Consider your future

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Everybody dies. But not everybody needs to fear death.

Read the New Testament. Read about Jesus Christ. Learn how He stepped
out of Heaven, put on a body, came here as a man, to set us free from
that which we could not set ourselves free from: sin.

Learn how He wants to forgive you, give you eternal life, and have you
be part of His Kingdom. He makes all things new.

This reminder is offered to help you in this life, to remind you of
those things the enemy tries to make you forget. God is greater, and
He will still save you no matter what you've done. Ask Him to forgive
you right now, and gain real forgiveness (like a weight's been lifted),
and eternal life.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Rick C. Hodgin]

It occurred to me tonight that all people will either:

(1) Stand before Jesus, being judged for your sin, or
(2) Stand before Jesus-being-judged-for-your-sin.

The choice is yours, but knowing that you are a sinner and that you do
have sin, and that God's standard for entrance into Heaven is total and
complete perfection, it will be better for you to ask Jesus to forgive
your sin and give you eternal life.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

If you don't have faith, it's because you are reading the Bible with an
honest, truthful, real-answer seeking heart.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[gg...@yahoo.com]

Here are some new Christian texts for you to spend some time on.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5135799/Rare-copy-Jesus-secret-teachings-brother-found.html

These are apparently more complete copies of previously partial fragments, that you may know as "the gnostic gospel" by Elaine Pagels.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 11:20:37 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> If you don't have faith, it's because you are reading the Bible with an
> honest, truthful, real-answer seeking heart.

Correction:

If you don't have faith, it's because you ARE NOT reading the Bible

with an honest, truthful, real-answer seeking heart.

God reveals Himself to all who seek the truth. We cannot know Him
otherwise. If you seek the truth and press in and pursue it, God
knows you are doing this and He will come to meet you where you are
and lead you to His Son so you can be forgiven and have eternal life.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Rick C. Hodgin]

If you seek the truth it will be revealed to you by Jesus Christ, for
He is truth and is revealed to all who seek Him. If you do not seek
the truth, know there is one also who will accommodate your search for
those untrue, unholy things. He will fill your ears with every lie so
as to make you think you have found something real. But as with all
lies, they bear no weight against the truth, for the truth is always,
in all ways, and for all time, totally and completely victorious. It
is truth's domain: total victory over all falseness.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 12/4/2017 4:56 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 11:20:37 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> If you don't have faith, it's because you are reading the Bible with an
>> honest, truthful, real-answer seeking heart.
>
> Correction:

lol.

[George Neuner]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 04:56:08 -0800 (PST), "Rick C. Hodgin"
<rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you don't have faith, it's because you ARE NOT reading the Bible
> with an honest, truthful, real-answer seeking heart.

The new testament is a half-wtted collection of contradictory stories
which mostly was written hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly
lived, by people who had no knowledge of the events. It is not the
word of any god, it is the word of man - an attempt by the church to
control the people.

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 2:39:44 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> lol.

Even those who follow God in all sincerity and power are not immune to
typographical errors.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-7, George Neuner wrote:

> The new testament is a half-wtted collection of contradictory stories
> which mostly was written hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly
> lived, by people who had no knowledge of the events. It is not the
> word of any god, it is the word of man - an attempt by the church to
> control the people.

Some corrections to that should be pointed out, in fairness.

The canon of New Testament scripture was established by church authorities. But
they chose from writings that were already circulating, already in existence.

And one can compare the books in the New Testament to the books of New Testament
apocrypha, and that does make it clear that the books they chose were those
which would appear to be more worthy of being taken seriously.

If Jesus had never walked the Earth, how would one explain the _existence_ of a
Christian church in the first place?

This doesn't prove the truth of the Bible by a long shot. But for a charismatic
individual to attract a following through claims that he had a message from God:
there are hundreds of examples of that, including well-known ones like Muhammad
and Louis Riel.

John Savard

[Melzzzzz]

On 2017-12-05, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-7, George Neuner wrote:
>
>> The new testament is a half-wtted collection of contradictory stories
>> which mostly was written hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly
>> lived, by people who had no knowledge of the events. It is not the
>> word of any god, it is the word of man - an attempt by the church to
>> control the people.
>
> Some corrections to that should be pointed out, in fairness.
>
> The canon of New Testament scripture was established by church authorities. But
> they chose from writings that were already circulating, already in existence.
>
> And one can compare the books in the New Testament to the books of New Testament
> apocrypha, and that does make it clear that the books they chose were those
> which would appear to be more worthy of being taken seriously.
>
> If Jesus had never walked the Earth, how would one explain the _existence_ of a
> Christian church in the first place?

Problem is that informations about such important figure are lacking. eg
why we don't know anything about him before his 30es, no biography no
real thing about him, just myths? Also why Judas when he was famous prophet?
Why Roman cohort to arrest peacefull preacher?
Why he was not crucified upside down, like enemy of the state,
rather like common criminal, with legs down? Roman laws were strict!

>
> This doesn't prove the truth of the Bible by a long shot. But for a charismatic
> individual to attract a following through claims that he had a message from God:
> there are hundreds of examples of that, including well-known ones like Muhammad
> and Louis Riel.
>
> John Savard

--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Indeed. The deadly typo demon has attacked me as well, it is not fun.

[David Brown]

The most famous example is the command "Thou shalt commit adultery":

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible>


Rick may be sincere, but fortunately not much power. His god sounds
like a real evil sod (a lot worse than the variety most Christians follow).

[David Brown]

On 05/12/17 05:49, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-7, George Neuner wrote:
>
>> The new testament is a half-wtted collection of contradictory stories
>> which mostly was written hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly
>> lived, by people who had no knowledge of the events. It is not the
>> word of any god, it is the word of man - an attempt by the church to
>> control the people.
>
> Some corrections to that should be pointed out, in fairness.
>
> The canon of New Testament scripture was established by church authorities. But
> they chose from writings that were already circulating, already in existence.
>

Yes - from writings already written by /men/. (I say "men" - there
might have been some women involved, but the Jewish and early Christian
traditions were seriously misogynist.)

> And one can compare the books in the New Testament to the books of New Testament
> apocrypha, and that does make it clear that the books they chose were those
> which would appear to be more worthy of being taken seriously.

That is rationalisation after the fact. You are assuming that there is
a "real God" and a "real Jesus" as described in the Bible - and
therefore the books chosen for the Bible are the "right" ones. If you
compare the NT books with the apocrypha, Dead Sea scrolls, and other
sources, you'll see that the choices were made for practical and selfish
reasons.

A key distinction is that books that showed the humanity of Jesus, and
books that encouraged thought and self-exploration (the Gnostic texts)
were dropped - books that encouraged a centralised Church and a
controlling priesthood were kept. The Bible books were picked to force
people to do what they were told, and to view the priesthood and church
as the sole interpreters of the Word of God.

>
> If Jesus had never walked the Earth, how would one explain the _existence_ of a
> Christian church in the first place?

And if Muhammad is not the true Prophet of God, how do you explain the
existence of Islam? If Buddha was not truly enlightened, how do you
explain the existence of Buddhism? If Shiva and friends did not exist,
how do you explain the existence of Hinduism? If Odin and his brothers
had not killed Ymir, how could they have made the world from it?

There is /some/ - not much, but some - historical evidence for a
religious teacher called "Jesus" at roughly the time and place matching
the NT. But there it ends - there is no evidence at all for any
supernatural or divine events. There isn't even any evidence for his
execution, or his relevance compared to any others of the hundreds of
other religious teachers and wannabe messiahs in that period. Why did
the cult of Jesus grow into a successful religion, while similar cults
died out? I have no idea - nor does anyone else. Luck, maybe.

It is absolutely fine to have faith, and believe in God and Jesus (or
whatever else you want). If that is what suits you, what gives you
strength or meaning, what makes you a better person - great, go for it.

Just don't try to suggest there is a rational, scientific or historical
basis for your faith.

>
> This doesn't prove the truth of the Bible by a long shot.

Indeed.

> But for a charismatic
> individual to attract a following through claims that he had a message from God:
> there are hundreds of examples of that, including well-known ones like Muhammad
> and Louis Riel.
>

Some charismatic folk get a following, some don't. Some followings
last, some don't. Nowhere is there any evidence that they were "right"
in some way - whether they get a long-term following or not.

And the historical evidence surrounding Jesus is so little, that we
can't even be sure that he /was/ charismatic or had a noticeable
following at the time. Indeed, we can't even be sure that he existed at
all - the evidence is in favour of his existence as a historical figure,
but does not rule out his non-existence or that the person we think of
as "Jesus" is a mix of more than one real figure.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

I have dyslexia. I make reading and writing mistakes often.
Even in proof-reading I still "see" words that aren't there,
and read them aloud as though they were there. It's quite
amazing to observe sometimes.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Chris M. Thomasson]

No problem. Btw, have you ever made some hard core programming errors,
or can you read code better than English?

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 2:12:21 AM UTC-7, David Brown wrote:
> On 05/12/17 05:49, Quadibloc wrote:

> > If Jesus had never walked the Earth, how would one explain the _existence_ of a
> > Christian church in the first place?

> And if Muhammad is not the true Prophet of God, how do you explain the
> existence of Islam? If Buddha was not truly enlightened, how do you
> explain the existence of Buddhism?

I'm saying that there was likely a real person on whom the Gospel accounts were
based - _not_ that this person was truly the Son of God.

Muhammad was a real historical person, but that the warring tribes of Arabia
found it more profitable to band together and pillage everyone else is
sufficient to explain the existence of Islam.

You can't expect to get elected Pope of a new religion as the result of writing
a holy book in your mother's basement. It takes real charisma to build a
following.

Mind you, some could say that Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard came close...

My point was that while the Roman Catholic Church fairly quickly *became* a tool
for controlling the people, it is somewhat unfair to claim that Christianity was
created for that purpose from the very beginning.

Of course, absent anything supernatural, Jesus would still have been mistaken
and misguided to some extent despite presenting inspiring moral truths. But it
does not appear that he was of a piece with those who came after.

John Savard

[Melzzzzz]

On 2017-12-06, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 2:12:21 AM UTC-7, David Brown wrote:
>> On 05/12/17 05:49, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> > If Jesus had never walked the Earth, how would one explain the _existence_ of a
>> > Christian church in the first place?
>
>> And if Muhammad is not the true Prophet of God, how do you explain the
>> existence of Islam? If Buddha was not truly enlightened, how do you
>> explain the existence of Buddhism?
>
> I'm saying that there was likely a real person on whom the Gospel accounts were
> based - _not_ that this person was truly the Son of God.

We don't have enough data to judge if Jesus actually existed or not.
That's completely irrelevant since Christianity today is just myth.

>
> Muhammad was a real historical person, but that the warring tribes of Arabia
> found it more profitable to band together and pillage everyone else is
> sufficient to explain the existence of Islam.
>
> You can't expect to get elected Pope of a new religion as the result of writing
> a holy book in your mother's basement. It takes real charisma to build a
> following.

If Romans haven't took Christianity for state religion, we would
probably never know about Jesus. What Charisma had Natalis Solus
Invicti, which is actually Christianity today. We don't know anything
about original Christianity...

>
> Mind you, some could say that Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard came close...
>
> My point was that while the Roman Catholic Church fairly quickly *became* a tool
> for controlling the people, it is somewhat unfair to claim that Christianity was
> created for that purpose from the very beginning.

Of course. Original Christianity is probably completely different from
Roman Sun cult we have today...

>
> Of course, absent anything supernatural, Jesus would still have been mistaken
> and misguided to some extent despite presenting inspiring moral truths. But it
> does not appear that he was of a piece with those who came after.
>
> John Savard

[David Brown]

On 06/12/17 07:36, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 2:12:21 AM UTC-7, David Brown wrote:
>> On 05/12/17 05:49, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>>> If Jesus had never walked the Earth, how would one explain the _existence_ of a
>>> Christian church in the first place?
>
>> And if Muhammad is not the true Prophet of God, how do you explain the
>> existence of Islam? If Buddha was not truly enlightened, how do you
>> explain the existence of Buddhism?
>
> I'm saying that there was likely a real person on whom the Gospel accounts were
> based - _not_ that this person was truly the Son of God.

Fair enough. There is still no requirement for Jesus to have existed as
a real person - at least not in the sense of "a man called Jesus who did
most of the non-supernatural things mentioned in the NT". Religions
don't need to be based on real people - they are based on /ideas/. The
time-gap between the (apparent) lifetime of the historical Jesus and the
earliest NT writings leaves plenty of scope for many layers of Chinese
whispers exaggerating, misunderstanding, misremembering, and conflating
between any real events and the descriptions in the Bible.

I am not saying that there was no real person on which the Gospel's were
based - merely that the historical evidence for him is far from
conclusive, and that it is /not/ necessary for such a person to have
existed at all in order for the Christian church to have arisen.

>
> Muhammad was a real historical person, but that the warring tribes of Arabia
> found it more profitable to band together and pillage everyone else is
> sufficient to explain the existence of Islam.

Indeed. We know a lot more about the historical person here than about
a historical Jesus - generally, war leaders leave more historical
evidence than local religious teachers.

>
> You can't expect to get elected Pope of a new religion as the result of writing
> a holy book in your mother's basement. It takes real charisma to build a
> following.

Yes, /now/ you do - because people expect a great deal more reality, as
we have far better communication and recording than they did two
thousand years ago.

Also note that Christianity was /not/ started by Jesus. It was started
by others. You can well argue that /Paul/ had to be a charismatic and
persuasive person - Jesus did not.

(Again, I am /not/ saying that Jesus was not a real and charismatic
person - merely that it is not a necessity to explain the existence of
the Christian religion.)

>
> Mind you, some could say that Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard came close...
>

Yes.

> My point was that while the Roman Catholic Church fairly quickly *became* a tool
> for controlling the people, it is somewhat unfair to claim that Christianity was
> created for that purpose from the very beginning.

I was not claiming that - and I agree with you here. But by the time
the Bible was being formed, the Roman Church was already a tool for
controlling people - and it was already suppressing the other varieties
of early Christianity and related religions. (I am not sure if there is
a specific definition of when a religion or philosophy is considered
"early Christianity", given that different groups had wildly different
concepts of Jesus and God.)

>
> Of course, absent anything supernatural, Jesus would still have been mistaken
> and misguided to some extent despite presenting inspiring moral truths. But it
> does not appear that he was of a piece with those who came after.
>

Agreed. "Love thy neighbour" is a fine idea, but the Catholic Church
did not take it very literally during the crusades! And the Jesus I
learned about from reading the Bible and talking to Christians would not
have been a big fan of Rick's crusades on Usenet. He would have told
Rick to stop throwing pearls before swine, and go and teach people who
want to listen.

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 2:53:07 AM UTC-7, David Brown wrote:

> I was not claiming that - and I agree with you here. But by the time
> the Bible was being formed, the Roman Church was already a tool for
> controlling people - and it was already suppressing the other varieties
> of early Christianity and related religions.

I think you mean the New Testament. The other part of it was around before
Christianity was a gleam in anyone's eye.

John Savard

[David Brown]

The particular choice of books for the Christian Bible's Old Testament
were also picked carefully by the early Roman Church. They are very
similar to, but not identical to, the books used by various Jewish
varieties of that time. The differences are both in the books chosen
for inclusion, the way they are divided, and details of the text. There
are also significant differences between Catholic, Protestant and
Orthodox Bibles.

So /most/ of the content of the OT was written and collected in Jewish
holy writings from before Jesus' time. You can read the Wikipedia
articles or other sources if you want to see the details.

However, I agree that the main effort of the Roman Church in forming the
Bible was in the New Testament. The Old Testament selection and
modification from the basic Jewish books was mostly as a way to "prove"
the desired characteristics of Jesus, by emphasising the prophecies that
could be interpreted as being fulfilled in Jesus, and omitting those
that could not.