesus wasn't dead, they would have presented His body and then, end
> of salvation message/end of Christianity. But that never happened.
===>The "salvation message" of Jesus was about the LIBERATION of Israel from
foreign occupation. The "salvation message" you refer to was the invention of
Saul of Tarsus, and the BEGINNING of the deification of Jesus in his Christos
Cult ("Christianity").
>
>
> If Jesus wasn't dead, than the Roman guard, who were EXPERTS in death,
> and the administration of death, AND was well acquainted with what
> death looked like, AND who would have been killed if his assessment
> was wrong; proclaimed that Jesus had died.
===>That is so silly! Even modern physicians have made mistakes, declaring
patients "dead", and had to admit their mistakes when the patient had "risen".
>
>
> Or, if Jesus was "revived" after his scourging, and being impaled for
> about 6 hours and stabbed in the side with a spear
===>That is stupid. The text says he was merely "pricked" by a spear.
> which in the very
> least would have punctured some vital organ causing profuse bleeding
===>You are falsifying your Bible! There is nothing about any "vital organs" or
"profuse bleeding"!!! Typical Craigpot LYING to protect your prejudiced opinion.
>
> BUT somehow didn't die and His followers revived Him after they took
> Him down off the cross; well, He'd look mighty bad and NOT as a risen,
> powerful Savior,
===>Where does it say anything about any "risen, powerful Savior"? More Craigpot
LIES! It says that Mary had found him in the garden, appearing to be the
gardener, not some "powerful Savior"!!!
> as He promised would happen AND how He is ALWAYS
> described.
===>Really? WHERE is he so described, you LIAR!
> Again, the salvation message/Christianity would have been
> lost.
===>That message was not even invented until decades later by Saul of Tarsus!
> Also, it is recounted, extra biblically, that Jesus DIED as a result
> of His teachings; not old age.
===>So what? It is also recounted, "extra biblically", that Mary Magdalene was
his "companion" who he used to kiss on the mouth before the other disciples.
>
>
> Finally, it's nice to note that you've again changed positions on the
> existence of Jesus. First you claim He's "fictional"
===>More Craigpot LIES! I never, ever claimed that he was "fictional"!
> and now you
> admit He is real. You're one mighty confused dude; but you knew that
> already.
===>The confused one is YOU, unless you are indeed a deliberate LIAR!
ladyhank
Ladyhank: Actually, I have not agreed with you at all. You said re:
Loki's comment, and I quote: "It was the *only* way it could have been
taken." I disagree. There is another way it could have been taken.
That way would say that neither Hunter Dave nor Peter are cowards.
Remembering that Loki said that "it takes one to know one" and not
actually that Peter was a coward. A second option was available to
Hunter Dave.
Re: sticking to stories: I posted this in alt.religion.deism only
about which you said: "I won't go on that group; it's not my group."
Why die Hunter Dave lie? Who did he lie to, me or himself? Has he
changed his mind in 3 days? Could it be that he grows tired of xian
ways and now desires the light of reason?
I've had no problem refraining from bothering him. Why is it he can't
seem to do the same for me? Why is he so curious about what a Deist
has to say or think about him? After all, I have little to say that
could possibly be of "any relevance to anything".
Valentine's Day is coming up. Roses would be nice. If you're going to
keep thinking of me, you may as well say it with flowers, Hunter Dave.
Peace, ladyhank
Rev Peter
Libertarius <wak...@reality.now> wrote:
> Rev Peter wrote:
>
> > In article <38838075...@reality.now>,
> > > ===>This is based on a mistranslation of the Greek word
> > >"anastasis",
> > >which
> > > means "standing again." It simply implies that Jesus was BACK ON
> > >HIS
> > >FEET,
> > > like Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus, i.e. HE DID NOT DIE!
> > > It is impossible to prove whether this was just a denial
> > >on
> > >the part
> > > of
> > > his followers, or, as implied by the only claimed "eye witness"
> > >account in
> > > the Bible, he was removed from the cross before he was dead, and
> > >was
> > >REVIVED
> > > through the efforts of his medically skilled friends.
> >
> >
> > That is the point I was trying to get across, the KJV is careless in
> > its
> > translation. As for Jesus' death, if the timing given by the gospel
> > of
> > Luke is correct, then Jesus was born in 6AD, started his ministry in
> > 36AD [the year Pilate was removed from his position], and if as
> > christinanes maintain, that Jesus has a 3 year ministry [which would
> > have ended in 39AD] then Pilate COULD NOT have executed Jesus. Jesus
> > would have to have been condemned by Pilate's successor.
>
> ===>It appears that the dating in Luke is erroneous, since there never
> was
> such an absurd order given for people to travel to the place of their
> ancestors in order to be numbered.
RevP:
Hello Libertarius. No the dating is correct, there was a governor named
Quirinius, who did conduct a census of the people of Judeae in 6AD, even
Josephus identifies this governor and the timing of his first census. So
if Jesus was born in 6AD, started his ministry in 36AD and died in 39AD,
then he could not have been judged by Pilate.
But I do agree with you about the absurdity of moving the population,
the Romans would have counted the people at tax time in their villages,
towns, or cities; this way they would know how many people to tax in the
future. If Jesus was born in Beth., then it means that Beth. would have
been the place of residence of both Mary and Joseph. Taxes are taxes,
and those Romans knew how to collect and were too efficient to move a
population around -- just try afterwards to figure out who belonged
where!
peace
Rev Peter
--
http://members.xoom.com/grgaud/
"In revealed religions, you have blasphemy and heresy.
In Deism, you have questions and free speech."
-- Ladyhank.
Craig
wrote:
>Craig wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:49:57 -0700, Libertarius <wak...@reality.now>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >===>This is based on a mistranslation of the Greek word "anastasis", which
>> >means "standing again." It simply implies that Jesus was BACK ON HIS FEET,
>> >like Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus, i.e. HE DID NOT DIE!
>> > It is impossible to prove whether this was just a denial on the part
>> >of
>> >his followers, or, as implied by the only claimed "eye witness" account in
>> >the Bible, he was removed from the cross before he was dead, and was REVIVED
>> >through the efforts of his medically skilled friends.
>>
>> If Jesus wasn't dead, they would have presented His body and then, end
>> of salvation message/end of Christianity. But that never happened.
>
>===>The "salvation message" of Jesus was about the LIBERATION of Israel from
>foreign occupation. The "salvation message" you refer to was the invention of
>Saul of Tarsus, and the BEGINNING of the deification of Jesus in his Christos
>Cult ("Christianity").
As I said and you confirm. They NEVER presented His body, following
His death
>
>>
>>
>> If Jesus wasn't dead, than the Roman guard, who were EXPERTS in death,
>> and the administration of death, AND was well acquainted with what
>> death looked like, AND who would have been killed if his assessment
>> was wrong; proclaimed that Jesus had died.
>
>===>That is so silly! Even modern physicians have made mistakes, declaring
>patients "dead", and had to admit their mistakes when the patient had "risen".
Oh, than you have evidence that the Roman guard was killed for
dereliction of duty.
Oh, than you have historical evidence that they presented the body of
Jesus after His death.
Oh, you have historical evidence that Jesus wasn't dead following the
crucifixion as recorded in no less than five documents.
Please do tell us. But do so after you've taken your anti psychotic
medication so that we may be able to find some semblance of
intelligence in your statements.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Or, if Jesus was "revived" after his scourging, and being impaled for
>> about 6 hours and stabbed in the side with a spear
>
>===>That is stupid. The text says he was merely "pricked" by a spear.
Read it again fool. It says blood, mixed with water came out of Him.
It doesn't say that He was scratched, he was pierced through.
>
>> which in the very
>> least would have punctured some vital organ causing profuse bleeding
>
>===>You are falsifying your Bible! There is nothing about any "vital organs" or
>"profuse bleeding"!!! Typical Craigpot LYING to protect your prejudiced opinion.
LOL. I love to watch your desperation. It's fun to see your little
world come undone; to see how tenuous you're "rationality" is.
>
>>
>> BUT somehow didn't die and His followers revived Him after they took
>> Him down off the cross; well, He'd look mighty bad and NOT as a risen,
>> powerful Savior,
>
>===>Where does it say anything about any "risen, powerful Savior"? More Craigpot
>LIES! It says that Mary had found him in the garden, appearing to be the
>gardener, not some "powerful Savior"!!!
Liar. Have you ever read ANY of the texts. Try the end of John,
Mark, Luke, and Matthew. You might just learn something.
I realize that common sense ain't common to you, but you might just
try it for a change.
>
>> as He promised would happen AND how He is ALWAYS
>> described.
>
>===>Really? WHERE is he so described, you LIAR!
The prophets. The Gospels. If you've ever read them, slanderer,
you'd have known that.
>
>> Again, the salvation message/Christianity would have been
>> lost.
>
>===>That message was not even invented until decades later by Saul of Tarsus!
Centuries BEFORE the birth of Christ. As a matter of fact, it's in
Genesis 4.
>
>> Also, it is recounted, extra biblically, that Jesus DIED as a result
>> of His teachings; not old age.
>
>===>So what? It is also recounted, "extra biblically", that Mary Magdalene was
>his "companion" who he used to kiss on the mouth before the other disciples.
Correct. However, that "account" was an urban legend that developed
centuries AFTER His death. However, the Josephus account was within a
generation of His life and death. This is a more historically
accurate account than the 'apocryphal' writings.
>
>>
>>
>> Finally, it's nice to note that you've again changed positions on the
>> existence of Jesus. First you claim He's "fictional"
>
>===>More Craigpot LIES! I never, ever claimed that he was "fictional"!
I realize that you're an old man. I also realize that short term
memory gets lost as you get older. I pity you.
>
>> and now you
>> admit He is real. You're one mighty confused dude; but you knew that
>> already.
>
>===>The confused one is YOU, unless you are indeed a deliberate LIAR!
Nah, that title is reserved just for you and your father; the father
of lies.
Bring water.
>
>
Hunter Int.
Speaking of "careless," have you "fetched any compasses" lately..? Are you
still under the idiotic impression that it was a literal 'compass' being
spoken about in Acts 28:13, hmmm...?
Man, you're soooooo easy, beater-man!
Warmest regards,
Dave...
Rev Peter wrote in message <8624fj$cg3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <38838075...@reality.now>,
> Libertarius <wak...@reality.now> wrote:
>> ===>This is based on a mistranslation of the Greek word "anastasis",
>>which
>> means "standing again." It simply implies that Jesus was BACK ON HIS
>>FEET,
>> like Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus, i.e. HE DID NOT DIE!
>> It is impossible to prove whether this was just a denial on
>>the part
>> of
>> his followers, or, as implied by the only claimed "eye witness"
>>account in
>> the Bible, he was removed from the cross before he was dead, and was
>>REVIVED
>> through the efforts of his medically skilled friends.
>
>Hello Libertarius
>
>That is the point I was trying to get across, the KJV is careless in its
>translation. As for Jesus' death, if the timing given by the gospel of
>Luke is correct, then Jesus was born in 6AD, started his ministry in
>36AD [the year Pilate was removed from his position], and if as
>christinanes maintain, that Jesus has a 3 year ministry [which would
>have ended in 39AD] then Pilate COULD NOT have executed Jesus. Jesus
>would have to have been condemned by Pilate's successor.
>
Rev. G. R. Gaudreau
Messiah HAD to have physical ties to king David, but because of the myth
of virgin-birth, stolen from other pagan myths, Jesus was just another
bastard.
NETRENCHERPRIME
The 'virgin birth' wasn't stolen from pagan myth, but from a mistake in
a mis-translation of Isaiah taken from the Hebrew into the Greek.
Translated from 'Almah' (Hebrew) it became 'parthenos' in Greek. Someone
took it and ran with it. Read Spong's 'Liberating The Gospels' for
further details.
REVGR
Miracle birth myths were quite common in antiquity, as well as saviours
that died for their people, and sons of gods myths were also common, so
there is reason to believe that early Christians borrowed from the
mtyths of other peoples around them, such as the Greeks and Romans.
However, Spong may have a point. I haven't yet read this book but it's
on my -read-real-soon list of books, so I'll se what he has to say.
Thanks for the comment.
NETRENCHERPRIME
However, if Joseph WAS his father, there you go.
REVGR
There you go is right. In matthew's version of the genealogy, there is a
cursed king, Jeconiah, which would prohibit any of his descendants, ex.
Joseph and Jesus, from sitting on David's throne, and in Luke's version,
he has Jesus descending from Nathan who was never a king in Israel. The
line of descent had to be through king Solomon. Jesus, even if Jospeh
was his real father, could not be Messiah.
--
Reverend G.R. Gaudreau, H.M.C.
grg...@bigfoot.com
http://members.xoom.com/grgaud/
"Christian reason: One of the most underrated of oxymorons."
Rev. G. R. Gaudreau
Craig <nott...@ohno.net> wrote in message
news:3880cc26.94877779@news-server...
On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:28:55 -0500, "Rev. G. R. Gaudreau"
<grgaud...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>
>REVGR
>Well Aaron, if you can understand plain English, then why don't you
show
>us your understanding of the passages I quoted, from the KJV no less,
>and tell us where king Josiah died. Di he die in Megiddo, as per
2Kings,
>or did he die in Jerusalem, as per 2Chornicles. Are you going to get
>around to answering it?
CRAIG
Grrrrr, you've had this very question explained to you no less than 3
times in the last 12 months. Do you think that by re-asking it over and
over that it is going to finally pose a problem? Christians are unable
to help you with your poor comprehensive abilities. You've
proven time and again your ignorance and venomous hate of Christ; it's
clouded your ability to reason clearly and sadly sealed your destiny.
You're a might sad old man. I pity you.
REVGR
NOT ONE of you people EVER answered anything, except the usual "dead
doesn't really mean dead" answer, which is a brain-dead answer and just
what I expect from fanatics like you and your buddy, Hunter "brain-dead"
Int.. Your answers are non-answers, Craig, and that's been obvious from
the first. One passage says he died at Megiddo, the other says it was in
Jerusalem. Now, I realize that your reading skills are poor, but please,
they can't be THAT poor.... or can they?
As for my "venemous hate of Christ:" Jesus is NOT, repeat NOT, Messiah.
His genealogies prove that beyong a reasonable doubt. In fact, Jesus,
poor bastard that he was, was made into something he wasn't, if indeed
he even existed. No, I don't hate Jesus. What I hate are the moronic
replies I keep getting from you and the other moron, Hunter Int.. I
think I'll ignore you, just like I ignore him. You both have shit for
brains anyway.
Warmest regards, :o)
Rev. G. R. Gaudreau
with you. I look forward to hearing some new thoughts.
<SNIP>
Give me a new creative idea anytime so I have something to mull around
for awhile.
AARON
There is a verse that just immediataly came to mind when I read this.
You would have fit in well in Athens.
Ac 17:21 "(For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent
their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new
thing.)"
Aaron...
<SNIP>
REVGR
And just what is wrong with hearing or telling a new thing? You should
try it sometime. Take your nose out of your Bible and try some
independant thinking for a change. Your brain will thank you for it.
--
Rev. G. R. Gaudreau
Katches <kat...@atl.mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:p_9h4.9179$_N4....@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
B.C. 610, Pharaohnecho II., on his march against the king of Assyria,
passed through the plains of Philistia and Sharon; and King Josiah,
attempting to bar his progress in the plain of Megiddo, was defeated by
the Egyptians. He was "wounded in battle", and died as they bore him
away in his chariot towards Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:29; 2 Chr. 35:22-24),
and all Israel mourned for him. So general and bitter was this mourning
that it became a proverb, to which Zechariah (12:11, 12) alludes.
2 Kings 23:29. While Josiah was king, Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went
up to the Euphrates River to help the king of Assyria. King Josiah
marched out to meet him in battle, but Neco faced him and killed him at
Megiddo.
The wording for this is in causatively, to kill. (Strongs definition)
REVGR
You forgot to add this verse:
30 And his servants made him ride dead from Megiddo, and brought him to
Jerusalem... (The Interlinear Bible, J. P. Green Sr.)
30 And his servants carried him in a chariot dead from Megiddo, and
brought him to Jerusalem, and buried him in his own sepulchre. And the
people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and anointed him,
and made him king in his father's stead. (JPS Tanakh)
I have eight other English translations that say "dead" and three French
ones that say "mort", i.e., "dead". If the word was an adverb, as you
point out, the French would have been "mourant".
KATCHES
22. Josiah, however, would not turn away from him, but disguised
himself to engage him in battle. He would not listen to what Neco had
said at God's command but went to fight him on the plain of Megiddo. 23.
Archers shot King Josiah, and he told his officers, "Take me away; I am
badly wounded." 24. So they took him out of his chariot, put him in the
other chariot he had and brought him to Jerusalem, where he died. He was
buried in the tombs of his fathers, and all Judah and Jerusalem mourned
for him.
Neco killed Josiah in battle. Actually, according to the parallel
account in Chronicles, Josiah fell mortally wounded in his chariot at
Megiddo but died in Jerusalem. In verse 30, NIV "his body" should follow
the Hebrew literally and read "dying."
REVGR
Yes, I know that even though an archer in Neco's army killed Josiah,
that Neco would be given the credit. That's not a problem. However, when
one account has him DEAD in Megiddo and the other DYING in Megiddo but
dead in Jerusalem, then there is something rotten in Denmark.
Why do so many translations have the word "dead" in that context? Is it
possible they're justified in translating it thus? Is it possible that
the account is Chronicles is faulty? Or, that the account in 2KIngs is
faulty? If not, why not?
30 And his servants carried him in a chariot dead from Megiddo, and
brought him to Jerusalem, and buried him in his own sepulchre. And the
people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and anointed him,
and made him king in his father's stead.
The above is from the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh. One would think
that Jews, who know how to read and translate Hebrew, would have
translated it "dying" if it they thought they had warrant to do so.
Apparantly not. As for strong's definition, here it is according to
Strong's #04191 in 2Kings:
04191 muwth mooth
a primitive root; TWOT-1169; v
AV-die 424, dead 130, slay 100, death 83, surely 50, kill 31, dead man
3, dead body 2, in no wise 2, misc 10; 835
1) to die, kill, have one executed
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to die
1a2) to die (as penalty), be put to death
1a3) to die, perish (of a nation)
1a4) to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct)
1b) (Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch
1c) (Hiphil) to kill, put to death
1d) (Hophal)
1d1) to be killed, be put to death
1d1a) to die prematurely
According to Strong's, the word "dead" is a participle and not an
adverb, which "dying" would be, as in "he lay dying on the street."
Notice as well that the KJV never translates the word "mooth" (#04191)
as "dying". Sounds to me, and a slew of translators, as if Josiah
actually died in Megiddo. In fact, of the ten English translations and
three French translations I've consulted, they all have "dead" instaed
of "dying". One would think that all these translators would know to
translate "dying" if the text called for it.
And lastly, let me ask you this: Is there a possibility in your mind
that there could be an error here, or do you simply assume that because
it's the Bible, there can be no error? Just wondering.
aar...@my-deja.com
Libertarius <wak...@reality.now> wrote:
> aar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <38838075...@reality.now>,
> > Libertarius <wak...@reality.now> wrote:
> > > ===>This is based on a mistranslation of the Greek word
"anastasis",
> > which
> > > means "standing again." It simply implies that Jesus was BACK ON
HIS
> > FEET,
> > > like Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus, i.e. HE DID NOT DIE!
> > > It is impossible to prove whether this was just a denial
on
> > the part
> > > of
> > > his followers, or, as implied by the only claimed "eye witness"
> > account in
> > > the Bible, he was removed from the cross before he was dead, and
was
> > REVIVED
> > > through the efforts of his medically skilled friends.
> >
then
> > had a spear stuck into his side (John 19:31-35).
>
> ===>You have a problem with reading comprehension, and are reversing
> things. It is clear from the text that first they poked him (Greek
ENYXEN)
> with a spear to see if he was dead, and THEN, having concluded that he
was,
> they did not break his legs. But if he had been dead, his friends
could not
> have revived him.
>
> >
> > Aaron...
> > <SNIP>
> >
Aaron...
Katches
through the plains of Philistia and Sharon; and King Josiah, attempting to
bar his progress in the plain of Megiddo, was defeated by the Egyptians. He
was "wounded in battle", and died as they bore him away in his chariot
towards Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:29; 2 Chr. 35:22-24), and all Israel mourned
for him. So general and bitter was this mourning that it became a proverb,
to which Zechariah (12:11, 12) alludes.
2 Kings 23:29. While Josiah was king, Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to
the Euphrates River to help the king of Assyria. King Josiah marched out to
meet him in battle, but Neco faced him and killed him at Megiddo.
The wording for this is in causatively, to kill. (Strongs definition)
22. Josiah, however, would not turn away from him, but disguised himself to
engage him in battle. He would not listen to what Neco had said at God's
command but went to fight him on the plain of Megiddo.
23. Archers shot King Josiah, and he told his officers, "Take me away; I am
badly wounded."
24. So they took him out of his chariot, put him in the other chariot he
had and brought him to Jerusalem, where he died. He was buried in the tombs
of his fathers, and all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for him.
Neco killed Josiah in battle. Actually, according to the parallel account in
Chronicles, Josiah fell mortally wounded in his chariot at Megiddo but died
in Jerusalem. In verse 30, NIV "his body" should follow the Hebrew literally
and read "dying."
Katches
"Rev. G. R. Gaudreau" <grgaud...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:tQ3h4.213$YG4....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
The Mad Doctor
<grgaud...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>
>Craig <nott...@ohno.net> wrote in message
>news:3880cc26.94877779@news-server...
>On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:28:55 -0500, "Rev. G. R. Gaudreau"
><grgaud...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>REVGR
>>Well Aaron, if you can understand plain English, then why don't you
>show
>>us your understanding of the passages I quoted, from the KJV no less,
>>and tell us where king Josiah died. Di he die in Megiddo, as per
>2Kings,
>>or did he die in Jerusalem, as per 2Chornicles. Are you going to get
>>around to answering it?
>
>CRAIG
>Grrrrr, you've had this very question explained to you no less than 3
>times in the last 12 months. Do you think that by re-asking it over and
>over that it is going to finally pose a problem? Christians are unable
>to help you with your poor comprehensive abilities. You've
>proven time and again your ignorance and venomous hate of Christ; it's
>clouded your ability to reason clearly and sadly sealed your destiny.
>You're a might sad old man. I pity you.
>
>REVGR
>NOT ONE of you people EVER answered anything, except the usual "dead
>doesn't really mean dead" answer
But they never accept that type of answer for Christ on the cross,
funny huh, pickin' and choosin' is the fundamentalist way.
Grant
John P. Boatwright
> If Jesus wasn't dead, than the Roman guard, who were EXPERTS in death,
> and the administration of death, AND was well acquainted with what
> death looked like, AND who would have been killed if his assessment
> was wrong; proclaimed that Jesus had died.
Exactly.
> Or, if Jesus was "revived" after his scourging, and being impaled for
> about 6 hours and stabbed in the side with a spear which in the very
> least would have punctured some vital organ causing profuse bleeding
> BUT somehow didn't die and His followers revived Him after they took
> Him down off the cross; well, He'd look mighty bad and NOT as a risen,
> powerful Savior, as He promised would happen AND how He is ALWAYS
> described. Again, the salvation message/Christianity would have been
> lost.
Don't forget the huge nails in the wrists that in getting him down
off the cross would have torn open the flesh, blood spilling out
everywhere... a living person would have quickly bleed to death with
major arteries being damaged in both wrists and feet.
The idea that Jesus would have remained alive after that much
torture, that soldiers wouldn't have noticed blood still pumping
in a living person, no medical treatment available for someone
with that much damage to their entire body, back around 30AD when
soldiers were PAID to kill him... it's plain evidence that atheists
are grasping for just about anything to deny God having done what
he said he did.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Rev. G. R. Gaudreau
REVGR
NOT ONE of you people EVER answered anything, except the usual "dead
doesn't really mean dead" answer
MAD DOCTOR
But they never accept that type of answer for Christ on the cross, funny
huh, pickin' and choosin' is the fundamentalist way.
REVGR
Exactamundo! If dead doesn't mean dead in 2Kings, then why does it mean
dead when it comes to the cross? Was Jesus simply mortally wounded on
the cross, or did he actually die? We have the same problem with the
word "all." When it suits them it means all and when it doesn't it means
something else. Picky picky picky!
--
helpu
Rev. G. R. Gaudreau <grgaud...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:S2jh4.1365$YG4....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
<snipped>
REVGR
> NOT ONE of you people EVER answered anything, except the usual "dead
> doesn't really mean dead" answer
MAD DOCTOR
> But they never accept that type of answer for Christ on the cross, funny
> huh, pickin' and choosin' is the fundamentalist way.
REVGR
> Exactamundo! If dead doesn't mean dead in 2Kings, then why does it mean
> dead when it comes to the cross? Was Jesus simply mortally wounded on
the cross, or did he actually die? We have the same problem with the
> word "all." When it suits them it means all and when it doesn't it means
something else. Picky picky picky!
Helpu
Yawn. Dead is a word and like all words its meaning have a degree of
variance in meaning. The context determines the meaning of the word.
Clearly dead meant physically dead in the case of Jesus at the cross.....
John 19. 31. The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the
bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day, (for that
Sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be
broken, and that they might be taken away.
32. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the
other which was crucified with him.
33. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they
brake not his legs:
34. But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith
came there out blood and water(clear sign of death).
Matthew27. 63. Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he
was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
64. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day,
lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the
people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the
first.
65. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure
as ye can.
66. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and
setting a watch.(how could a dead man that had just underwent such
excruciating torture revive and remove the stone and defeat the guards?)
Abdemon
accident copied a similar incident pertaining to another king. :-) That
would not work, would it Rev. GRD?
The Books of Kings is written in such a way that it is difficult to
determine which of the Judean kings existed or not. The similarity in the
names of the Israelite kings and those of Jerusalem is an indication that
the first kings of Judea may never have existed. We can trust that the ones
mentioned after Joas existed, and maybe Joaz himself is likely to have
existed. Ozias-Azariah is said to have been a leper. Therefore whether or
not the Law of Moses applied in his days, it seems he was buried outside
Jerusalem somewhere, since an inscription found would indicate that his
remains were relocated at a later period. An intriguing thing is the
reference to the "Annals of the Kings of Judah?" in the texts relating to
the kings of Judah. Something is not Kosher there. I suspect an eal under
the rock.
abdemon
Rev. G. R. Gaudreau wrote in message ...
><snipped>
>REVGR
>NOT ONE of you people EVER answered anything, except the usual "dead
>doesn't really mean dead" answer
>
>MAD DOCTOR
>But they never accept that type of answer for Christ on the cross, funny
>huh, pickin' and choosin' is the fundamentalist way.
>
>REVGR
>Exactamundo! If dead doesn't mean dead in 2Kings, then why does it mean
>dead when it comes to the cross? Was Jesus simply mortally wounded on
>the cross, or did he actually die? We have the same problem with the
>word "all." When it suits them it means all and when it doesn't it means
>something else. Picky picky picky!