Gospel is a myth
Beowulf
yes, but also consider the alternative-- that the gospel message and its
key player is a mythical savior, one of many from throughout time (before
Jesus) and around the globe
http://heretic.sparlo.net/gospelmyth.html
I used to be a bible believing christian, read the bible many times, gave
my heart to Jesus, accepted the gospel and was 'saved by grace'; then I
realized the facts, that the entire gospel story is most likely a complete
myth, simply a fictional story with ALL its elements stolen from other
savior stories from past centuries.
http://heretic.sparlo.net/gospelmyth.html
Pastor Frank
news:pan.2006.05.14....@wayoftheancients.trail...
Twinkies who don't think, but just chant atheist mantras believe, that this
makes Christianity invalid.
On the other hand thinkers, like Aldous Huxley who wrote a small book on
the subject called "Perennial Philosophy", argues that the more religions
hold the same views and/or beliefs, the MORE valid they are. Which are you?
Beowulf
..
> "Stolen from other religions"? There are 2 ways to look at that.
> Atheist
> Twinkies who don't think, but just chant atheist mantras believe, that
> this makes Christianity invalid.
> On the other hand thinkers, like Aldous Huxley who wrote a small
> book on
> the subject called "Perennial Philosophy", argues that the more
> religions hold the same views and/or beliefs, the MORE valid they are.
> Which are you?
I see you have resorted to cheap name calling. The thing is, if we can
stick to logic and facts instead of name calling (not very christian) is
that Christianity claims it has the exclusive road (the gospel message of
Jesus) to salvation, that there is no other name (no other crucified
savior) under heaven whereby men must be saved; the problem for
christianity is that literally every aspect of the gospel story is
plagiarised, hacked, stolen from previous ancient savior stories (and
they were just stories (as is the jesus story) that long pre-date the
jesus story.
http://heretic.sparlo.net/gospelmyth.html#WhatIsOriginal
To say that the jesus gospel is more valid because of multiple similar
views from multiple religions of crucified saviors is against the gospel
message of Paul and Jesus, so your logic is wrong.
Beowulf
> "Stolen from other religions"? There are 2 ways to look at that.
> Atheist
> Twinkies who don't think, but just chant atheist mantras believe, that
> this makes Christianity invalid.
> On the other hand thinkers, like Aldous Huxley who wrote a small
> book on
> the subject called "Perennial Philosophy", argues that the more
> religions hold the same views and/or beliefs, the MORE valid they are.
> Which are you?
And in case you did not read my web page and note the many crucified
saviors that rose from the grave, for the sins of humanity (of course they
were all ficitonal, as is Jesus and the gospel story), here is the link to
a list of many such saviors:
http://heretic.sparlo.net/gospelmyth.html#pagan-myth
Now rememember, these all pre-date Jesus, and therein is the problem for
Christianity-- that the gospel message says only Jesus is the way, only
Jesus is the true crucified and risen savior, there is no other way to
come to God but through the gospel of Jesus; but the story of Jesus is
simply a retelling of (stolen, plagiarized) crucified risen savior stories
that have existed since the beginning of time.
So, please explain why anyone should believe the Jesus gospel story,
rather than worship Osirus, Mithra, Krishna, or Prometeus?
From http://heretic.sparlo.net/gospelmyth.html#pagan-myth
Examples of other saviors of ancient pagan religions: (note, all these
predate 1 AD, that is they all come long before the story of Jesus; so it
would be illogical to quote and use the New Testament passage warning of
other Jesus saviors that would come and preach a different gospel; as for
Old Testament passages, their messiah prediction stories are not credible
if their predicted messiah never came-- and if you think the Messiah of
the Old Testament prophecies did come in the form of Jesus, then take a
close look at the lack of historical evidence for Jesus coupled with the
similarity between the story of Jesus and the savior stories listed below,
then ask yourself if the story of Jesus might be just another hero-savior
story like the many invented throughout history to fill the psychological
needs of mankind/womankind):
Krishna (India) His presence on earth and his death were to atone for the
sins of man. He was crucified to appease God. He was worshipped by his
disciples *as* God. He has often been depicted in drawings with a divine
halo over his head. He has often been depicted in drawings as having a
"sacred heart." The cross became a religious symbol and icon after his
death. He preformed miracles, including healing of the sick, curing
lepers, restoring sight/sound/speech, raising hte dead, and casting out
demons. A book which claimed to be divinely inspired, *The Bhagavad-Gita*
told of his coming and his miraculous works. He was born of a virgin, and
the mother and child were visited by shepherds. He spent a period of
reflection in a desert. He was baptized in a river. He once miraculously
enabled his hungry followers to catch many nets full of fish. He taught by
parable and sermon. His mother was named Maia. He was said to be born on
the equavelent of December 25th. He had an earthly adoptive father. He
proclaimed to his followers, "I am the Resurrection." He had a last
supper with his disciples before being crucified. He was crucified
between two thieves. He was crucified at the age of 33. He rose from the
dead three days after being buried. He physically ascended into Heaven. He
taught "Seek and ye shall find" He spoke of "The blind leading the blind."
He regarded carnal and earthly pleasures as evil. He taught "faith can
move mountains" He taught his followers to love thier enemies. He
prophesied his return to Earth, which he referred to as the "second
coming." He taught "It is better to give than recieve"
Osiris/ Horus of Egypt (5000 BCE). Going back far into time, thousands of
years before Jesus' time, to ancient Egypt, there is the worship of
Osiris/Horus. This is thought by some ancient mythologists and experts on
comparitive religion to perhaps be close the root of all religions that
sprang up in the biblical lands. The Egyptians, in some of their stories
of the god Osiris, have him resurrected from death, to then become the
(god) King of the Dead.; this story is shown in a series of bas-reliefs on
the walls of his temple at Denderah. At the temple of Luxor the birth of
Horus is pictured in four scenes similar to the Christian story; the
infant Horus is shown to receive homage from gods and men, including three
kings/magi who bring Horus gifts. A cross symbol is depicted in the scene.
Egypt used rising star in the east as portent of a coming god. At the
temple of Luxor the birth of Horus is pictured in four scenes similar to
the Christian story; the infant Horus is shown to receive homage from gods
and men, including three kings/magi who bring Horus gifts. 2 mothers (Isis
the virgin who bore him, and Nephthus who nursed him.. Pictures of Isis
and son horus in her arms common throughout the Egyptian and biblical and
mediterranean lands, far before the Church age. Horus was one of five
brothers. Son of Seb (Egyptian for Joseph). At age 12 transformed into Son
of God, only begotten of the Father in Heaven. No record of his life from
age 12-30. At age 30, Horus is baptized by the god Anup. Horus, after
baptism, is transformed; a Holy Spirit is seen, represented by a bird.
Sakia (Hindu). His emblem was the cross. One of his crimes for which he
was crucified is that he illegally plucked a flower. (One of the charges
againt Jesus was that he plucked an ear of corn on the Sabbath.) He was
born to atone for man's sins. After he was crucified, he was buried for
three days, and then rose from the dead. He physically ascended into
heaven. His titles included "Savior of the World" and "Light of the
World." His mother was known as "The Holy Virgin, Queen Of Heaven." He
was once tempted by the equivalent of the devil. He healed the sick and
performed miracles. He preached commandments including "Thou shalt not
kill," "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt not lie," "Thou shalt not
commit adultury."
Thamuz (Syria): He was called the "Risen Lord" and "The Savior." He was
crucified to atone for man's sins. He rose from the dead after being
buried.
Tammuz of Mesopotamia (1160 BCE): Death and descent to hell, then
resurrection and escape from hell (the underworld).
Wittoba (Telingonese): He was crucified for man's sins. He was usually
depicted in drawings as having nail holes in his hands and feet. His icon
was a cross.
Iao (Nepal): He was known as "the Savior". He was crucified on a tree.
He was accepted by his followers as God incarnate.
Hesus (Druidic Celts): He was crucified with a lamb on one side and an
elephant on the other. The Elephant was thought to represent all the sins
of the world, and so we have the "Lamb of God" dying to "take away the
sins of the world."
Quexalcotl (Mexico, 587 BCE): He was crucified on a cross to atone for
man's sins. He was crucified with two thieves. He rose from the dead
after three days buried He was born of a virgin from what was referred to
as an "Immaculate Conception". He endured forty days of temptation and
fasting. He rode a donkey. He was purified in a temple. He was annointed
with oil. He forgave sins. He was baptized in water.
Quirinus (Rome, 506 BCE): He was called Savior. He was immaculately
concieved and born of a virgin. His life was threatened by a reigning
king'. He rose from the dead after being crucified and buried. He
physically ascended into Heaven.
Prometheus (Greek, 537 BCE): He was nailed to a cross. His critical
theological precept was that of blood atonement. The Earth shook when he
died. He was known as the "Lord" and "Savior". He rose from the dead.
Thulis (Egypt, 1700 BCE): He was crucifed at the age of 28. He rose from
the dead after his crucifiction. He physically ascended into heaven. His
death was supposed to benefit mankind.
Indra (Tibet): He was known as God and Savior. He was nailed to a cross.
His side was pierced. His mother was a virgin. He had to die to atone
for man's sins. He rose from the dead. He physically ascended into
heaven. He could walk on water. He knew the future. He was believed to
be eternal.
Alcestos (Greek): She was crucied for the sins of the world. She was
part of a divine trinity.
Atys (Phrygia): He was believed to be the "messiah". He was crucified to
atone for man's sins. He rose from teh dead after being buried.
Crite (Chaldea): He was known as the Reedemer. He was also known as the
"Ever-Blessed Son of God, The Savior, and the Atoning Offering for an
Angry God". The Earth shook when he was crucified
Bali (Orissa): He was believed to be God, as well as the Son of God. He
was crucified in divine atonement. He was the second part of a divine
trinity.
Mithra (Persia, 600 BCE): He was crucified to take away the sins of the
world. He was supposed to have been born on December 25th.
Kersey Graves, in a well known book written over a century ago
("Sixteen Crucified Saviors"), gives examples of crucified gods or
saviors (expounding in detail the summarized list given above), many
or most whom rose from the grave after suffering death for the sins of
humanity so as to provide eternal life; most are the stories are very
ancient and arguable, but if even a portion is true it must cause one
to question whether the gospel story simply is another fictional
savior-hero story borrowing elements from the many popular savior
myths circulating at the time of its invention.
Mithraism is perhaps one of the most likely candidates for a religion
from which elements were used (along with other religions) to mold the
gospel story of Jesus. Mithraism, the religion followed by those who
worshipped the Sun God Mithra, originated in Persia/Iran 600 BC or
earlier, and was to spread its Pagan ideas as far west as the British
Isles. Throughout the centuries Mithraism morphed, changing to fit the
needs of the people (most myths have several versions, as the stories
were often passed along by oral tradition). In the early centuries of
the Christian era, Mithraism was the most wide-spread religion in the
Western World, and its remains are to be found in monuments scattered
around the countries of Europe, which then comprised the known
civilized world. Mithra (as the story goes) was regarded as created by,
yet co-equal with, the Supreme Deity. Mithraists worshipped a Trinity,
kept Sunday as their day of worship, and their chief festivals were
what we know of as Christmas (Dec25) and Easter. Long before the advent
of Jesus, Mithra was miraculously born on Dec 25 (winter solstice).
Baptism by blood was practised among followers, as was communion and a
eucharist ceremony with bread and wine. Mithra was worshipped on
Sun-day, the day of the Sun God. Mithraism had the concept of a
judgement day, a resurrection of the dead, and a final conflict to
bring about the triumph of Light over Darkness. Mithraism had the
concepts of heaven and hell. Mithraism had Pater as head of the temple;
Jesus had Peter as his prime disciple and head of his church. Mithraism
had clergy.
Mithra was associated with the Sun and Mithra was called the Light.
Mithra was considered to be the savior of the world, conferring on his
followers an eternal life in heaven. Mithra was considered to be the
author of the final conflagration fo the world. Similar to the story of
Jesus, Mithra died to save all others, provided that they were his
followers. It was said of Mithra that "Thou has saved us also by
pouring out the blood eternal." Mithra was celibate throughout life, as
was Jesus. Mithra fought with righteousness against the dark forces of
evil. For three centuries both religions (Mithraism and Christianity)
ran parallel. Mithraism first became known to the Romans in 70 BC, when
it was made the official Roman state religion. Christianity followed a
century later. It wasn’t until AD 377 that Christianity became
sufficiently dominant to suppress its former rival (in large part due
to the Roman emperor Constantine who made Christianity the official
religion-- an act done for political purposes), although Mithraism was
to remain a formidable opponent for some time after that (a difficult
task, since the Roman military and political might was vanquishing all
religions other than Christianity), only slowly being forsaken by the
people. It was only the absorption of many Mithraist ideas into
Christianity which finally saw Mithraism's downfall.
Beowulf
...
> book on
> the subject called "Perennial Philosophy", argues that the more
> religions hold the same views and/or beliefs, the MORE valid they are.
> Which are you?
To answer yoru question-- I side with the great professor, lecturer, and
author of many books on mythology, namely Joseph Campbell. Dr. Campbell
has lectured and written many books on the savior-hero theme common
throughout mythology and religion.
http://heretic.sparlo.net/gospelmyth.html#JosephCampbell
Joseph Campbell (1904-1987) was perhaps the leading authority on the role
of myth, author of many books on the subject, teacher, lecturer, and
translator of ancient mythology books. (A few years ago the local
Blockbuster movie rental store in my city even carried a 6 hour rental
where he was interviewed by Bill Moyer about the role of myth in our
history, what myth tells us about ourselves, et cetera). In one of his
most popular books, "The Hero with a Thousand Faces", Joseph Campbell
elaborates on the many savior-hero stories throughout history and among
varied cultures around the world, explaining how the savior-as-hero
stories share common elements: virgin or miraculous birth (Christian
Jesus, Hindu Krishna, Buddha, Aztec Coatlicue, Tonga's Sinilau, Apche
Indians, and many others), the quest for the Father, ordeals, atonement
with the Father, assumption and coronation of the virgin mother, and
finally the triumphant Son. Death and the defeat of Death through
resurrection is another common theme among the Hero myths. Campbell's
main goal in expositing on the common hero myths in history is to show how
myth fills a need for our human psyche, to help use as humans struggle and
overcome life and death (witness the common hero plots Hollywood uses, and
many novel writers use-- they know all too well the plot device of the
hero myth).
According to Campbell, the hero generally has extraordinary powers and
wisdom, usually from or shortly after birth; the hero is a sent from
heaven or becomes a living god, or if the hero is in fact an actual
historical person then the authors of his legend make him into a larger
than life figure by giving him quests into miraculous realms. During
childhood, the hero faces danger, but at some point in the hero's life
[s]he is visited by an angel, animal, hunter, or magical being that
teaches the hero the powers of the seed (indeed, experts on ancient
myth origins point to their origins out of astrotheology and
agriculture which was everything to ancient peoples). After a period,
the hero child's true identity is revealed, and the hero faces quests
and tribulation, after which the hero is crucified or dies and is
renewed and reborn or resurrected, defeating death. Thus, in the
hero's journey, the hero lives out the tribulations and fears we all
must face in life or in our psyche and yet the hero overcomes, showing
us that it is possible for us as mortals to also overcome life, and our
fear of death.
Campbell's evidence is overhwelming in his 500 page book with extensive
references, as he tells about one hero-savior after another through
cultures around the world and throughout human history. Heros of
ancient biblical lands (Jesus, Abraham), ancient Sumeria, ancient
Americas, Polynesia, Celtic myths, ancient Chinese and other Asian
myths, ancient India, and Africa.
According to Campbell, the Hero's Journey typically has 12 stages, most
or all present in story or symbolic form in the hero myths. They are:
1. Ordinary World- The hero's normal world before the story begins. 2.
Call to Adventure - The hero is presented with a problem, challenge or
adventure. 3. Refusal of the Call - The hero refuses the challenge or
journey, usually because he's scared. 4. Meeting with the Mentor - The
hero meets a mentor to gain advice or training for the adventure. 5.
Crossing the First Threshold - The hero crosses leaves the ordinary world
and goes into the special world. 6. Tests, Allies, Enemies - The hero
faces tests, meets allies, confronts enemies & learn the rules of the
Special World. 7. Approach - The hero has hit setbacks during tests & may
need to try a new idea. 8. Ordeal - The biggest life or death crisis. 9.
Reward - The hero has survived death, overcomes his fear and now earns the
reward. 10. The Road Back - The hero must return to the Ordinary World.
11. Resurrection Hero - another test where the hero faces death – he has
to use everything he's learned. 12. Return with Elixir - The hero returns
from the journey with the “elixir”, and uses it to help everyone in
the Ordinary World.
ªºª rrock
Spreading Satanism around again, aren't you Frank. When will you learn
that people like yourself that smear the good name of some religion by
claiming to be a member march in step to a mantra without thinking about
the individuality of others when forcing the notion that they must belong
to some cult or sect that you recognize.
It's pretty obvious to others that you couldn't follow any religion
yourself, however, seeing how you can't even follow the simple posting
guidelines of UseNet. You are an abusive troll preaching Satanist spam.
*** P.S. Please be aware that as an active member and the founder of the
new religion Axposterism that the above is an attempt to save you from
your UseNet sins. This should not, however, be misconstrued to indicate
that you have what it takes to become a member of the religion, nor is it
an invitation to join Axposterism. Axposterism is a not-for-profit
organization. If you would like to donate for support, please send your
contributions to the American Cancer Society or some other charity instead.
Thanks! Oh, and by the way, thanks!
bob young
Pastor Frank wrote:
<GROAN> The commonalities between the relgions [and there are thousands of
them] point to just one thing, they were all created by man.
Therefore you either
1) agree with the above, or
2) Pander to early superstitions that fearful man used before the rule of law
came along. It worked in it's day but it is now hopelessly out of date
Which are you?
Beowulf
...
> <GROAN> The commonalities between the relgions [and there are thousands of
> them] point to just one thing, they were all created by man.
>
> Therefore you either
>
> 1) agree with the above, or
>
> 2) Pander to early superstitions that fearful man used before the rule of law
> came along. It worked in it's day but it is now hopelessly out of date
Well said. I truly believe the days of religion are limited. It might take
100 years more, but science (still very young, only 200 years old) is
showing religion to be a product of our brains (the temporal lobe to be
exact). And historians and archeologists and mythologists are uncovering
more and more evidence of the mythological nature of religion, how
religion and saviors are truly fairy tale products of human imagination.
Pastor Frank
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 22:05:49 -0400, Pastor Frank inscribed to the world:
> ..
>> "Stolen from other religions"? There are 2 ways to look at that.
>> Atheist
>> Twinkies who don't think, but just chant atheist mantras believe, that
>> this makes Christianity invalid.
>> On the other hand thinkers, like Aldous Huxley who wrote a small
>> book on
>> the subject called "Perennial Philosophy", argues that the more
>> religions hold the same views and/or beliefs, the MORE valid they are.
>> Which are you?
>
> I see you have resorted to cheap name calling.
>
pristine and hallowed Christian NGs without a shred of evidence. You don't
even bother to complete the sentence with: ...and therefore the gospels are
invalid and worthless. In other words you have proved yourself to belong to
the "mental twinkies" group.
If you are trying to proselytize atheism in Christian groups, know you
are doomed to failure, for all atheists have to offer is disbelief. We all
have already millions of disbeliefs and don't care for any more. But there
is precious little one can believe in, and one of best and most useful
beliefs are the Christian Gospels.
So please post your atheism to atheist groups, that's what they are
there for. Thanks.
Pastor Frank
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 22:05:49 -0400, Pastor Frank inscribed to the world:
> ...
>> "Stolen from other religions"? There are 2 ways to look at that.
>> Atheist
>> Twinkies who don't think, but just chant atheist mantras believe, that
>> this makes Christianity invalid.
>> On the other hand thinkers, like Aldous Huxley who wrote a small
>> book on
>> the subject called "Perennial Philosophy", argues that the more
>> religions hold the same views and/or beliefs, the MORE valid they are.
>> Which are you?
>
> And in case you did not read my web page and note the many crucified
> saviors that rose from the grave, for the sins of humanity (of course they
> were all ficitonal, as is Jesus and the gospel story), here is the link to
> a list of many such saviors:
> http://heretic.sparlo.net/gospelmyth.html#pagan-myth
> Now rememember, these all pre-date Jesus, and therein is the problem for
> Christianity-- that the gospel message says only Jesus is the way, only
> Jesus is the true crucified and risen savior, there is no other way to
> come to God but through the gospel of Jesus; but the story of Jesus is
> simply a retelling of (stolen, plagiarized) crucified risen savior stories
> that have existed since the beginning of time.
>
> So, please explain why anyone should believe the Jesus gospel story,
> rather than worship Osirus, Mithra, Krishna, or Prometeus?
>
the Christian "gospels are myths".
Pastor Frank
in the above is prove, that they are NOT myths, but because of multiple
similar such events and personalities in ancient history, they must
therefore contain a core of truth.
Beowulf
...
> I see you indulging in chanting that the "Gospel is a myth" in our
> pristine and hallowed Christian NGs without a shred of evidence. You don't
> even bother to complete the sentence with: ...and therefore the gospels are
> invalid and worthless. In other words you have proved yourself to belong to
*Plonked*
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
snip
>>
>> So, please explain why anyone should believe the Jesus gospel story,
>> rather than worship Osirus, Mithra, Krishna, or Prometeus?
>>
> I will, as soon you prove objectively and verifiably your position, that
>the Christian "gospels are myths".
>
No need, Frank.
The absence of evidence, for the events described, is all that is required for
us to call it "Myth", we do nor need to produce negative evidence, evidence of
non--existence.
If, OTOH you wish to claim it is factual, and be taken seriously, you DO to
provide Positive evidence.
Got any yet?
Beowulf
...
> The absence of evidence, for the events described, is all that is required for
> us to call it "Myth", we do nor need to produce negative evidence, evidence of
> non--existence.
> If, OTOH you wish to claim it is factual, and be taken seriously, you DO to
> provide Positive evidence.
>
> Got any yet?
(being sarcastic here...) Well I for one have always believed that Gandalf
the Wizard existed, even though some think he is myth. Frank, where is
your evidence that Gandalf is NOT myth? Hmm? I mean, just like the Jesus
story, Gandalf has a story written about him, Gandalf lived in ancient
times, Gandalf died and was resurrected from the dead, Gandalf was wise,
and Gandalf had followers. Prove to me that Gandalf did NOT exist! Most
people thing Lord of the Rings is fiction, but I do not, and I think it is
a story of events and people that REALLY did happen!!! Ok, the evidence is
circumstantial, but heck so it is with the gospel story of Jesus. Many
many people believe in Gandalf, just as with Jesus.
ªºª rrock
Pastor Frank wrote:
> "Beowulf" <beo...@wayoftheancients.trail> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.05.15....@wayoftheancients.trail...
>
>>
>>I see you have resorted to cheap name calling.
>>
>
> I see you indulging in chanting that the "Gospel is a myth" in our
> pristine and hallowed Christian NGs without a shred of evidence.
>
>
Hey now! That's an outright lie! He includes the text from each and
every one of your posts!
ªºª rrock
Beowulf wrote:
lol, won't happen. Science can't even divide by zero. Talk about myths, lol.
ªºª rrock
< insert a respectable amount of applause here >
ªºª rrock
Beowulf wrote:
Hey Beowulf, Frank literally twisted my arm until i declared a religion, so
i founded a new one called Axposterism. Since its brand new and doesn't have
too many rules or anything, i was wondering if it would be okay to canonize
the works of Tolkein so we could have a ready made sort of doctrine that
could be edited over the next couple hundred years until it was truly and
utterly whack. I was especially interested in the runes section of the first
un-errant word of the wizards. See, i figure that if nobody can translate
runes real easy around the world, we could get some guys busy rewriting the
Holy un-errant word of the trolls into runic, then stash them in a clay pot
or something and ditch the pots in a cave. After a couple thousand years
we'll be laughing our asses off from the spirit world watching the modern
day scientists declare that the runic stuff was obviously older than anything
that tolkein wrote. Anyhow... i was just wondering if you'd like to be on the
canonization committee and so forth. You can't join the religion though, if
that matters. Well, maybe you can later after we have a doctrine, but the
catch-22 at the moment is until we have a doctrine, nobody can possibly be
added as a member. I guess we could just fake it like other religions do.
But i really won't have much time to be figuring all that stuff out until
after i write the Hymmnal to the Walking Trees and some other stuff that will
get chicks more enthusiastic about things. Can't have a religion without chicks
you know. I mean, seriously, would YOU join a religion that didn't have chicks?
Think about it, get back to me on it. Oh and by the way, i was thinking about
making up some cool posters of Pastor Frank hanging himself for selling copies
of Tolkein to thirteen little kids for silver or something. If you have
any ideas on that, let me know, okay? Thanks!
Pastor Frank
news:446967B8...@netvigator.com...
were written by inspired men of God. Who else did you think could have
written them? See below refs.
Pastor Frank
SCRIPTURE: The case for Sola Scriptura
2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
in righteousness
ªºª rrock
Pastor Frank wrote:
> SCRIPTURE: The case for Sola Scriptura
> 2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
> profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
> in righteousness
>
And Scripture in the time of writing those words meant the written word,
nothing more, nothing less. That would include this very post since it
points out clearly the words "All scripture". This is the reason that
cross-posting and spam are considered sinful in the eyes of God.
bob young
Beowulf wrote:
> religion and saviors are truly fairy tale products of human imagination......
....and they face the constant need to modify their beliefs so as to keep up with
the steady march of scientific progress.
Cheers
Bob
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence."
[Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics]
bob young
??? rrock wrote:
Oh dear - another fairy tale
You really are a rrock eh? I wish nothing bad on anyone, but had you the
misfortune to be orphaned at age two and had you been put up for adoption and then
been adopted by a Hindu family, you, my friend, would now be groveling to a god
with the body of a human and the head of an elephant.
Time to stop laughing - right?
Next time try using common sense and logic, with a little intelligence thrown in,
if you wouldn't mind. you really must be between a rrock and a hard place!
bob
bob young
Pastor Frank wrote:
Hardly inspired by a god, had they been so inspired the bible would be a sound
book, free from ambiguities and contradictions.
As it is nothing of the sort then we can safely assume those men were inspired
by superstition and the need to impress their contemporaries.
> Who else did you think could have
> written them? See below refs.
ROFL why did a god that created everything need men to write it's book? [and
then get it all wrong]
Logical? - you bet !
ªºª rrock
bob young wrote:
>
> Beowulf wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 16 May 2006 00:50:07 -0500, bob young inscribed to the world:
>>...
>>
>>><GROAN> The commonalities between the relgions [and there are thousands of
>>>them] point to just one thing, they were all created by man.
>>>
>>>Therefore you either
>>>
>>>1) agree with the above, or
>>>
>>>2) Pander to early superstitions that fearful man used before the rule of law
>>>came along. It worked in it's day but it is now hopelessly out of date
>>
>>...
>>
>>Well said. I truly believe the days of religion are limited. It might take
>>100 years more, but science (still very young, only 200 years old) is
>>showing religion to be a product of our brains (the temporal lobe to be
>>exact). And historians and archeologists and mythologists are uncovering
>>more and more evidence of the mythological nature of religion, how
>>religion and saviors are truly fairy tale products of human imagination......
>
>
> ....and they face the constant need to modify their beliefs so as to keep up with
> the steady march of scientific progress.
I think you have that backwards. The sciences of men face a constant need to modify
their beliefs. If you don't believe that, just check your historical facts. They
don't even know where they are headed half the time. A couple hundred years ago, the
idea of a "clone" was Frankenstein material. And what is it that all scientists agree
on? Well, at best, the "scientific method" perhaps. Normally science is statistically
based, and hypothetically grown. And statistics? Based on math made by men. And the
math, well, exceptions to the rule are the basis there. The best that can be said for
today's science is that it's "pretty good" but has the severe drawback of affecting
the planet in obscene ways for the comfort and luxury of the current reigning species.
The planet itself, however, doesn't really pay attention to the science of men. It follows
the Laws of God. It was here before we were, and we might even become a memory if we are
lucky enough to either escape to some other planet before our depleting resources, greed,
and demands for an easier way to do something incapacitate us to the point of our own
annihilation. And if we ever do escape to some other planet, say maybe one that is
inhabited by a species intelligent enough to preserve their planet, our little crafts
will more than likely do what? Ruin their planet? Our science is like a bad seed in
an already perfectly ordered Universe, and our "thinking" is rather like a disharmonious
chord that refuses to listen to anything but itself.
Sound familiar?
ªºª rrock
bob young wrote:
i guess. Are you speaking from experience, or just making up a story about Hindu
orphans.
> Next time try using common sense and logic, with a little intelligence thrown in,
> if you wouldn't mind. you really must be between a rrock and a hard place!
>
So, you are saying that you CAN divide by zero? lol. Good luck. You probably believe
that little square green pieces of cloth are valuable. Since i just wrote another
post on science in this thread, i won't repeat it. click above.
> bob
>
>
>
Pastor Frank
sentiments which should be posted to your own atheist groups.
Scientism is a poor substitute for religion, for religion deals with
qualities, whereas science deals with facts. Qualities are strictly opinion,
i.e. what is good and what is bad, and there is no science which can
quantify nor prove either to be facts.
Hitler was able to do what he did precisely because people were only
believing in science and its facts without regard to quality. After all,
morality with it's good vs. evil parameter were considered mere relative
opinion and optional.
Christ is about moral absolutes and those to the death if need be.
That's anathema for any self-respecting atheist, no matter how many Hitlers,
Stalins or Pol Pots evidence the opposite.
Pastor Frank
news:t40k62hvu653krbdi...@4ax.com...
that Christ is real. Now show us YOUR evidence that Christ is a myth, and
quit stalling already!!!
ªºª rrock
alt.religion.apologetics doesn't need you preaching Satan there!
Get with the program Frank! Oh, and by the way...
What religion was Abram when he spoke with God?
What religion was Adam when he spoke with God?
Where did Jesus teach to reject certain parts of the Bible?
Where in the Bible does it say that God created evil?
Where was the "devil" on the first day when God said "Let there be light"?
Why should anyone answer your questions if you keep refusing to answer these?
ªºª rrock
quit stalling already!!!
What religion was Abram when he spoke with God?
What religion was Adam when he spoke with God?
Where did Jesus teach to reject certain parts of the Bible?
Where in the Bible does it say that God created evil?
Where was the "devil" on the first day when God said "Let there be light"?
Why should anyone answer your questions if you keep refusing to answer these?
Pastor Frank
> On Tue, 16 May 2006 16:52:39 +0000, Dubh Ghall inscribed to the world:
>>
not choosing is a choice in itself, in this case a choice for the
fence-sitter god or devil called Mugwump. What anyone believes to be "real"
or mere "myth" is irrelevant.
We Christians made our choice because we think Jesus represents the most
lofty ideals as well as having a heart for us sinners who keep falling short
of the glory of God. Even if you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt,
that Jesus is just a character in an ancient movie script, most of us would
remain Christians, rather than become atheists.
Pastor Frank
news:fnqag.71749$Tf1....@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
he did NOT include "every one" of my posts, not even a tiny fraction of
them.
Don't you feel Satan is playing with your mind, and making you go
insane?
ªºª rrock
SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL THIS SATAN WORSHIPER TO POST
TO THE NON-CHRISTIAN NEWS GROUPS!!! THANKS!!!
Pastor Frank wrote:
>
> There are innumerable gods and devils. It's just a matter choice, where
> not choosing is a choice in itself, in this case a choice for the
> fence-sitter god or devil called Mugwump. What anyone believes to be "real"
> or mere "myth" is irrelevant.
Exod.20
[1] And God spake all these words, saying,
[2] I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
[3] Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
[4] Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
[5] Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
[6] And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
[7] Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
ªºª rrock
Pastor Frank wrote:
> "ชบช rrock" <inv...@address.here> wrote in message
Can you see how you are twisting words and preaching Satan! He includes
the text from each and every one of your posts!
BE GONE SATAN WORSHIPPER!
Pastor Frank
> Beowulf wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 May 2006 00:50:07 -0500, bob young inscribed to the world:
>> ...
>> > <GROAN> The commonalities between the relgions [and there are
>> > thousands of
>> > them] point to just one thing, they were all created by man.
>> >
>> > Therefore you either
>> >
>> > 1) agree with the above, or
>> >
>> > 2) Pander to early superstitions that fearful man used before the rule
>> > of law
>> > came along. It worked in it's day but it is now hopelessly out of date
>>
>> take
>> 100 years more, but science (still very young, only 200 years old) is
>> showing religion to be a product of our brains (the temporal lobe to be
>> exact). And historians and archeologists and mythologists are uncovering
>> more and more evidence of the mythological nature of religion, how
>> religion and saviors are truly fairy tale products of human
>> imagination......
>
> ....and they face the constant need to modify their beliefs so as to keep
> up with
> the steady march of scientific progress.
> Cheers
> Bob
>
scientism is really a laugh, Bob. Why would you believe so much in the
evolution of mankind from "primitive" to "modern" and getting ever better,
when the increasing numbers of mass-graves throughout the world evidences
devolution? "scientific progress" indeed!!!!
Pastor Frank
It's designed to make you think, Bob. But then I doubt that any book can
live up to your exalted expectations, for you spend your life looking for
faults, errors, mistakes and inconsistencies. And one finds what one is
looking for.
Libertarius
Pastor Frank wrote:
===>LIAR!
Hitler was a Jew-hating Christian, just like you! -- L.
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
>"Dubh Ghall" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
>news:t40k62hvu653krbdi...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 16 May 2006 07:11:58 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
>> <Pasto...@christfirst.org>
>> wrote:
>> snip
>>>>
>>>> So, please explain why anyone should believe the Jesus gospel story,
>>>> rather than worship Osirus, Mithra, Krishna, or Prometeus?
>>>>
>>> I will, as soon you prove objectively and verifiably your position,
>>> that
>>>the Christian "gospels are myths".
>>
>> No need, Frank.
>> The absence of evidence, for the events described, is all that is required
>> for
>> us to call it "Myth", we do nor need to produce negative evidence,
>> evidence of
>> non--existence.
>> If, OTOH you wish to claim it is factual, and be taken seriously, you DO
>> to
>> provide Positive evidence.
>> Got any yet?
>>
> What "absence of evidence"? We have our holy scriptures for evidence
>that Christ is real.
Scriptures, the historical accuracy of which, are contradicted by all the
evidence.
> Now show us YOUR evidence that Christ is a myth, and
>quit stalling already!!!
>
As you have been told, times beyond counting, there is no logical requirement
for negative evidence.
It is for you to show evidence for the reality of your assertion, not for us to
disprove it.
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
>"Beowulf" <beo...@wayoftheancients.trail> wrote in message
Still claiming that belief is a choice, Frank?
Dubh Ghall
>Answer these questions to prove you are Christian Frank, and
>quit stalling already!!!
>
>What religion was Abram when he spoke with God?
He probably worshiped El, the father of Yahweh, and Ba,al
>What religion was Adam when he spoke with God?
I doubt that he had one, and AFAIR, there is no mention in the bible, that Adam
actually "worshiped", Yahweh.
>Where did Jesus teach to reject certain parts of the Bible?
Where he says to reject, "An eye for an eye", and instead, "Turn the other
cheek" (:-)
>Where in the Bible does it say that God created evil?
ISA 45:7
>Where was the "devil" on the first day when God said "Let there be light"?
He was holding the lucifers (:-)
>Why should anyone answer your questions if you keep refusing to answer these?
Pass.
bob young
Pastor Frank wrote:
So you claim it is religious progress then ? [what a laugh, indeed.]
Better be thankful then Frank that should you need a cornea transplant you are
living today and not when your imaginary Jesus was wandering around in the
desert.
The priests that predated you Frank [in Medieval times] said that The Great
Plague that was killing millions was caused by god because "He is punishing us
for our sins".
Science later discovered the rat/flea association that was really to blame.
..............and - NO I have the sense not to believe in any of the Jesus
miracles
Pastor Frank
disbeliefs.
Pastor Frank
atheism.
>
>> Now show us YOUR evidence that Christ is a myth, and
>>quit stalling already!!!
>
> As you have been told, times beyond counting, there is no logical
> requirement
> for negative evidence.
>
a positive claim needing evidence.
> It is for you to show evidence for the reality of your assertion, not for
> us to
> disprove it.
>
You are still stalling Pug. Now show your evidence, that the "Christ of
the NT is a Myth", or admit you are just guessing, and believing something
without evidence, much like religionists do.
bob young
Pastor Frank wrote:
> atheism.Incorrect, our sacred tenet is 'common sense'.
>
> The above mentioned book is full of inaccuracies as you well know Frank.
>
> A bible written by a god would be one 100% accurate and perfect in every
> sense.
>
> As can be clearly established there is no such book on this planet that meets
> this standard, only nonsense written by early humans FOR early humans.
>
> Here's a few more in a similar ilk:
>
>
> Baha'i Sacrid writings
>
> Life of Buddha - Dhammapada - Pali cannon
>
> The Book of Mormon - Church of Latter Day Saints
>
> The Analects - Confuscianism
>
> The Eddas and Sagas - Icelandic beliefs
>
> Wicca - Neo paganism of Greece and Rome over the centuries
>
> Bhagavgita and Rig Veda - Hinduism
>
> Qur'an - Islam
>
> Adi Granth and Dasam Granth - canonical scripture of the Sikhs
>
> The Tanakh - Jewism
>
> Tao-Te-Ching - Taoism
>
> Nag Hammadi - Gnostics
>
> Zhuan Falun - Falun Gong
>
>
> >
> >> Now show us YOUR evidence that Christ is a myth, and
> >>quit stalling already!!!
> >
> > As you have been told, times beyond counting, there is no logical
> > requirement
> > for negative evidence.
> >
> There is nothing "negative" about positive claims. "Christ is a myth" is
> a positive claim needing evidence.
>
>
> > It is for you to show evidence for the reality of your assertion, not for
> > us to
> > disprove it.
> >
> You are still stalling Pug. Now show your evidence, that the "Christ of
> the NT is a Myth", or admit you are just guessing, and believing something
> without evidence, much like religionists do.
It gets sillier by the hour
ªºª rrock
Dubh Ghall wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 05:09:29 GMT, ªºª rrock <inv...@address.here> wrote:
>
>
>>Answer these questions to prove you are Christian Frank, and
>>quit stalling already!!!
>>
>>What religion was Abram when he spoke with God?
>
> He probably worshiped El, the father of Yahweh, and Ba,al
>
Bible mentions no particular religion and that he called upon the name
of YHVH at Bethel in Genesis 13. Religion is therefore not a requirement
in order to worship God.
>
>>What religion was Adam when he spoke with God?
>
>
> I doubt that he had one, and AFAIR, there is no mention in the bible, that Adam
> actually "worshiped", Yahweh.
>
True. So Pastor Frank has absolutely no foundation on which to substantiate his
claims that those who do not have any particular religion are "Satan" or one of
"Satan's" minions.
>>Where did Jesus teach to reject certain parts of the Bible?
>
>
> Where he says to reject, "An eye for an eye", and instead, "Turn the other
> cheek" (:-)
>
Teaching the crowd how to correctly interpret scripture is only more a reason
for them to read scripture, rather than the contrary.
>>Where in the Bible does it say that God created evil?
>
>
> ISA 45:7
[6] That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none
else.
[7] I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
It says that he does it rather than that he did it. In context it looks like (in Isaiah's version) God is taking
the credit for creating all things and listing possibilities (i.e. the emphasis on the "I" rather than on the
instance examples).
Either way, its a great example. Does it therefore contradict what is written in Genesis I:31?
[31] And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.
If not, then is "evil" then also "very good"? (Maybe it is... keep in mind that i do not believe that
"evil" is the opposite of "good" and that good is an absolute compared to evil which is simply a
relative opinion which depends upon the person whom is declaring something "evil" [judging] rather
than knowing that only God judges. "Evil" then is at best something that is incorrect for man to
believe in the first place, and also something which in itself [the act of believing in it] becomes
self perpetuating).
>
>>Where was the "devil" on the first day when God said "Let there be light"?
>
>
> He was holding the lucifers (:-)
>
lol. Those damned lucifers just had to be causing problems somewhere. :)
>>Why should anyone answer your questions if you keep refusing to answer these?
>
>
> Pass.
Wise choice, however, Dubh, you normally answer questions and provide thoughtful content and opinion
on Usenet unlike Pastor Frank who spreads "Satan worship" around like free butter, asks a lot of
personal questions and makes demands of people without the least amount of respect for their
viewpoint and doesn't read peoples' posts before condemning them as "minions".
Your UseNet score is: A+
Frank, on the other hand is merely a Satan worshipping troll.
Thank you for your participation!
ªºª rrock
Pastor Frank again DEMANDED of others what he will not supply himself:
>
> You are still stalling Pug. Now show your evidence, that the "Christ of
> the NT is a Myth", or admit you are just guessing, and believing something
> without evidence, much like religionists do.
>
HEY FRANK!!! BE SURE TO READ THE FINAL QUESTION IN THIS LIST!!!
What religion was Abram when he spoke with God?
What religion was Adam when he spoke with God?
Where did Jesus teach to reject certain parts of the Bible?
Where in the Bible does it say that God created evil?
Where was the "devil" on the first day when God said "Let there be light"?
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
Not at all, I was indoctrinated with xtianity, as a child, same as you.
And of course, I embraced it, and believed it, having no other source of
reference than the priest/minister/pastor, call him what you will, and my
family.
It was not a choice. Choice implies knowledge, at least of the existence of an
alternative.
I had no such knowledge
I could no more have chosen to not believe, than I could have chosen to not
breath.
Also, as I have told you before, my loss of faith, was not a choice either.
But your arrogance will not permit you to accept that.
You expect children to be able to do what you, by your own admission ,could not
do until you were in your middle years.
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
>> Scriptures, the historical accuracy of which, are contradicted by all the
>> evidence.
>>
> That's of course a lie from hell, as well as a most sacred tenet of
>atheism.
Your evidence that the bible is historically accurate, is what?
>>
>>> Now show us YOUR evidence that Christ is a myth, and
>>>quit stalling already!!!
>>
>> As you have been told, times beyond counting, there is no logical
>> requirement
>> for negative evidence.
>>
> There is nothing "negative" about positive claims. "Christ is a myth" is
>a positive claim needing evidence.
>
Childish semantics, Frank, AKA, "Fibbing for Jesus"
>> It is for you to show evidence for the reality of your assertion, not for
>> us to
>> disprove it.
>>
> You are still stalling Pug. Now show your evidence, that the "Christ of
>the NT is a Myth", or admit you are just guessing, and believing something
>without evidence, much like religionists do.
>
More "dishonesty for Jesus", Frank?
Dubh Ghall
>>
>> > It is for you to show evidence for the reality of your assertion, not for
>> > us to
>> > disprove it.
>> >
>> You are still stalling Pug. Now show your evidence, that the "Christ of
>> the NT is a Myth", or admit you are just guessing, and believing something
>> without evidence, much like religionists do.
>
>It gets sillier by the hour
>
He's had a lot of practice.
Pastor Frank
Christ will stop torture and more mass--graves? LOL
We Christians rather believe, that following Christ and His vision of
the humane man will stop all of man's inhumanity to man. See below
Pastor Frank
The most important, yet most ignored commandments of Christ, which would
make war, if not ALL of man's inhumanity to man extinct, nay totally
unthinkable:
THE ROYAL LAW OF CHRIST
**Jesus in Mk 12:30: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy
strength: this is the first commandment.
**31: And the second is alike, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
**Jesus in Mat 22:40 "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two
commandments."
THE GOLDEN RULE OF CHRIST
Jesus in Matt. 7:12: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men
should do to you, do ye even so to them...."
Libertarius
Pastor Frank wrote:
===>How dumb can you get?
The NT writer STOLE those lines from the "Old Testament"
which you hate so much, to put it in the mouth of his "Jesus"
character.
SEE: Deuteronomy 6:4-5;
Leviticus19:18
> Pastor Frank
>
> The most important, yet most ignored commandments of Christ, which would
> make war, if not ALL of man's inhumanity to man extinct, nay totally
> unthinkable:
> THE ROYAL LAW OF CHRIST
> **Jesus in Mk 12:30: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
> heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy
> strength: this is the first commandment.
> **31: And the second is alike, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour
> as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
> **Jesus in Mat 22:40 "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two
> commandments."
> THE GOLDEN RULE OF CHRIST
> Jesus in Matt. 7:12: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men
> should do to you, do ye even so to them...."
===>Oh, and the last two were stolen from HILLEL*, one of the JEWS
you hate so much! ;-) -- L.
*Once there was a gentile who came before Shammai, and said to him:
"Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah
while I stand on one foot.
Shammai pushed him aside with the measuring stick he was holding.
The same fellow came before Hillel,
and Hillel converted him, saying:
That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow,
this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."
So, you see, your famous quotes are NOT "commandments of Christ"
who never existed except in the mind of Saul/Paul, but old
JEWISH sayings! -- L.
Pastor Frank
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 23:32:08 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
> <Pasto...@christfirst.org>
> wrote:
>
> Not at all, I was indoctrinated with xtianity, as a child, same as you.
>
brought up by atheist secular humanist parents. Religious words were about
as welcome in our family as long and loud farts at the dinner table.
> And of course, I embraced it, and believed it, having no other source of
> reference than the priest/minister/pastor, call him what you will, and my
> family.
>
I embraced atheism for most of my life, and I had lots of references in
the words of my sub-culture, who were all of the same atheist persuasion.
> It was not a choice. Choice implies knowledge, at least of the existence
> of an
> alternative. I had no such knowledge
> I could no more have chosen to not believe, than I could have chosen to
> not
> breath. Also, as I have told you before, my loss of faith, was not a
> choice either.
>
Same here.
>
> But your arrogance will not permit you to accept that.
> You expect children to be able to do what you, by your own admission
> ,could not
> do until you were in your middle years.
>
Why do you say I expect anything of children? Please quote me, or
apologize. However there is little doubt, that the root of your problem with
Christianity is your own childish definition of proprietary religious words
and consequent immature understanding of what Christ had to say, let alone
what the church or even its members say.
You need to jettison all that for a fresh look. I did not have that
problem, for I was innocent of Christianity until I discovered Christ in my
"middle years", or rather till Christ found me.
ªºª rrock
Pastor Frank wrote:
> "Dubh Ghall" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
> news:j59u62heckemn7jbv...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Thu, 18 May 2006 23:32:08 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
>><Pasto...@christfirst.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>Not at all, I was indoctrinated with xtianity, as a child, same as you.
>>
>
> You are getting forgetful Pug. I mentioned many times, that i was
> brought up by atheist secular humanist parents. Religious words were about
> as welcome in our family as long and loud farts at the dinner table.
So your father was a Bible reading atheist. Looks like you followed in your
father's foot-steps.
>
>>And of course, I embraced it, and believed it, having no other source of
>>reference than the priest/minister/pastor, call him what you will, and my
>>family.
>>
>
> I embraced atheism for most of my life, and I had lots of references in
> the words of my sub-culture, who were all of the same atheist persuasion.
Maybe you should give a few examples.
>
>>It was not a choice. Choice implies knowledge, at least of the existence
>>of an
>>alternative. I had no such knowledge
>>I could no more have chosen to not believe, than I could have chosen to
>>not
>>breath. Also, as I have told you before, my loss of faith, was not a
>>choice either.
>>
>
> Same here.
>
>>But your arrogance will not permit you to accept that.
>>You expect children to be able to do what you, by your own admission
>>,could not
>>do until you were in your middle years.
>>
>
> Why do you say I expect anything of children? Please quote me, or
> apologize. However there is little doubt, that the root of your problem with
> Christianity is your own childish definition of proprietary religious words
> and consequent immature understanding of what Christ had to say, let alone
> what the church or even its members say.
> You need to jettison all that for a fresh look. I did not have that
> problem, for I was innocent of Christianity until I discovered Christ in my
> "middle years", or rather till Christ found me.
>
You should restate that to say: "problem with my unique version of Christianity".
bob young
Pastor Frank wrote:
Of course not, to do that I would have to descend to the banity of religious
belief
>
> We Christians rather believe, that following Christ and His vision of
> the humane man will stop all of man's inhumanity to man. See below
Ay but as you well know it does no such thing,. Take for example the current
murders and temple burnings in Thailand, Indonesia and Southern Philippines -
murders, including children, in the name of their imaginary beleifs and their
inability to live side by side with one another.
Following imaginary deities produces nothing other than envy, deceit, jealousy
and hatred.
The next world war may well be called The First Nuclear Religious World War - a
war that could well wipe out half of humanity in the name of imaginary gods
[see Iran's current antics]
>
>
> Pastor Frank
>
> The most important, yet most ignored commandments of Christ, which would
> make war, if not ALL of man's inhumanity to man extinct, nay totally
> unthinkable:
Oh yes. provided everybody is prepared to be a Christian
but we have to remember we humans have invented a lot of other gods too !
<GROAN>
Pastor Frank
news:446F7AC2.41B93053@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
invalid. Right? LOL
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
>"Dubh Ghall" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
>news:j59u62heckemn7jbv...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 18 May 2006 23:32:08 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
>> <Pasto...@christfirst.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Not at all, I was indoctrinated with xtianity, as a child, same as you.
>>
> You are getting forgetful Pug. I mentioned many times, that i was
>brought up by atheist secular humanist parents.
No, I do not forget, nor do I doubt your words; You were, nonetheless
indoctrinated, by the world around you in general, and by your peers, and
teachers, in particular.
>Religious words were about
>as welcome in our family as long and loud farts at the dinner table.
>
Why was that?
It is quite illogical, but if that was the attitude of your immediate family, I
can understand where you get the idea that atheists are "god haters"
>> And of course, I embraced it, and believed it, having no other source of
>> reference than the priest/minister/pastor, call him what you will, and my
>> family.
>>
> I embraced atheism for most of my life, and I had lots of references in
>the words of my sub-culture, who were all of the same atheist persuasion.
>
>> It was not a choice. Choice implies knowledge, at least of the existence
>> of an
>> alternative. I had no such knowledge
>> I could no more have chosen to not believe, than I could have chosen to
>> not
>> breath. Also, as I have told you before, my loss of faith, was not a
>> choice either.
>>
> Same here.
>>
>> But your arrogance will not permit you to accept that.
>> You expect children to be able to do what you, by your own admission
>> ,could not
>> do until you were in your middle years.
>>
> Why do you say I expect anything of children? Please quote me, or
>apologize.
To find your exact quote, might not be so easy.
I am referring to a time, just after you first appeared in a.a, and the
christnet .
I was trying to explain to you, how I became an atheist, what started it, and at
what age: I was 12 or 13.
You told me, in effect, that if I had REALLY been a xtian, I would have known
better.
>However there is little doubt, that the root of your problem with
>Christianity is your own childish definition of proprietary religious words
"Proprietary religious words"?
Such as, what?
>and consequent immature understanding of what Christ had to say, let alone
>what the church or even its members say.
For example?
> You need to jettison all that for a fresh look.
And do what, pretend that I suddenly believe a myth?
> I did not have that
>problem, for I was innocent of Christianity until I discovered Christ in my
>"middle years", or rather till Christ found me.
Not exactly, Frank. You have always believed.
I seem to recall, in one of our early altercations, that you stated that as an
atheist, you hated God.
An atheist does not believe that gods, yours, or anyone else's, past or present,
exist: How do you hate something that does not exist?
Libertarius
Pastor Frank wrote:
===>You missed the point. As usual, your response consists only of what you
think you should say to promote your invented neo-Marcionite "pristine
Christian" heresy about a "god" that "both exists and does not exist". -- L.
Pastor Frank
the name of religion. As you know, accusations sans evidence makes you one
of Satan's minions. For Satan is the accuser, vilifier, contrarian, liar and
father of all lies.
You have no answer to the problem of war and man's inhumanity to man,
other than to vilify those who at least try to put an end to them. See below
the most important and most ignored commandments of Christ.
Pastor Frank
The most important, yet most ignored commandments of Christ, which would
make war, if not ALL of man's inhumanity to man extinct, nay totally
unthinkable:
Pastor Frank
> On Sat, 20 May 2006 22:43:24 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
> <Pasto...@christfirst.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> Why do you say I expect anything of children? Please quote me, or
>>apologize.
>
> To find your exact quote, might not be so easy.
> I am referring to a time, just after you first appeared in a.a, and the
> christnet .
> I was trying to explain to you, how I became an atheist, what started it,
> and at
> what age: I was 12 or 13.
> You told me, in effect, that if I had REALLY been a xtian, I would have
> known
> better.
>
what so many atheists tell me, when I tell them I was reared atheist, and
spent most of my life as an atheist. They retort, that if I had been a "real
atheist" I would never have become a Christian.
>>However there is little doubt, that the root of your problem with
>>Christianity is your own childish definition of proprietary religious
>>words
>
> "Proprietary religious words"? Such as, what?
>
Is that difficult for you to guess? The most important proprietary
Christian word is of course "God". For our Christian God is like no other.
>>and consequent immature understanding of what Christ had to say, let alone
>>what the church or even its members say.
>
> For example?
>
The mantra you keep chanting: There ain't no god(s) without defining
what you mean.
>> You need to jettison all that for a fresh look.
>
> And do what, pretend that I suddenly believe a myth?
>
There you go again, claiming our gospels to be invalid evidence, and
therefore Jesus is "a myth". LOL
>
>> I did not have that
>>problem, for I was innocent of Christianity until I discovered Christ in
>>my
>>"middle years", or rather till Christ found me.
>
> Not exactly, Frank. You have always believed.
> I seem to recall, in one of our early altercations, that you stated that
> as an
> atheist, you hated God.
>
I had no reason to hate something I didn't believe exists. For my
understanding of the word was some invisible divine entity in the sky, a la
Zeus, Odin, Thor et al, the idea of which was merely worth a chuckle, not
"hate". Sheeeesh!!!!
> An atheist does not believe that gods, yours, or anyone else's, past or
> present,
> exist: How do you hate something that does not exist?
>
Like I told you, my atheist view changed when I realised that the word
God meant something entirely different to Christ, than to me. He sure wasn't
talking to, and about a God of my definition. That is why I keep posting
Christ's definition of the word ...apparently to no effect in your case, for
you keep repeating the same illogical objections regardless. You appear
married to your atheism for better or for worse, and neither logic nor
reason shall dissuade you.
Pastor Frank
"GOD" THE CHRISTIAN MEANING OF THE WORD ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE:
Jesus in Jn:4:24: "GOD IS A SPIRIT, and they that worship him must
worship him in spirit and in truth."
Jesus in John 14:6-10: Jesus saith unto him: "I am the way, the truth,
and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me,
ye should have known my Father also, and from henceforth YE KNOW HIM AND
HAVE SEEN HIM."
Philip saith unto him: "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us."
Jesus saith unto him: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast
thou not known me, Philip? HE THAT HAS SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER;
and how sayest thou then: Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am
in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak
not of myself, but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
Jesus in Jn:10:30: I and my Father are one.
Jesus in John 12:44-46`Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes
in me, believes not in me but in Him who sent me. And he who sees me sees
Him who sent Me. I have come as a light into the world, that whoever
believes in me should not abide in darkness."
Jesus in Lk 17:20-21: And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when
the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said: "The kingdom of
God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo
there! For, behold, the kingdom of GOD IS WITHIN YOU."
1Jn:4:8: He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for GOD IS LOVE.
1Jn:4:16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us.
GOD IS LOVE; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Acts:17:28: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain
also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Proverbs 10:22 God is nearer than our own soul, closer than our most
secret thoughts.
Beowulf
...
> There is nothing "negative" about positive claims. "Christ is a myth" is
I believe in the Easter Rabbitt, Trolls, and Santa Claus. Now if you
believe they are myth, prove it!
Beowulf
..
> Hey Beowulf, Frank literally twisted my arm until i declared a religion, so
> i founded a new one called Axposterism. Since its brand new and doesn't have
> too many rules or anything, i was wondering if it would be okay to canonize
> the works of Tolkein so we could have a ready made sort of doctrine that
> could be edited over the next couple hundred years until it was truly and
> utterly whack. I was especially interested in the runes section of the first
...
Sure. I like the idea of a religion founded on Gandalf. Gandalf existed!
He died and rose from the dead to prove his divinity!!!! He was wise!!!!
He is our Savior! He is as real as Jesus or Zeus, so why not create a
religion around our Lord Gandalf!
ªºª rrock
Beowulf wrote:
Trolls are evident. Pastor Frank is evidence.
Santa Claus actually existed, and that version of the name is only a nickname.
Easter Rabbit was an early malware which abused Unix queues. It was named,
however, after the notion of an "Easter Bunny". Any evidence toward any
actual existence of an "Easter Bunny" would have to be found in shops that
are open on Easter Sunday selling small animals. Do your own homework.
ªºª rrock
Beowulf wrote:
Great! I was also wondering if we could include a high order into the religion.
Only those that could be found guilt free and innocent, etc., would be accepted
into the order. The order would be based upon the death and rebirth of Spock,
whom although is yet only another prophet of the future, has passed his gospel
back through time making it available to us all right now so that we may prepare
the way for his first coming. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
The new order might be called the "Spockene Order", or maybe the "Spockuits".
This would instantaneously make Axposterism a much older religion than any other
currently on Earth, even though the perspective of age would be from the future.
Oh, and by the way, did you, yourself, want to be known as a prophet or a scribe?
We have all sorts of positions available currently.
Hmmm, i wonder if we should start our own news group... what are your opinions
about that?
bob young
Pastor Frank wrote:
I have to assume [two moinths ago in Indonesia] that when persons enter a
church and slits the throats of members of the congregation it is based on
religion. In any case inter religious fighting in the three countries
mentioned is well known and documented
> As you know, accusations sans evidence makes you one
> of Satan's minions.
I do not beleive in satan, Father Christmas, or anything to do with mythology
> For Satan is the accuser, vilifier, contrarian, liar and
> father of all lies.
so your pastor once told you
>
> You have no answer to the problem of war and man's inhumanity to man,
> other than to vilify those who at least try to put an end to them. See below
> the most important and most ignored commandments of Christ.
Why? The warring factions have no interest in such verbiage, some of them use
an entriely different religious book written by different humans than the one
you use. GROAN
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
>"Dubh Ghall" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
>news:2651729vsnu5avlh9...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 20 May 2006 22:43:24 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
>> <Pasto...@christfirst.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why do you say I expect anything of children? Please quote me, or
>>>apologize.
>>
>> To find your exact quote, might not be so easy.
>> I am referring to a time, just after you first appeared in a.a, and the
>> christnet .
>> I was trying to explain to you, how I became an atheist, what started it,
>> and at
>> what age: I was 12 or 13.
>> You told me, in effect, that if I had REALLY been a xtian, I would have
>> known
>> better.
>>
> I certainly did not say anything remotely like that. You just reverse
>what so many atheists tell me, when I tell them I was reared atheist, and
>spent most of my life as an atheist. They retort, that if I had been a "real
>atheist" I would never have become a Christian.
>
None the less, that is the crux of what you told me.
>>>However there is little doubt, that the root of your problem with
>>>Christianity is your own childish definition of proprietary religious
>>>words
>>
>> "Proprietary religious words"? Such as, what?
>>
> Is that difficult for you to guess?
Indeed it is, Frank.
Proprietary means "relating to, or characteristic of, an owner, or ownership",
so I am at a loss to determine what you are referring to.
> The most important proprietary
>Christian word is of course "God". For our Christian God is like no other.
>
Ah. Sort of "Trade Marks", "Brand Names", " Registered/Copy righted, Logos",
etc?
I was unaware that any religion, or even religion in general, had any claim,
copy right, or other wise, to any word/s.
>>>and consequent immature understanding of what Christ had to say, let alone
>>>what the church or even its members say.
>>
>> For example?
>>
> The mantra you keep chanting: There ain't no god(s)
Double negative; tsk tsk.
>without defining what you mean.
>
I thought the dictionary did a pretty good job of defining it, and naturally
assumed that you, as a xtian, would be familiar with the definition.
As you obviously are not, I will post the relevant portion.
God
n noun
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler
of the universe; the supreme being.
god
a. pn.
a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or
human fortunes; a deity. also, an image of a god; an idol.
>>> You need to jettison all that for a fresh look.
>>
>> And do what, pretend that I suddenly believe a myth?
>>
> There you go again, claiming our gospels to be invalid evidence, and
>therefore Jesus is "a myth". LOL
Your "gospels" offer no evidence, and cannot them selves, be held as evidence of
their own veracity
Your gospels make claims for events involving thousands of people, but for which
there is no other record, from the massacre of the innocents, to the
crucifixion.
They contradict each other in areas that are the core of xtian belief, the
betrayal, the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the assertion, or not depending
on which gospel you are reading.
They refer to places that didn't exist at that time, and claim as contemporary,
events which didn't take place until years later.
Farther, they lay claim to your Jesus, practicing magic, and making prophesies
and promises which were never kept, and or failed. Promises and prophesies which
it has taken about fifteen hundred years of hard work on the part of bible
apologists, to come up with excises for.
Most of those being childish semantic manipulation, and the claim that they are
"metaphoric", and such like, and ALL of them being special pleading.
Your own book, read honestly, is all the evidence that is needed to class your
god, as just one more myth.
>>
>>> I did not have that
>>>problem, for I was innocent of Christianity until I discovered Christ in
>>>my
>>>"middle years", or rather till Christ found me.
>>
>> Not exactly, Frank. You have always believed.
>> I seem to recall, in one of our early altercations, that you stated that
>> as an
>> atheist, you hated God.
>>
> I had no reason to hate something I didn't believe exists.
I know, but never the less, you told us that you had publicly made such
assertions, claims that you insulted God, challenged him, and hated him.
It is one of the reasons hat most atheists, back then, told you that you were
never an atheist.
>For my
>understanding of the word was some invisible divine entity in the sky, a la
>Zeus, Odin, Thor et al, the idea of which was merely worth a chuckle, not
>"hate". Sheeeesh!!!!
Yet today, you cling to an equally childish definition.
>
>> An atheist does not believe that gods, yours, or anyone else's, past or
>> present,
>> exist: How do you hate something that does not exist?
>>
> Like I told you, my atheist view changed when I realised that the word
>God meant something entirely different to Christ,
I couldn't say about that, but it certainly isn't what I was taught, and it
means something different to the xtians, of various denominations, that I know,
than it does to you.
> than to me. He sure wasn't
>talking to, and about a God of my definition. That is why I keep posting
>Christ's definition of the word ...apparently to no effect in your case, for
>you keep repeating the same illogical objections regardless.
You personify a subjective value, or state, or whatever, and expect people to be
impressed?
The world's mythology is full of such gods/creatures, Death, Father Time, Love,
Fate, The Muses, Blind Justice: What makes yours so different?
>You appear
>married to your atheism for better or for worse, and neither logic nor
>reason shall dissuade you.
>
You have never offered either.
ªºª rrock
Pastor Frank wrote:
WE BELIEVE in YHVH the one and only true and living eternal God (Isa. 44:6);
the God of our fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exo. 3:14-16), the Creator
of all things (1 Cor. 8:6) who is omnipotent, omnipresent, unchangeable and
all-knowing; the Great I Am who is manifested in three beings: God the Father,
God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, all one God (Deut. 6:4).
>>>and consequent immature understanding of what Christ had to say, let alone
>>>what the church or even its members say.
>>
>>For example?
>>
>
> The mantra you keep chanting: There ain't no god(s) without defining
> what you mean.
>
>
>>> You need to jettison all that for a fresh look.
>>
>>And do what, pretend that I suddenly believe a myth?
>>
>
> There you go again, claiming our gospels to be invalid evidence, and
> therefore Jesus is "a myth". LOL
WE BELIEVE the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments, as originally inspired,
to be the inerrant, supreme, revealed Word of God. The history, covenants, and prophecy
of this Holy Book were written for and about a specific elect family of people who are
children of YHVH God (Luke 3:38; Psalm 82:6) through the seedline of Adam (Gen . 5.1).
All scripture is written as a doctrinal standard for our exhortation, admonition,
correction, instruction and example; the whole counsel to be believed, taught and followed
(II Tim. 3:16. Acts. 20:27).
WE BELIEVE Yahshua the Messiah (Jesus the Christ) to be the incarnate begotten
son of God, the Word made flesh (John 1:14), born of the Virgin Mary in fulfillment
of divine prophecy (Isa. 7:14; Luke 1:27) at the appointed time, having had His
eternal existence as one with the Father before the world was (John 17.5, 21-22).
WE BELIEVE that God the Son, Yahshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ), became man in order to
redeem His people Israel (Luke 1:68) as a kinsman of the flesh (Heb. 2:14-16; Rom. 9:3-5)/
died as the Passover Lamb of God on the Cross of Calvary finishing His perfect atoning
sacrifice for the remission of our sins (Matt. 26:28); He arose from the grave on the third
day (I Cor. 15.4) triumphing over death; and ascended into Heaven where He is now reigning at
the right hand of God (Mark 16:19).
WE BELIEVE in the literal return to this Earth of Yahshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) in like
manner as He departed (Acts 1;11), to take the Throne of David (Isa. 9;7; Luke 1;32) and establish
His everlasting Kingdom (Dan. 2:44; Luke 1:33; Rev. 11:15). Every knee shall bow and every tongue
shall confess that He is King of kings and Lord of lords (Phil. 2:10-11; I Tim. 6:14-15).
ªºª rrock
Pastor Frank wrote:
WE BELIEVE in an existing being known as the Devil or Satan and called the Serpent
(Gen. 3:1;Rev. 12:9), who has a literal "seed" or posterity in the earth (Gen. 3:15)
commonly called Jews today (Rev. 2:9; 3:9; Isa. 65:15). These children of Satan
(John 8:44-47; Matt. 13:38; John 8:23) through Cain (I John 2:22, 4:3) who have
throughout history always been a curse to true Israel, the Children of God, because
of a natural enmity between the two races (Gen. 3:15), because they do the works of
their father the Devil (John 8:38-44), and because they please not God, and are
contrary to all men (I Thes. 2:14-15), though they often pose as ministers of
righteousness (II Cor. 11:13-15). The ultimate end of this evil race whose hands bear
the blood of our Savior (Matt. 27:25) and all the righteous slain upon the earth
(Matt. 23:35), is Divine judgment (Matt. 13:38-42, 15:13; Zech. 14:21).
ªºª rrock
Pastor Frank wrote:
WE BELIEVE God gave Israel His Laws for their own good (Deut. 5:33). Theocracy
being the only perfect form of government, and God's divine Law for governing a
nation being far superior to man's laws, we are not to add to or diminish from
His commandments (Deut. 4:1-2). All present world problems are a result of
disobedience to the Laws of God, which if kept will bring blessings and if
disregarded will bring cursings (Deut. 28).
AcesLucky
> "Beowulf" <beo...@wayoftheancients.trail> wrote in message
>
>> On Sun, 14 May 2006 22:05:49 -0400, Pastor Frank inscribed to the world:
>> ..
>>
>>> "Stolen from other religions"? There are 2 ways to look at that.
>>> Atheist
>>> Twinkies who don't think, but just chant atheist mantras believe, that
>>> this makes Christianity invalid.
>>> On the other hand thinkers, like Aldous Huxley who wrote a small
>>> book on
>>> the subject called "Perennial Philosophy", argues that the more
>>> religions hold the same views and/or beliefs, the MORE valid they are.
>>> Which are you?
>>>
>> I see you have resorted to cheap name calling.
>>
>>
> I see you indulging in chanting that the "Gospel is a myth" in our
> pristine and hallowed Christian NGs without a shred of evidence.
He gave you a ton of evidence with the link supporting everything he
said. Here it is again:
http://heretic.sparlo.net/gospelmyth.html#WhatIsOriginal
> You don't
> even bother to complete the sentence with: ...and therefore the gospels are
> invalid and worthless. In other words you have proved yourself to belong to
> the "mental twinkies" group.
> If you are trying to proselytize atheism in Christian groups, know you
> are doomed to failure, for all atheists have to offer is disbelief. We all
> have already millions of disbeliefs and don't care for any more. But there
> is precious little one can believe in, and one of best and most useful
> beliefs are the Christian Gospels.
> So please post your atheism to atheist groups, that's what they are
> there for. Thanks.
>
>
>
NAVY CORPSMAN
>> Here is another moron satanic poster.
Aaron
No, Libby is taking the usual course of action for that small minority
of Atheists who are afraid that they are wrong: he is mixing truth
with lies to make his lie seem believeable. Jesus' quotation of
Hillel demonstates the Jewishness of the Gospel and the fact that the
Jews are still God's People. Hillel's teaching of Scripture became
the basis for Orthodox Judaism. Since Jesus agreed with Hillel on
this and almost everything alse that He taught, it is easy for a
christian to see that the Holy Spirit guided the Pharisaic Rabbis who
formed modern Orthodox Judaism to reject the teachings of those who
opposed Jesus and to accept the teachings of those who admitted that
He might be Messiah (Rabban Gamliel the Elder, as per Acts). Of
course, Jesus taught Judaism; the theologies that seperate
Christianity from Judaism had not been introduced until the Third
Century CE and were codified in the Fourth Century CE.
Of course, Libby will object, but he has his own reasons for
constantly attempting to oppse Theism. Libby really is a sad case.
Libertarius
Aaron wrote:
===>I am neither an "atheist", nor am I "afraid" that I am wrong.
Unlike you and the phony. Jew-hating. YHWH-hating, OT-hating
"pastor" who declared his new-fangled "faith" in a deity that,
according to him, "both exists and does not exist",
I know what I am talking about.
> he is mixing truth
> with lies to make his lie seem believeable. Jesus' quotation of
> Hillel demonstates the Jewishness of the Gospel and the fact that the
> Jews are still God's People. Hillel's teaching of Scripture became
> the basis for Orthodox Judaism. Since Jesus agreed with Hillel on
> this and almost everything alse that He taught,
===>You have no evidence there was a real person behind those stories.
You confuse fiction with reality and call imaginative writing divine inspiration.
> it is easy for a
> christian to see that the Holy Spirit guided the Pharisaic Rabbis who
> formed modern Orthodox Judaism to reject the teachings of those who
> opposed Jesus and to accept the teachings of those who admitted that
> He might be Messiah (Rabban Gamliel the Elder, as per Acts).
===>Again, you cite fiction as if it had been historical fact.
Unlike the case of Bar Kokhba, NO Pharisaic rabbi ever
declared the "Jesus" of the Christian stories a "Messiah".
> Of course, Jesus taught Judaism;
===>That is almost true: the character Iesous in the Christian
literature is described as a Pharisee. See the work of
Hyam Maccoby.
> the theologies that seperate
> Christianity from Judaism had not been introduced until the Third
> Century CE and were codified in the Fourth Century CE.
===>The Christos-worshiping Gentile religion existed already at
the time of Pliny the Younger. He wrote in his letter to Trajan that they
"meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn
to Christus as to a god". If you think such a theology is consistent
with Judaism, you don't know what Judaism is. -- L.
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Aaron
Libby, your repeated lies, intentional ignorance, and general insanity
has caused me to generate the following automatic response to any
babling that you choose to type:
Libby, you are dishonest, intentionally ignorant,, and so afraid that
you are wrong to reject God that you refuse to listen to the truth. I
pity you. Since your fear that you are wrong drives you to insanity,
there is no point conversing with you. I do admit that your antics
are a bit funny because it is obvious that you know deep down that the
God of the Bible exists.
You were obviously abused by people who claimed to be Christians, but
who did not follow the Bible. So you blame God for your pain, and try
to hurt Him by denouncing Him. However, you are so hateful and
dishonest that no one is sympathetic to you. So, despite my pity for
your insanity, I still can't help the ocasional chuckle when you
contradict yourself, or say ridiculous things.
Last time I mentioned that you were abused you hinted that the abuse
was committed by your parents, and that it MAY have been sexual, but
you kept it vague. Personally, I would have sympathized with you at
the time, but now you have just become a twisted and corrupt mockery
of a human being. So, my pity for you is mingled with disgust,
distrust and disesteem.
I have decided not to read any of your posts because you have nothing
honest, intelligent or meaningful to say. I just snip it all and
paste this pre-typed responce. It saves time while still addressing
your bizarre comments.
Your post remains unread.
Libertarius
Aaron wrote:
> Libby, your repeated lies, intentional ignorance, and general insanity
> has caused me to generate the following automatic response to any
> babling that you choose to type:
===>That only proves what a small-minded nitwit you are!
Cannot argue my points, so you resort to expletives.
AARON the MORON!-- L.
Aaron
Libby, your repeated lies, intentional ignorance, and general insanity
has caused me to generate the following automatic response to any
babling that you choose to type:
Libby, you are dishonest, intentionally ignorant,, and so afraid that
ªºª rrock
Libertarius wrote:
Just curious... you mentioned expletives, but i didn't see any in the
included text. Was that simply inadvertence?
Pastor Frank
news:3qs872tqlrmp0th4o...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 May 2006 05:28:40 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
> <Pasto...@christfirst.org> wrote:
>>
>> So you say, that Christ reiterating Hillel makes His commandment
>>invalid. Right? LOL
>
> No, Libby is taking the usual course of action for that small minority
> of Atheists who are afraid that they are wrong: he is mixing truth
> with lies to make his lie seem believeable.
>
truths, as well as calls Jesus a mere failed freedom fighter against Roman
occupation and nothing more. He seems too stupid to see that Jesus and His
disciples never discussed the Romans nor their occupation, nor plotted
against them, but had merely one sword between them and no fighting skills.
Either that or he wants to make fun of Jesus and His "freedom fighters
against Roman occupation".
Yet Libertine denies being an atheist, because he considers "the cosmos"
his god.
>
> Jesus' quotation of
> Hillel demonstates the Jewishness of the Gospel and the fact that the
> Jews are still God's People. Hillel's teaching of Scripture became
> the basis for Orthodox Judaism. Since Jesus agreed with Hillel on
> this and almost everything alse that He taught, it is easy for a
> christian to see that the Holy Spirit guided the Pharisaic Rabbis who
> formed modern Orthodox Judaism to reject the teachings of those who
> opposed Jesus and to accept the teachings of those who admitted that
> He might be Messiah (Rabban Gamliel the Elder, as per Acts). Of
> course, Jesus taught Judaism; the theologies that seperate
> Christianity from Judaism had not been introduced until the Third
> Century CE and were codified in the Fourth Century CE.
>
Judaism. Had He taught nothing but Judaism, He would not have had the Jewish
religious establishment arraigned against him and seeking His death. See
below for such an instant, where Jesus deviates from standard Judaism.
Pastor Frank
THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST
Jesus in Matthew. 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye
for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: (Exodus 21:23-24)
39: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40: And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let
him have thy cloke also.
41: And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42: Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee
turn not thou away.
43: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
and hate thine enemy.
44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do
good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you,
and persecute you;
45: That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for
he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on
the just and on the unjust.
46: For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even
the publicans the same?
47: And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do
not even the publicans so?
48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
perfect.
---------------------
His teaching is a humongous step up from Judaism's Exodus 21:23-24
"If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth
for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound,
stripe for stripe."
ªºª rrock
Pastor Frank wrote:
> That's why I call him Libertine, for he takes liberties with Biblical
> truths, <snipped tripe>
Pot calls kettle black.
next
Aaron
<Pasto...@christfirst.org> wrote:
Frank, your quotes below confirm that Jesus agreed with Beyt Hillel.
>See below Jesus teaching against
>Judaism.
In Matthew 5:38-48, Jesus is teaching Rabbi Hillel's interpretation of
Exodus 21:23-24. Hillel's interpretation later became the official
interpretation for all Judaism. Hillel stated that even though one
has the right to seek damages, one is not required to do so, and that
the spirit of judaism lay in having the mercy and forgiveness to
refrain from exercising one's right to exact recompense from another,
also that the guilty person should willingly offer to make the
restitution. Later Jewish sages trained through Beyt Hillel discuss
this in depth in the Talmud, Sanhedrin 92a.
>Had He taught nothing but Judaism, He would not have had the Jewish
>religious establishment arraigned against him and seeking His death.
Frank the gospel accounts make it very clear that the Jewish religious
establishment was NOT arraigned against Jesus. A minority faction
acted when the rest of religious Jews were preparing for Passover.
They did not have the majority needed for a conviction, so they gave
Jesus to the romans who convicted Him of treason (claiming to be "king
of the Jews") and in accordance with Roman Law, a cross bar was used
as per the legal manner of executing political criminals, and his
crime was written on a sign that was nailed to his execution stake.
Later, in Acts, Rabban Gamliel the Elder states the Majority opinion
that there was to be no persecution of the followers of Jesus. Even
the execution of Stephen proves that they were still Jewish
religiously, since only adherents of Judaism could be executed for
blasphemy.
>See
>below for such an instant, where Jesus deviates from standard Judaism.
Jesus taugh standard judaism in the pasage below
Frank, you are comparing Christianity with Christianity. If you
bother to check, Exodus 21:23-24 is in the Christian Bible. You are
using a popular Christian interpretation that was never believed by
the Jews. You are making up myths and them accusing other people os
believing YOUR fiction.
This verse is in the Jewish Bible as well, but the Jews understand
this to include the entire paragraph, which includes the preceding
verse that states that the wronged party has the right to decide if he
will press charges. Additionally, verse 23 says "you will give life
for life." A death penalty is worded "kill, you will kill." Since
this says "give" and uses the word life" instead of Death, the Jews
(the people who actually read the language) understand the verse to
mean that the monetary value of the lost life is paid to survivors and
that the monetary value of the lost body part is paid to the wounded
party as well as damages for pain and suffering (Sanhedrin 79a).
Judaism also teaches that this passage also means that anyone who
destroys or disfigures another human being accrues a guilt that only
God can forgive or deal with because all people are created in the
image of God.
>
Pastor Frank
lie, won't make you believable, but rather an apostate. You lie and condemn
too much as is, and no one believes you instead of the NT Bible anyhow. You
are wasting your time here in our pristine and hallowed Christian NGs.
We believe, that the high priest Caifas caused the death of Jesus.
ªºª rrock
Pastor Frank wrote:
> "Aaron" <an...@home.net> wrote in message
> news:hhca72930jpfhjmmu...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>>Frank the gospel accounts make it very clear that the Jewish religious
>>establishment was NOT arraigned against Jesus.
>>
>
> Calling the whole Biblical account of the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus a
> lie, won't make you believable, but rather an apostate. You lie and condemn
> too much as is,
================================================================
> and no one believes you instead of the NT Bible anyhow. You
================================================================
> are wasting your time here in our pristine and hallowed Christian NGs.
> We believe, that the high priest Caifas caused the death of Jesus.
>
I believe Aaron.
Please stop speaking for other people if you cannot speak truthfully.
TomP
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
>
>
> Aaron wrote:
>
>> Libby, your repeated lies, intentional ignorance, and general insanity
>> has caused me to generate the following automatic response to any
>
> ===>That only proves what a small-minded nitwit you are!
> Cannot argue my points, so you resort to expletives.
> AARON the MORON!-- L.
>
irony! I am laughing so hard I almost choked on my tea! Thanks,
Libertarius, thanks so much! Did you post that just to amuse and entertain
us? Golly, I hope you did. Because if you really didn't catch the irony,
you are even sadder and more foolish than you have previously depicted
yourself through your posts here. Yikes.
Did you not understand that when you posted "AARON the MORON!" you committed
precisely the same offense you howled about Aaron committing? I find it
most interesting that you castigate another poster for doing exactly the
same deed that you yourself did on the same day.
Do your words apply in all instances, Libertarius? As in those many cases
when you yourself, Libertarius, proved "what a small-minded nitwit you are!
Cannot argue my points, so you resort to expletives." Surely you realize
you have left a long trail of posts wherein you did precisely that, don't
you?
Who wrote the following, Libertarius?
"TomP wrote: and wrote and wrote, but Tommy the Dummy is really an idiot,
not worthy of my time. -- L."
And what who wrote this, Libertarius?
"> > When did Christian HISTORY begin, Tommy the Dummy?"
The answer can be found in the thread "Da Vinci Code Madness." As long as
you brought up the subject of a "small minded nitwit" who "cannot argue my
points, so you resort to expletives," what does that make you, Libertarius?
Especially since you yourself, Libertarius, "cannot argue my points, so you
resort to expletives," as you did in the "Da Vinci Code Madness" thread?
And I can think of a few others where you were caught misquoting, lying,
were unable to argue points, and resorted to expletives, or simply
disappeared.
If you really are a "scientist" with a "doctorate" in the "natural and
social sciences," Libertarius, why do you waste your time on usenet trying
to gain followers for your goofy conspiracy theories? Don't real
"scientists" spend their time doing research, publishing, and/or teaching?
Can you answer these, Libertarius? Please? If your theory that "Saul/Paul"
founded Christianity is so well constructed and based solidly on the
manuscript and archaeological evidence, why haven't you published it in a
respectable peer reviewed journal or through an academic press that actually
vets their publications through experts in the field before agreeing to
publication? Have you ever even prepared a paper and presented it at an
academic conference? Aren't those the usual methods for challenging
accepted historical and archaeological theories?
Could it be that no respectable journal or academic press or academic
conference would consider such weird and goofy nuttiness as your bizarre
notion that "Saul/Paul" made up Christianity? Although I am sure their
staffs would get quite a good laugh. I always do from your posts. So,
please, Libertarius, please keep posting? You give the gift of laughter
with every post. And the world needs more laughter.
bob young
Pastor Frank wrote:
> "Aaron" <an...@home.net> wrote in message
> news:3qs872tqlrmp0th4o...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 21 May 2006 05:28:40 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
> > <Pasto...@christfirst.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> So you say, that Christ reiterating Hillel makes His commandment
> >>invalid. Right? LOL
> >
> > No, Libby is taking the usual course of action for that small minority
> > of Atheists who are afraid that they are wrong: he is mixing truth
> > with lies to make his lie seem believeable.
> >
> That's why I call him Libertine, for he takes liberties with Biblical
> truths,
What !????
Aaron
<Pasto...@christfirst.org> wrote:
>> establishment was NOT arraigned against Jesus. A minority faction
>>acted when the rest of religious Jews were preparing for Passover.
>>They did not have the majority needed for a conviction, so they gave
>>Jesus to the romans who convicted Him of treason (claiming to be "king
>>of the Jews") and in accordance with Roman Law, a cross bar was used
>>as per the legal manner of executing political criminals, and his
>>crime was written on a sign that was nailed to his execution stake.
>>Later, in Acts, Rabban Gamliel the Elder states the Majority opinion
>>that there was to be no persecution of the followers of Jesus. Even
>>the execution of Stephen proves that they were still Jewish
>>religiously, since only adherents of Judaism could be executed for
>>blasphemy.
>>
> Calling the whole Biblical account of the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus a
>lie, won't make you believable, but rather an apostate.
Frank, the Bible does not say that Jesus was tried before the
Sanhedrin. Infact the Gospel proves that Jesus was never brought
before the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin could only be conviened durring
daylight hours because they were required to open the torah Scroll to
verify that their actions agreed with the Torah. Jesus was brought at
night to certain members of the Sanhedrin to see if they could get a
confession out of him or if they could otherwise achieve a conviction.
They could not. So, as the Gospels all say, Jesus was convicted in a
Gentile court of the political crime of being King of the Jews.
>You lie and condemn
>too much as is, and no one believes you instead of the NT Bible anyhow.
Frank, YOU are denouncing the NT in favor of your Nazi propaganda
again.
>You
>are wasting your time here in our pristine and hallowed Christian NGs.
Frank, you have denounced the existance of God/YHVH/Jesus.
You have claimed that God is an attitude that men can choose to
create. The Bible says that God is an intelligent being who exists
regardless of man's existance. The Bible says that God created
mankind, not the other way around. The Bible says that God hates,
loves, desires, and acts upon these emotions with knowledge and
intent. Frank, you are not a Christian; you are a "Modified Atheist,"
a "Frankist." No Christian NG can be "pristine" as long as YOU post
to it.
> We believe, that the high priest Caifas caused the death of Jesus.
So, you believe that one man, who was not even a legitimate High
Priest, killed the Allmighty God? Jesus said "No man takes my life; I
give it willingly." Most people who read the Bible believe that
mankinds sins cause the need for Jesus to give His life for us.
But you claim that one little guy had the power to kill God.
LOL
Frank, that is just insane.
>
Libertarius
Aaron wrote:
===>Do you feel you must lie to support your silly "messianic"
Judaism?
SEE: Mark 14:54-55
"They took Jesus to the high priest,
and all the chief priests and teachers of the law came together...
The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence
against Jesus so that they could put him to death,
> The Sanhedrin could only be conviened durring
> daylight hours because they were required to open the torah Scroll to
> verify that their actions agreed with the Torah. Jesus was brought at
> night to certain members of the Sanhedrin
===>"The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin" is NOT just
"certain members".
Of course the whole thing is ridiculous, because the man on whom
all those fictional Gospel stories are bases, including the ones the Church
edited and put in the Bible, was obviously seen as an enemy or Rome,'
a Zealot leader, apparently the brother-in-law of the man who led
the last of the Jewish freedom fighters ("terrorists" according to the
Romans) in Masada, by the name of Eleazar ben Yair
(Lazarus, son of Jairus, brother of Mary Magdalene,
the daughter of Jairus).
Whatever his real name was (Yehoshua, Iesous or whatever), he was
captured, tried and executed by the occupying ROMANS for
starting a revolution.
The LUKE story even lists the charges:
"We found this man misleading our nation
and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar,
and saying that He Himself is Christ, a King."
"He stirs up the people, teaching all over Judea, starting from Galilee even as
far as this place."
It even says that Pilate inquired about whether he was a Galilean.
What was a "Galilean"?
Ever since the tax rebellion of Judas the Galilean, probably the fellow's real
father,
Galileans were identified as rebellious ZEALOTS.
Two other "malefactors", i.e. two of his men (body guards?)
are also identified as LESTAI, i.e. rebels,
who were also crucified "under the same sentence of condemnation"!
(SEE: Luke 23:40.
"But the other answered, and rebuking him said,
"Do you not even fear God,
since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?)
It would sure help you to really understand the subject by putting it in its
historical context. -- L.
James
>Re: Gospel is a myth
>For anybody considering the christian gospel and Jesus, read your bible
>yes, but also consider the alternative-- that the gospel message and its
>key player is a mythical savior, one of many from throughout time (before
>Jesus) and around the globe
> http://heretic.sparlo.net/gospelmyth.html
>I used to be a bible believing christian, read the bible many times, gave
>my heart to Jesus, accepted the gospel and was 'saved by grace'; then I
>realized the facts, that the entire gospel story is most likely a complete
>myth, simply a fictional story with ALL its elements stolen from other
>savior stories from past centuries.
> http://heretic.sparlo.net/gospelmyth.html
Hello,
I am sorry to hear you no longer believe in Jesus. But based on you
comment that "most likely" it is a myth etc, maybe you are not yet
completely sure of your assertions.
I can't prove the miracles from Jesus, but there is ample proof from
history that such a person existed at the time the gospels say. Here
are some examples:
The first century non-Christian historian Josephus (37-100 A.D) wrote,
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to
call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of
such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both
many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And
when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had
condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did
not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day;
(10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other
wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named
from him, are not extinct at this day." (Antiquities of the Jews, Book
XVIII, Chap. III, par. 3.)
Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, wrote in
reference to the death of Jesus:
"That these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of
Pontius Pilate."
In addition, according to Justin Martyr, these same records mentioned
Jesus' miracles, regarding which he says:
"That He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius
Pilate."
True, these "Acts," or official records, no longer exist. But they
evidently did exist in the second century, and Justin Martyr
confidently challenged his readers to check them to verify the truth
of what he said. (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chap. III, par.
3)
"German historian and archaeologist Hans Einsle writes that Jewish
historian Flavius Josephus, Roman writers Suetonius and Pliny, and
especially Roman historian Tacitus "all confirm the historicity of
Jesus and the main facts of his life."" (1988 Watchtower, 7/15, p. 4.)
Some other first-century pagan Roman writers who made mention of
Christ and his followers were the poet Juvenal, and the stoic
philosopher Lucius Seneca, who was a contemporary of Jesus and the
leading intellectual figure in Rome in the middle of the first
century.
Concerning those early non-Christian writers, the Encyclopaedia
Britannica states:
"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the
opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus."
(1980 edition, vol. 10, p. 145.)
Concerning the Roman historian Suetonius, (69-140 A.D.) in his
history, The Twelve Caesars, stated regarding the emperor Claudius:
"Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the
instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he expelled them from the city."
This occurred about the year 52 C.E. (Compare Acts 18:1, 2.) Note that
Suetonius expresses no doubt about the existence of Christ.
Even the well-known skeptic, the mission doctor Albert Schweitzer,
admitted:
"We have to avow that there are not many of the personalities of
antiquity of whom so many indubitable historical facts and of whom so
many statements have been preserved as in the case of Jesus."
Historian Will Durant said,
"Is the life story of the founder of Christianity the product of human
sorrow, imagination, and hope-a myth comparable to the legends of
Krishna, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, Dionysus, and Mithras?"
He answers that in the first century, to deny that Christ had ever
existed
"seems never to have occurred even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish
opponents of nascent Christianity." (The Story of Civilization,: Part
III, "Caesar and Christ.")
This encyclopedia states:
"THE HISTORICAL JESUS
The Christ-myth school of the early 20th century held that Jesus never
lived but was invented as a peg on which to hang the myth of a dying
and rising God. Yet the evidence for the historical existence of
Jesus is good.
Non-Christian Sources
Among Roman historians, TACITUS (Annals 15.44) records that the
Christian movement began with Jesus, who was sentenced to death by
Pontius Pilate. SUETONIUS (Claudius 25.4) refers to the expulsion of
the Jews from Rome because of a riot instigated by one "Chrestus" in
AD c.48, and this is usually taken to be a confused reference to the
Christians and their founder. PLINY THE YOUNGER (Epistles 10.96),
writing to Emperor Trajan, says that the early Christians sang a hymn
to Christ as God. Most of the Jewish evidence is late and
anti-Christian propaganda, but an early reference in the Babylonian
Talmud says that Jeshu ha-Nocri was a false prophet who was hanged on
the eve of the Passover for sorcery and false teaching. The evidence
from the historian JOSEPHUS is problematical. He recounts
(Antiquities 20.9.1) the martyrdom of JAMES, "the brother of Jesus
called the Christ," in AD 62. Another passage in the Antiquities
(18.3.3) gives an extended account of Jesus and his career, but some
features of it are clearly Christian interpolations. Whether this
passage has an authentic nucleus is debated.
Thus the Roman sources show a vague awareness that Jesus was a
historical figure as well as the object of a cult; the reliable
Jewish sources tell us that he was a Jewish teacher who was put to
death for sorcery and false prophecy and that he had a brother named
James. The Jewish evidence is especially valuable because of the
hostility between Jews and Christians at the time: it would have been
easy for the Jewish side to question the existence of Jesus, but this
they never did." (The Software Toolworks Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1992
Edition, pp. 3,4.)
"A unique work of the second century was Tatian's "Diatessaron,"
meaning "of the four." This was an early harmony, weaving together
into one narrative the various sections of the four canonical Gospels.
This again indicates the acceptance of the four as a collection and
testifies to their undisputed authority as the authentic record of
Jesus' life and words." (1963 Watchtower, p. 269 )
Yes, there is evidence outside the Bible testifying to the existence
of the man Jesus Christ. But to lovers of God, the most important
testimony is from the Bible itself, since it says it is inspired of
God. (2 Ti 3:16)
As the Bible itself testifies to the historicity of Jesus,
"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to
you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were
eyewitnesses of his majesty. (RSV, 2 Pe 1:16)
If you seek evidence, then I hope this has helped you to take another
look at your decision.
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
fl...@btinternet.com
"ªºª rrock" <inv...@address.here> wrote in message
news:Hibcg.3415$GM....@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
folklore and is in no way original. A Gandolf religion would be a fraud
based upon a fraud.