Will jesus ever come back? www.Prediktor.net
Alex
talked about it for so many times..so as christians, what is your
prediktion? Do you think that the son of God will ever come back?
Please predict on www.prediktor.net.
Predict NOW. If your prediktion comes true, we will be the first to
tell Jesus Christ that you were the one who predicted his coming
correctly.
Steve O
> Will our beloved Jesus Christ ever come back? So many people have
> talked about it for so many times..so as christians, what is your
> prediktion? Do you think that the son of God will ever come back?
He was supposed to return along with the day of judgement within the
lifetimes of his disciples.
He didn't.
MR. GRAHAM
There are bible verses stating that Jesus had said not to call anyone a fool or
be punished with fire (in the lake of fire I assume) for eternity. Then he calls
people fools in someother verse. Jesus Christ = JC = Jefferson Clinton.
It is in the bible (KJV).
CDumont
"Steve O" <stob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1j0tv$1g01pd$1...@ID-136766.news.uni-berlin.de...
becomes a nation and a generation is 70 years, Judah became a nation in 1948
so he will return on or before the year 2018. God bless
David V.
> "Steve O" <stob...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> Alex wrote:
>>
>>> Will our beloved Jesus Christ ever come back? So many
>>> people have talked about it for so many times..so as
>>> christians, what is your prediktion? Do you think
>>> that the son of God will ever come back?
>>
>> He was supposed to return along with the day of
>> judgement within the lifetimes of his disciples. He
>> didn't.
>
> Jesus said he would return in the fig tree generation,
> thats when Judah becomes a nation and a generation is 70
> years, Judah became a nation in 1948 so he will return on
> or before the year 2018. God bless
First, the fig tree thing was only one year. And he told
(according to the myths) that he would be back within the
generation of those he was talking to. You really should
read the bible instead of worshiping it.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
SMChristenson
It's too bad the millennium-thumpers won't put all that money they swindle
from the clueless where their mouth is. Jesus coming in 20 years? Let's
put the bets in escrow and see who gets to keep it.
Dore
news:JY6dnTo2fLU...@sti.net...
> First, the fig tree thing was only one year. And he told
> (according to the myths) that he would be back within the
> generation of those he was talking to. You really should
> read the bible instead of worshiping it.
You read, but you do not understand, because you are still in sin and
darkness.
--
Dore
"David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JY6dnTo2fLU...@sti.net...
Dore
--
Dore
"Alex" <in...@beedance.com> wrote in message
news:217784d6.04022...@posting.google.com...
Jim Warren
wrote:
>I am already back!
Can you imagine what the neocons would do to him if he came back while
they were in power?
He is waiting unitl Hillary's second term.
-- Remove word virus from return address
Need new signature old one not good.
MR. GRAHAM
Jesus Christ is back, his name now is: William Jefferson Clinton; along with
all of the falsehoods, lies, atrocities, and screwups thereof!
Bob Crowley
Christ will come back, but no man knows the hour or the day. The only
clue we have is that it will be at a time when nobody expects it.
Bob Crowley.
David V.
>
> Christ will come back, but no man knows the hour or the
> day. The only clue we have is that it will be at a time
> when nobody expects it.
Bobby, if you had bothered to read, and understand, the
bible; you'd know that he was to return within a year of his
faked death.
Robibnikoff
>
>I am already back!
Shut up, you loon.
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
Libertarius
TehGhodTrole
> The same time Julius Caesar comes back.
No. A short while after.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
TehGhodTrole
> The same time Julius Caesar comes back.
Or maybe you meant Nero?
David V.
> Libertarius wrote:
>
>>The same time Julius Caesar comes back.
>
> No. A short while after.
I heard when Jesus and Julius are together, Jesus comes first.
Libertarius
TehGhodTrole wrote:
> Libertarius wrote:
> > The same time Julius Caesar comes back.
>
> No. A short while after.
How long is a "while"???
How long is a "short while"???
Libertarius
TehGhodTrole wrote:
> Libertarius wrote:
> > The same time Julius Caesar comes back.
>
> Or maybe you meant Nero?
===>No, I did not mean Nero.
Did you?
Libertarius
"David V." wrote:
> TehGhodTrole wrote:
> > Libertarius wrote:
> >
> >>The same time Julius Caesar comes back.
> >
> > No. A short while after.
>
> I heard when Jesus and Julius are together, Jesus comes first.
===>True. It is AUGUSTUS that comes after Julius.
TehGhodTrole
Why woild I mean Nero when I was asking you if you did?
MR. GRAHAM
You know some Christian parents might not allow their young children
to watch violence movies, but will read to them some story about an
infant being turned into fillet minion, and eaten, or whatever to a
five year old!
Bob Crowley
> Bob Crowley wrote:
> >
> > Christ will come back, but no man knows the hour or the
> > day. The only clue we have is that it will be at a time
> > when nobody expects it.
>
> Bobby, if you had bothered to read, and understand, the
> bible; you'd know that he was to return within a year of his
> faked death.
That's interesting, since none of the books of the New Testament were
written within a year of his death.
What I do know is that the crowd called down the guilt of His
crucifixion on their children and children's children. Pilate was
scared, his wife told him she suffered dreadfully in a dream because
of the man, the religious leaders hated him, the sky turned dark (at
least one Roman historian of the time noted it), the centurion was
awed.
And in the time of the children's children, the Romans came in and
more or less razed Jerusalem to the ground, so that of the temple not
one stone was left standing on another, other than today's wailing
wall. On a population basis, the percentage of Jews killed then
probably equalled or exceeded the Holocaust of Hitler.
It was another 1878 years or thereabouts before the ancient state of
Israel existed again.
Bob Crowley.
Libertarius
Bob Crowley wrote:
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Ocudnb206KK...@sti.net>...
> > Bob Crowley wrote:
> > >
> > > Christ will come back, but no man knows the hour or the
> > > day. The only clue we have is that it will be at a time
> > > when nobody expects it.
> >
> > Bobby, if you had bothered to read, and understand, the
> > bible; you'd know that he was to return within a year of his
> > faked death.
>
> That's interesting, since none of the books of the New Testament were
> written within a year of his death.
===>That is correct. DECADES after, following the fall of Jerusalem
and the spread of the Christos Cult of Gentile Christianity founded by
the self-proclaimed Roman, Saul/Paul of Tarsus. He took elements
from the ancient Pagan mystery religion, added a bit of Abrahamism,
and sold it to the credulous Pagans who were hoping they would never
die.
> What I do know is that the crowd called down the guilt of His
> crucifixion on their children and children's children. Pilate was
> scared, his wife told him she suffered dreadfully in a dream because
> of the man, the religious leaders hated him, the sky turned dark (at
> least one Roman historian of the time noted it), the centurion was
> awed.
===>You don't KNOW any of that!
You just read it in fictional stories about the execution of Jesus.
Do you believe every fairy tale you read?
> And in the time of the children's children, the Romans came in and
> more or less razed Jerusalem to the ground, so that of the temple not
> one stone was left standing on another, other than today's wailing
> wall. On a population basis, the percentage of Jews killed then
> probably equalled or exceeded the Holocaust of Hitler.
===>That is because of encouragement by people like Jesus
to resist the Roman occupation because the "Kngdom of God"
was coming. Did you not write "none of the books of the New Testament were
written within a year of his death"????
Those "predictions" and the "curse" on the "children's children" were
ALL WRITTEN AFTER THE FACT of the Jewish War of the 60's.
> It was another 1878 years or thereabouts before the ancient state of
> Israel existed again.
===>The "ancient state of Israel" NEVER "existed again" and never will.
Even the most orthodox Jews will tell you, it is NOT the real thing!
Libertarius
==============
Elroy Willis
> Bob Crowley wrote:
>> David V. <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>> Christ will come back, but no man knows the hour or the
>>>> day. The only clue we have is that it will be at a time
>>>> when nobody expects it.
>>> Bobby, if you had bothered to read, and understand, the
>>> bible; you'd know that he was to return within a year of his
>>> faked death.
>> That's interesting, since none of the books of the New Testament were
>> written within a year of his death.
> ===>That is correct. DECADES after, following the fall of Jerusalem
> and the spread of the Christos Cult of Gentile Christianity founded by
> the self-proclaimed Roman, Saul/Paul of Tarsus. He took elements
> from the ancient Pagan mystery religion, added a bit of Abrahamism,
> and sold it to the credulous Pagans who were hoping they would never
> die.
How many Pagan/Christians actually celebrated Passover or Yom
Kippur back then, within 200 or 300 years of Jesus' supposed death?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
David V.
>>
>>> Christ will come back, but no man knows the hour or
>>> the day. The only clue we have is that it will be at
>>> a time when nobody expects it.
>>
>> Bobby, if you had bothered to read, and understand, the
>> bible; you'd know that he was to return within a year
>> of his faked death.
>
> That's interesting, since none of the books of the New
> Testament were written within a year of his death.
Yes, further proof the book is full of shit.
> What I do know is that the crowd called down the guilt of
> His crucifixion on their children and children's
> children....
You do not know any of that since there were no witnesses
to write down what was said.
> It was another 1878 years or thereabouts before the
> ancient state of Israel existed again.
Then you admit the bible lied.
nobody
wrote:
>Bob Crowley wrote:
>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> Bob Crowley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Christ will come back, but no man knows the hour or
>>>> the day. The only clue we have is that it will be at
>>>> a time when nobody expects it.
It's wrong to assume that He ever left. Just because most people
have never seen Him, doesn't mean that He's not around.
Very soon everyone will see Him. He'll be on the world stage for a
long, long time.
http://www.share-international.org
David V.
>
>>>>Bob Crowley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Christ will come back, but no man knows the hour or
>>>>>the day. The only clue we have is that it will be at
>>>>>a time when nobody expects it.
>
> It's wrong to assume that He ever left.
It's wrong to assume he ever existed.
Libertarius
Elroy Willis wrote:
===>Probably NONE of them did.
Except for the original Jesus people under the leadership of his
brother James. Of course those were Jews, not Gentiles. Pagans
were not allowed in the Temple, so, Saul/Paul had them believe
that Jesus was the Passover Sacrifice, the "Lamb of God" for THEIR sins.
Which is silly, because the animal that carried people's sins was a GOAT,
and it was not even killed!
Either John the Baptizer or the author of the John Gospel was wrong,
because it was NOT a lamb that was supposed to "take away the sins"
of the people.
(SEE: John 1:29
The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said,
"Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"
So, it should have said "Behold the GOAT of God".) -- L.
Pastor Dave
>Bob Crowley wrote:
>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> Bob Crowley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Christ will come back, but no man knows the hour or
>>>> the day. The only clue we have is that it will be at
>>>> a time when nobody expects it.
>>>
>>> Bobby, if you had bothered to read, and understand, the
>>> bible; you'd know that he was to return within a year
>>> of his faked death.
>>
>> That's interesting, since none of the books of the New
>> Testament were written within a year of his death.
>
>Yes, further proof the book is full of shit.
That statement doesn't even come close to making sense.
The closer a historical text is to the event, the more
likely it is to be true and accurate.
>> What I do know is that the crowd called down the guilt of
>> His crucifixion on their children and children's
>> children....
>
>You do not know any of that since there were no witnesses
>to write down what was said.
And you will prove that how?
>> It was another 1878 years or thereabouts before the
>> ancient state of Israel existed again.
>
>Then you admit the bible lied.
He assumes that the prophecy was fulfilled in 1948. I
do not believe that.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Theistic evolutionists are out to please men,
rather than God. They claim to believe in a
virgin birth, people rising from the dead, water
turned into wine and yet, they don't believe that
God created the heaven and the earth in six literal
days, thereby making hypocrites of themselves. Why?
Because man says it isn't so and they would rather
try to please men, instead of choosing to believe
God and stand up for Him. Preachers who claim
theistic evolution are the biggest hypocrites of all
and are in the most danger. Why? Read Isaiah 9:16;
Jeremiah 23:1, 50:6. What do YOU stand for?
"...choose this day whom you will serve. ...as for
me and my house, we will serve the Lord." - Jos 24:15
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bob Crowley wrote:
>>
>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Bob Crowley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Christ will come back, but no man knows the hour
>>>>> or the day. The only clue we have is that it
>>>>> will be at a time when nobody expects it.
>>>>
>>>> Bobby, if you had bothered to read, and understand,
>>>> the bible; you'd know that he was to return within
>>>> a year of his faked death.
>>>
>>> That's interesting, since none of the books of the
>>> New Testament were written within a year of his
>>> death.
>>
>> Yes, further proof the book is full of shit.
>
> That statement doesn't even come close to making sense.
> The closer a historical text is to the event, the more
> likely it is to be true and accurate.
That's right and since whatever is in the bible was written
about 100 years or more AFTER the fact, it is highly
unlikely that anything in there is true.
>>> What I do know is that the crowd called down the
>>> guilt of His crucifixion on their children and
>>> children's children....
>>
>> You do not know any of that since there were no
>> witnesses to write down what was said.
>
> And you will prove that how?
With the fact that there are no witnesses that wrote
anything. If there are you are the one that needs to do the
proving.
>>> It was another 1878 years or thereabouts before the
>>> ancient state of Israel existed again.
>>
>> Then you admit the bible lied.
>
> He assumes that the prophecy was fulfilled in 1948. I do
> not believe that.
No, only a fool would believe any of the "prophecy" in the
bible or anywhere else.
duke
>How many Pagan/Christians actually celebrated Passover or Yom
>Kippur back then, within 200 or 300 years of Jesus' supposed death?
Libby has no idea. Why ask him?
J.R.
There were 5, and they were passed over.
virtual-guru
The father of Jesus is back:KRISHNA!!!!!
By chanting:
HARE KRISHNA HARE KRISHNA KRISHNA KRISHNA HARE HARE
HARE RAMA HARE RAMA RAMA RAMA HARE HARE......
YOU'LL get purified and go back to Jesus....
Abdul Qayoom
__________________________________________________________________________
Yes, Esa(Jesus) will come near dooms day.
He hasn't died. Allah has changed one of his(Esa) enemies face as of
Esa. All other enemies thought, he is Esa(jesus) and killed him. Esa
has been taken up on to the Sky by the Angels. Allah has said in the
Quran, Esa will be sent on this planet again.
________________________________________________________________________
Bob Crowley
> Bob Crowley wrote:
>
>
> ===>That is correct. DECADES after, following the fall of Jerusalem
> and the spread of the Christos Cult of Gentile Christianity founded by
> the self-proclaimed Roman, Saul/Paul of Tarsus. He took elements
> from the ancient Pagan mystery religion, added a bit of Abrahamism,
> and sold it to the credulous Pagans who were hoping they would never
> die.
>
the earliest copies have been lost anyway. In those days "oral
tradition" counted for a lot more reliability than it does today, with
our reliance on the printed word.
> > What I do know is that the crowd called down the guilt of His
> > crucifixion on their children and children's children. Pilate was
> > scared, his wife told him she suffered dreadfully in a dream because
> > of the man, the religious leaders hated him, the sky turned dark (at
> > least one Roman historian of the time noted it), the centurion was
> > awed.
>
> ===>You don't KNOW any of that!
> You just read it in fictional stories about the execution of Jesus.
> Do you believe every fairy tale you read?
"Fictional" stories is merely your opinion, in the face of a great
deal of scholarship on these stories. They are not fiction, except to
those who WANT to believe they are fiction.
> > And in the time of the children's children, the Romans came in and
> > more or less razed Jerusalem to the ground, so that of the temple not
> > one stone was left standing on another, other than today's wailing
> > wall. On a population basis, the percentage of Jews killed then
> > probably equalled or exceeded the Holocaust of Hitler.
>
> ===>That is because of encouragement by people like Jesus
> to resist the Roman occupation because the "Kngdom of God"
> was coming. Did you not write "none of the books of the New Testament were
> written within a year of his death"????
> Those "predictions" and the "curse" on the "children's children" were
> ALL WRITTEN AFTER THE FACT of the Jewish War of the 60's.
Christ made a real point of keeping out of politics, and if you wanted
an example of an agitator, you would be better looking at Judas the
Zealot.
As for the Gospels being written after the destruction of Jerusalem
and the Temple, yet not even mentioning them, let's take a more modern
time frame.
Suppose Christ had been around in Germany about 40 years before WWI,
and made the claim that of the synagogues not one stone would be left
standing on another. This is transmitted orally, but not written down
until after the War and the Holocaust. Yet despite the fact the
writer is a Jew born and bred, he makes no mention whatsoever of the
Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews were done to death. How many films
have been made of the event, let alone books written?
You people really stretch credibility at times. Any rationalisation
will do for you.
> > It was another 1878 years or thereabouts before the ancient state of
> > Israel existed again.
>
> ===>The "ancient state of Israel" NEVER "existed again" and never will.
> Even the most orthodox Jews will tell you, it is NOT the real thing!
We'll call it Gluckenheimen then. The Stern Gang had no resemblance
to the Zealots, other than cutting British throats rather than Roman,
and the wars of Israel bear only passing resemblance to their earlier
efforts to maintain national sovereignity against their enemies.
Gluckenheimen may not be the real thing, but the orthodox Jews don't
seem to mind living there, or pushing for settlements.
Bob Crowley.
Pastor Dave
<sp...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Crowley wrote:
>>>
>>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Crowley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Christ will come back, but no man knows the hour
>>>>>> or the day. The only clue we have is that it
>>>>>> will be at a time when nobody expects it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bobby, if you had bothered to read, and understand,
>>>>> the bible; you'd know that he was to return within
>>>>> a year of his faked death.
>>>>
>>>> That's interesting, since none of the books of the
>>>> New Testament were written within a year of his
>>>> death.
>>>
>>> Yes, further proof the book is full of shit.
>>
>> That statement doesn't even come close to making sense.
>> The closer a historical text is to the event, the more
>> likely it is to be true and accurate.
>
>That's right and since whatever is in the bible was written
>about 100 years or more AFTER the fact, it is highly
>unlikely that anything in there is true.
Even if that were true, that still places it closer to
the time than almost any other historical text. But
you are still left with the dilemma of trying to prove
that. So do so.
>>>> What I do know is that the crowd called down the
>>>> guilt of His crucifixion on their children and
>>>> children's children....
>>>
>>> You do not know any of that since there were no
>>> witnesses to write down what was said.
>>
>> And you will prove that how?
>
>With the fact that there are no witnesses that wrote
>anything. If there are you are the one that needs to do the
>proving.
I see. You think claiming it twice makes it fact.
>>>> It was another 1878 years or thereabouts before the
>>>> ancient state of Israel existed again.
>>>
>>> Then you admit the bible lied.
>>
>> He assumes that the prophecy was fulfilled in 1948. I do
>> not believe that.
>
>No, only a fool would believe any of the "prophecy" in the
>bible or anywhere else.
That is a truth claim. Prove it.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/evolutio.html
Elroy Willis
And that happened during Yom Kippur, not Passover, iirc.
But there were still animal sacrifices that the priests said would
take away sins, despite the Yom Kippur festival and its scapegoat.
I read one idea a while ago, which said that the Gospels, and even
the supposed "letters of Paul," were written AFTER the destruction
of the second temple in Jerusalem. Having been written after the
fact, it was possible to make it look like it was the "will of God"
that the temple was destroyed. But what was to become of all
the animal sacrifices that were going on in the second temple?
Instead of people bringing cattle to the temple, they bring money,
and drop it in the collection plate, and then the priests can buy meat
with it, and whatever else they want. It was actually required that
they bring at least something to the temple, in the form of a tithe
or tax or animal.
Jesus wafers and wine, meant to symbolize the previous animal
meat and blood that the priests had to deal with, replaced the
idea that sprinkling blood around on some altar by the priests
would take away sins. Then came the "transubstantiation" idea,
and that by chanting some magic incantations over some Jesus
wafers and wine, they were actually turned them into the actual blood
and body of Jesus. That idea was laughed out of town in many places
and by many people who realized what a crock it was.
If the stories about the second temple are true, during passover,
it would have required over 3,000 priests/butchers to slaughter all
the animals that people brought to the temple. What happened to all
those butchers after the temple was destroyed, and were there
actually so many priests/butchers there, really? Hmm...
It sounds like it might be another tall tale to me, just like the one
found here:
1 Kings 8:5
"and King Solomon and the entire assembly of Israel that had gathered
about him were before the ark, sacrificing so many sheep and cattle
that they could not be recorded or counted."
What do you make of the lack of a place to sacrifice animals to the
Jewish god? Do you think some of the Jewish priests started
collaborating with the Romans in order to create a new idea that would
require people to still come to the churches to pay tithes?
I notice that some Jewish people actually approve of re-instating
animal sacrifices should a third Jewish temple be built. They say
that since Jesus wasn't an acceptable sacrifice, that the animal
sacrifices should start up again. Many Jews seem to be embarrassed
by the idea, and against it, calling it superstitious.
David V.
> Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote
>> You just read it in fictional stories about the
>> execution of Jesus. Do you believe every fairy tale you
>> read?
>
> "Fictional" stories is merely your opinion, in the face
> of a great deal of scholarship on these stories. They
> are not fiction, except to those who WANT to believe they
> are fiction.
The "great deal of scholarship" has been on interpreting
them, NOT on their veracity. Just stating that it's "your
opinion" does not make what he had to say invalid. There is
no choice in this matter. Looking at all the evidence; those
stories are fiction.
David V.
It is true.
> that still places it closer to the time than almost any
> other historical text.
100 years isn't close.
> But you are still left with the dilemma of trying to
> prove that. So do so.
Uh... no. You bear the burden of proof. You claim they are
historically accurate, you have to prove it. Attempting to
shift the burden of proof, like you are, is dishonest.
>>>>> What I do know is that the crowd called down the
>>>>> guilt of His crucifixion on their children and
>>>>> children's children....
>>>>
>>>> You do not know any of that since there were no
>>>> witnesses to write down what was said.
>>>
>>> And you will prove that how?
>>
>> With the fact that there are no witnesses that wrote
>> anything. If there are you are the one that needs to do
>> the proving.
>
> I see. You think claiming it twice makes it fact.
Yet you offer no proof, it's your burden anyway, to back up
anything you've claimed.
>>>>> It was another 1878 years or thereabouts before
>>>>> the ancient state of Israel existed again.
>>>>
>>>> Then you admit the bible lied.
>>>
>>> He assumes that the prophecy was fulfilled in 1948.
>>> I do not believe that.
>>
>> No, only a fool would believe any of the "prophecy" in
>> the bible or anywhere else.
>
> That is a truth claim. Prove it.
You believe it.
Libertarius
Bob Crowley wrote:
> Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<404204E2.8144B39@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
> > Bob Crowley wrote:
> >
> >
> > ===>That is correct. DECADES after, following the fall of Jerusalem
> > and the spread of the Christos Cult of Gentile Christianity founded by
> > the self-proclaimed Roman, Saul/Paul of Tarsus. He took elements
> > from the ancient Pagan mystery religion, added a bit of Abrahamism,
> > and sold it to the credulous Pagans who were hoping they would never
> > die.
> >
> We don't know exactly when they were written, since the chances are
> the earliest copies have been lost anyway. In those days "oral
> tradition" counted for a lot more reliability than it does today, with
> our reliance on the printed word.
>
> > > What I do know is that the crowd called down the guilt of His
> > > crucifixion on their children and children's children. Pilate was
> > > scared, his wife told him she suffered dreadfully in a dream because
> > > of the man, the religious leaders hated him, the sky turned dark (at
> > > least one Roman historian of the time noted it), the centurion was
> > > awed.
> >
> > ===>You don't KNOW any of that!
>
> > You just read it in fictional stories about the execution of Jesus.
> > Do you believe every fairy tale you read?
>
> "Fictional" stories is merely your opinion, in the face of a great
> deal of scholarship on these stories.
===>You can choose to believe that about anything.
Even the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm.
> They are not fiction, except to
> those who WANT to believe they are fiction.
===>Most people in this world know the difference.
The Gospels are FICTION. They don't even agree with one another.
> > > And in the time of the children's children, the Romans came in and
> > > more or less razed Jerusalem to the ground, so that of the temple not
> > > one stone was left standing on another, other than today's wailing
> > > wall. On a population basis, the percentage of Jews killed then
> > > probably equalled or exceeded the Holocaust of Hitler.
> >
> > ===>That is because of encouragement by people like Jesus
> > to resist the Roman occupation because the "Kngdom of God"
> > was coming. Did you not write "none of the books of the New Testament were
> > written within a year of his death"????
> > Those "predictions" and the "curse" on the "children's children" were
> > ALL WRITTEN AFTER THE FACT of the Jewish War of the 60's.
>
> Christ made a real point
===>"Christ" did NOTHING.
Are you referring to the Jesus character in the Gospel stories?
> of keeping out of politics,
===>Politics and religion were inseparable, and still are in many parts of
the world. See the new proposal for the Iraqi Constitution.
> and if you wanted
> an example of an agitator, you would be better looking at Judas the
> Zealot.
===>Judas the Zealot? Do you mean the Galilean or the Sicarius?
Indeed, they were both "agitators", so were John the Baptizer and
his disciple Jesus the Nazorean. -- L.
Pastor Dave
<sp...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
You made a claim. I responded to it. You are
attempting to shift the burden of proof. But that does
not surprise me.
>>>>>> What I do know is that the crowd called down the
>>>>>> guilt of His crucifixion on their children and
>>>>>> children's children....
>>>>>
>>>>> You do not know any of that since there were no
>>>>> witnesses to write down what was said.
>>>>
>>>> And you will prove that how?
>>>
>>> With the fact that there are no witnesses that wrote
>>> anything. If there are you are the one that needs to do
>>> the proving.
>>
>> I see. You think claiming it twice makes it fact.
>
>Yet you offer no proof, it's your burden anyway, to back up
>anything you've claimed.
>
>>>>>> It was another 1878 years or thereabouts before
>>>>>> the ancient state of Israel existed again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you admit the bible lied.
>>>>
>>>> He assumes that the prophecy was fulfilled in 1948.
>>>> I do not believe that.
>>>
>>> No, only a fool would believe any of the "prophecy" in
>>> the bible or anywhere else.
>>
>> That is a truth claim. Prove it.
>
>You believe it.
See above.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
http://www.delusionresistance.org/creation/christ_scientific_creation.html
David V.
>
> You made a claim.
Which was in response to your fallacious claims. You still
carry the burden of proof. Lying won't get you out of it.
Pastor Dave
<sp...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>> You made a claim.
>
>Which was in response to your fallacious claims. You still
>carry the burden of proof. Lying won't get you out of it.
That's a lie. You mad the following claims...
1) Yes, further proof the book is full of shit.
2) You do not know any of that since there were no
witnesses to write down what was said.
3) Then you admit the bible lied.
None of these claims were in response to what I said,
but rather, you were addressing someone else and made
claims.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"The real mark of someone who wants to know the Truth
is not that they expect others to prove it to them,
but that they seek after it themselves." - Chayil
David V.
>>
>>> You made a claim.
>>
>> Which was in response to your fallacious claims. You
>> still carry the burden of proof. Lying won't get you
>> out of it.
>
> That's a lie.
It is not. You carry the burden of proof. Either provide
that proof or shut up.
nobody
wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:50:29 -0600, nobody <no--...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>>>> Christ will come back, but no man knows the hour or
>>>>>> the day. The only clue we have is that it will be at
>>>>>> a time when nobody expects it.
>>
>>
>>
>>It's wrong to assume that He ever left. Just because most people
>>have never seen Him, doesn't mean that He's not around.
>>
>>Very soon everyone will see Him. He'll be on the world stage for a
>>long, long time.
>
>He's invisible?
Only when He wants to be, which is much of the time. For those who
have seen Him or been touched by Him, there's not a gram of doubt.
>
>How grown people can into this stuff, I'll never know.
Isn't it funny that some people conclude that just because they've
never seen someone, that 'that someone' can not possibly exist?
Most also assume that since the physical plane is the only plane
that they can see, that it must be the only one.
I think that's called 'narrowmindedness'.
http://www.share-international.org
it's NOT about religion - it's about the human family moving from a
dysfunctional mode to a functional one... and lots of L O V E sweet
L O V E
David V.
> W.Syme <w.syme....@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> nobody <no--...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Christ will come back, but no man knows the
>>>>>>> hour or the day. The only clue we have is
>>>>>>> that it will be at a time when nobody expects
>>>>>>> it.
>>>
>>> It's wrong to assume that He ever left. Just
>>> because most people have never seen Him, doesn't mean
>>> that He's not around.
>>>
>>> Very soon everyone will see Him. He'll be on the
>>> world stage for a long, long time.
>>
>> He's invisible?
>
> Only when He wants to be, which is much of the time.
Why would a god want to hide?
> For those who have seen Him or been touched by Him,
> there's not a gram of doubt.
Right; it's called a psychosis.
>> How grown people can into this stuff, I'll never know.
>>
>
> Isn't it funny that some people conclude that just
> because they've never seen someone, that 'that someone'
> can not possibly exist?
No one has seen "him" because it doesn't exist. There is no
reason to believe just like there is no reason to believe
the Great Pumpkin exists.
> Most also assume that since the physical plane is the
> only plane that they can see, that it must be the only
> one.
There is no reason to believe there is any other "plane".
> I think that's called 'narrowmindedness'.
No, it's called rational thinking. That's something
christians cannot do.
dude
wrote:
http://www.ecornucopia.com
Knowledge should not operate in a vacuum!!!
Thomas P.
wrote:
>On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 13:22:56 GMT, W.Syme <w.syme....@hotpop.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:50:29 -0600, nobody <no--...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Christ will come back, but no man knows the hour or
>>>>>>> the day. The only clue we have is that it will be at
>>>>>>> a time when nobody expects it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>It's wrong to assume that He ever left. Just because most people
>>>have never seen Him, doesn't mean that He's not around.
>>>
>>>Very soon everyone will see Him. He'll be on the world stage for a
>>>long, long time.
>>
>>He's invisible?
>
>
>Only when He wants to be, which is much of the time. For those who
>have seen Him or been touched by Him, there's not a gram of doubt.
Then it would be his responsibility if I do not believe in him.
>
>
>>
>>How grown people can into this stuff, I'll never know.
>
>Isn't it funny that some people conclude that just because they've
>never seen someone, that 'that someone' can not possibly exist?
>Most also assume that since the physical plane is the only plane
>that they can see, that it must be the only one.
>
>I think that's called 'narrowmindedness'.
Not believing in something for which there is no evidence and is
totally unlike anything ever experienced before is not being narrow
minded. It is a totally rational position.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
RH
<snip>
> >>
> >>>>>>> Christ will come back, but no man knows the hour or
> >>>>>>> the day. The only clue we have is that it will be at
> >>>>>>> a time when nobody expects it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It's wrong to assume that He ever left. Just because most people
> >>>have never seen Him, doesn't mean that He's not around.
> >>>
> >>>Very soon everyone will see Him. He'll be on the world stage for a
> >>>long, long time.
> >>
> >>He's invisible?
> >
> >
>
> >Only when He wants to be, which is much of the time. For those who
> >have seen Him or been touched by Him, there's not a gram of doubt.
>
> Then it would be his responsibility if I do not believe in him.
It doesn't really matter who you believe in, but of course life is
much more pleasant if you at least believe in yourself and others.
Lots of today's athiests were extremist christians in their last
incarnation - and have now returned at the other extreme to balance it
out a bit. Religion is a help to some and a hindrance to others.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>How grown people can into this stuff, I'll never know.
> >
>
> >Isn't it funny that some people conclude that just because they've
> >never seen someone, that 'that someone' can not possibly exist?
> >Most also assume that since the physical plane is the only plane
> >that they can see, that it must be the only one.
> >
> >I think that's called 'narrowmindedness'.
>
> Not believing in something for which there is no evidence and is
> totally unlike anything ever experienced before is not being narrow
> minded. It is a totally rational position.
Yes that's true. Makes me think of natives who've never left their
rainforest and have had no contact with the outside world. It's
totally rational for them not to believe in computers, telephones,
televisions, etc. They have no reason or need to believe in them.
There would be no point to it.
One absurd lie that comes from Christianity is that you have to
believe.... that if you don't, you're no good and you'll be cast into
a fiery pit and have devils torturing you for allllll eeeeterniteeee.
I think we'll see that Jesus and the Masters have (and will encourage
everyone to have) unconditional love for everyone. They won't be
trying to frighten anyone into believing anything by telling them
about any fiery pits.
Speaking of devils, the white house does seem to be full of miserable
devils these days -such a hellish place... where national "leaders"
recently lied to the world about "massive stockpiles of WMDs", to
justify an immoral invasion where ~10,000 civilians were slaughtered.
Now the same liars
are singing another bs song about not kidnapping a democratically
elected president of a sovereign nation and our news media is
regurgitating their spin.
Pretty soon though, all the major SOBs will have great falls and all
the kings horses and all of their men, will not want to, nor will they
be able to get the sorry crappers up again. The power belongs to the
people, not to warmongering liars.
Cheers,
RH
;-)
"Man must change or die. There is no other course."
The World Teacher
http://www.share-international.org
Thomas P.
>Thomas P. <tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
><snip>
>
>> >>
>> >>>>>>> Christ will come back, but no man knows the hour or
>> >>>>>>> the day. The only clue we have is that it will be at
>> >>>>>>> a time when nobody expects it.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>It's wrong to assume that He ever left. Just because most people
>> >>>have never seen Him, doesn't mean that He's not around.
>> >>>
>> >>>Very soon everyone will see Him. He'll be on the world stage for a
>> >>>long, long time.
>> >>
>> >>He's invisible?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> >Only when He wants to be, which is much of the time. For those who
>> >have seen Him or been touched by Him, there's not a gram of doubt.
>>
>> Then it would be his responsibility if I do not believe in him.
>
>
>It doesn't really matter who you believe in, but of course life is
>much more pleasant if you at least believe in yourself and others.
>Lots of today's athiests were extremist christians in their last
>incarnation - and have now returned at the other extreme to balance it
>out a bit. Religion is a help to some and a hindrance to others.
Reality can be a help. I recommend trying it.
snip
Bob Crowley
>
>
> Reality can be a help. I recommend trying it.
>
> snip
>
>
> Thomas P.
>
> None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
> "But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Reality includes a Catholic Church 2000 years old with about 1 billion
Catholics. There are probably about half that number or more again
of Protestant and Orthodox Christians. All based on a myth, according
to you. I don't believe in Islam, but it had a founder, Mohammed. I
am not a Buddhist, but it had a founder, the Buddha. I am not a
Communist, but it had it's intellectual beginnings in Karl Marx.
These movements have authors. The authors exist. Which one is true
will depend in the end on just what the Ultimate Reality is.
And we not be absolutely sure of that until the day we die, when we
will either become nothing more than disembodied elements, or
something else.
Bob Crowley.
David V.
>>
>> snip
>>
>> before. "But he has got nothing on," said a little
>> child.
>
> Reality includes a Catholic Church 2000 years old with
> about 1 billion Catholics.
A billion people can be wrong, and in this case; they are.
Thomas P.
wrote:
>Thomas P. <tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<uksd409mchtcnjsrd...@4ax.com>...
>>
>>
>> Reality can be a help. I recommend trying it.
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>> Thomas P.
>>
>> None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
>> "But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
>
>Reality includes a Catholic Church 2000 years old with about 1 billion
>Catholics. There are probably about half that number or more again
>of Protestant and Orthodox Christians.
So what?
>All based on a myth, according
>to you.
Why not? It has all the earmarks of myth.
> I don't believe in Islam, but it had a founder, Mohammed. I
>am not a Buddhist, but it had a founder, the Buddha. I am not a
>Communist, but it had it's intellectual beginnings in Karl Marx.
You seem to think that that is very important (ignoring whether or not
you are actually right in each and every case). It is beyond me why
you would think sol
>
>These movements have authors. The authors exist. Which one is true
>will depend in the end on just what the Ultimate Reality is.
Why would any one of them be "true" whatever that means and whatever
"Ultimate Reality" means.
>
>And we not be absolutely sure of that until the day we die, when we
>will either become nothing more than disembodied elements, or
>something else.
And we are to conclude from that - what?
Mr. Peterborough
>
> It's wrong to assume he ever existed.
He did. I was in the vicinity at that time.
Mr. Peterborough
Well, tell that to the kids I send to hunt for the great pumpkin.
Mr. Peterborough
>
> The "great deal of scholarship" has been on interpreting
> them, NOT on their veracity. Just stating that it's "your
> opinion" does not make what he had to say invalid. There is
> no choice in this matter. Looking at all the evidence; those
> stories are fiction.
No, they are not. I was around when those stories were written, even before then.
Michelle Malkin
"Mr. Peterborough" <highle...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:a5676bf8.04030...@posting.google.com...
Hey, Methusalah! How ya been?
duke
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>===>That is correct. DECADES after, following the fall of Jerusalem
>and the spread of the Christos Cult of Gentile Christianity founded by
>the self-proclaimed Roman, Saul/Paul of Tarsus. He took elements
>from the ancient Pagan mystery religion, added a bit of Abrahamism,
>and sold it to the credulous Pagans who were hoping they would never
>die.
There were others that wrote before Paul.
You profession is not new, and neither is the research rejection of it not new.
>===>You don't KNOW any of that!
>You just read it in fictional stories about the execution of Jesus.
>Do you believe every fairy tale you read?
You do.
Libertarius
duke wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 08:27:30 -0700, Libertarius
> <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>
> >===>That is correct. DECADES after, following the fall of Jerusalem
> >and the spread of the Christos Cult of Gentile Christianity founded by
> >the self-proclaimed Roman, Saul/Paul of Tarsus. He took elements
> >from the ancient Pagan mystery religion, added a bit of Abrahamism,
> >and sold it to the credulous Pagans who were hoping they would never
> >die.
>
> There were others that wrote before Paul.
===>REALLY?
Name one or keep silent. -- L.
Libertarius
Michelle Malkin wrote:
===>(It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
De t'ings dat yo' li'ble to read in de Bible
It ain't necessarily so)
Methus'lah lived nine hundred years
Methus'lah lived nine hundred years
But who calls dat livin' when no gal'll give in
To no man what's nine hundred years
I'm preachin' dis sermon to show
It ain't nessa, ain't nessa
Ain't nessa, ain't nessa
It ain't necessarily so.
(From Porgy and Bess
ARTIST: George Gershwin
TITLE: It Ain't Necessarily So
Lyrics) -- L.
duke
wrote:
>> There were others that wrote before Paul.
>===>REALLY?
>Name one or keep silent. -- L.
Names are not important. Paul couldn't fabricate his epistles without being in
tune with all peoples of Christianity at the time.
Libertarius
duke wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 16:04:04 GMT, Libertarius <Libetarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth>
> wrote:
>
> >> There were others that wrote before Paul.
>
> >===>REALLY?
> >Name one or keep silent. -- L.
>
> Names are not important.
===>Then you LIED AGAIN,
claiming "There were others that wrote before Paul."
> Paul couldn't fabricate his epistles without being in
> tune with all peoples of Christianity at the time.
===>"What do you mean by "fabricate"???
You have it all backward.
He CREATED "Christianity". "Christians" were HIS followers, worshippers
of his new-fangled savior god CHRISTOS. By definition his letters were written
to his converts. And it is clear from his letters that not even his own converts
were always "in tune" with his version of "the gospel". -- L.
duke
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>===>Then you LIED AGAIN,
>claiming "There were others that wrote before Paul."
Of course not. The whole OT which prophesied the coming of the Messiah was
written before Paul
You really are weak on biblical events, aren't you.
>> Paul couldn't fabricate his epistles without being in
>> tune with all peoples of Christianity at the time.
>===>"What do you mean by "fabricate"???
>You have it all backward.
>He CREATED "Christianity". "Christians" were HIS followers, worshippers
>of his new-fangled savior god CHRISTOS. By definition his letters were written
>to his converts. And it is clear from his letters that not even his own converts
>were always "in tune" with his version of "the gospel". -- L.
Of course not, silly - it's the whole basis of the old covenant and the OT.
Thank God for the almost 99% of
priests that are good priests.
Libertarius
duke wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 16:24:49 -0700, Libertarius
> <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>
> >===>Then you LIED AGAIN,
> >claiming "There were others that wrote before Paul."
>
> Of course not. The whole OT which prophesied the coming of the Messiah was
> written before Paul
===>BS-ing again, to cover your lie.
You OBVIOUSLY did NOT mean the OT writers, else
you would not have excused yourself by saying what you
so dishonestly deleted: "Names are not important"
Your response was to MY POINT: that Saul/Paul
"took elements from the ancient Pagan mystery religion,
added a bit of Abrahamism, and sold it to the credulous
Pagans who were hoping they would never die."
It was to THIS that you replied:
"There were others that wrote before Paul."
WHAT "OT" AUTHORS
"took elements from the ancient Pagan mystery religion,
added a bit of Abrahamism, and sold it to the credulous
Pagans who were hoping they would never die"???
> You really are weak on biblical events, aren't you.
===>WHAT "biblical events"???
Yo keep making that stupid statement without any
foundation.
> >> Paul couldn't fabricate his epistles without being in
> >> tune with all peoples of Christianity at the time.
>
> >===>"What do you mean by "fabricate"???
> >You have it all backward.
> >He CREATED "Christianity". "Christians" were HIS followers, worshippers
> >of his new-fangled savior god CHRISTOS. By definition his letters were written
> >to his converts. And it is clear from his letters that not even his own converts
> >were always "in tune" with his version of "the gospel". -- L.
>
> Of course not, silly - it's the whole basis of the old covenant and the OT.
===>WHAT is "the whole basis of the old covenant and the OT"???
Saul/Paul's mystery cult???
duke
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>> Of course not. The whole OT which prophesied the coming of the Messiah was
>> written before Paul
>===>BS-ing again, to cover your lie.
>You OBVIOUSLY did NOT mean the OT writers, else
>you would not have excused yourself by saying what you
>so dishonestly deleted: "Names are not important"
How do you know what I meant. You see what I said, and you are a fool once
again.
>Your response was to MY POINT: that Saul/Paul
>"took elements from the ancient Pagan mystery religion,
>added a bit of Abrahamism, and sold it to the credulous
>Pagans who were hoping they would never die."
You still don't get it, do you?. Christ **is** the prophecy of the OT. Judean
belief was for a warrior king forever giving them the promised land (sound
familiar in current events, doesn't it) and instead God sent himself as a lover
of mankind.
>> You really are weak on biblical events, aren't you.
>===>WHAT "biblical events"???
>Yo keep making that stupid statement without any
>foundation.
All of them. You don't know what the bible says. You read it like you read a
Harry Potter book.
>===>WHAT is "the whole basis of the old covenant and the OT"???
>Saul/Paul's mystery cult???
The Messiah.
duke-
Libertarius
duke wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 21:39:41 -0700, Libertarius
> <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>
> >> Of course not. The whole OT which prophesied the coming of the Messiah was
> >> written before Paul
>
> >===>BS-ing again, to cover your lie.
> >You OBVIOUSLY did NOT mean the OT writers, else
> >you would not have excused yourself by saying what you
> >so dishonestly deleted: "Names are not important"
>
> How do you know what I meant. You see what I said, and you are a fool once
> again.
>
> >Your response was to MY POINT: that Saul/Paul
> >"took elements from the ancient Pagan mystery religion,
> >added a bit of Abrahamism, and sold it to the credulous
> >Pagans who were hoping they would never die."
>
> You still don't get it, do you?. Christ **is** the prophecy of the OT.
===>That is pure BOVINE EXCREMENT!
As much as he tried, the messianic prophecies were NOT
fulfilled by Jesus, proving that the god of the Romans was
much stronger!
> Judean
> belief was for a warrior king forever giving them the promised land
===>Yes, THAT was the prophecy.
> (sound
> familiar in current events, doesn't it) and instead God sent himself as a lover
> of mankind.
===>MORE MANURE.
He was just a MAN who WISHED to fulfill the prophecies and become
"King of the Jews". But the Romans had a different idea.
> >> You really are weak on biblical events, aren't you.
> >===>WHAT "biblical events"???
> >Yo keep making that stupid statement without any
> >foundation.
>
> All of them. You don't know what the bible says.
===>I know very well what the various authors compiled in the Bible
DO IN FACT say. What you THINK you know is the Christos-cultians
MISINTERPRETATION of everything written.
> You read it like you read a
> Harry Potter book.
===>This is the second time you refer to that book.
Is that what YOU are reading?
Must meet your intellectual level.
> >===>WHAT is "the whole basis of the old covenant and the OT"???
> >Saul/Paul's mystery cult???
>
> The Messiah.
> duke-
===>Jesus was NOT "the Messiah".
See a REAL "Messiah" referred to in Isaiah 45.
Now THERE indeed WAS a REAL ONE!
duke
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>> You still don't get it, do you?. Christ **is** the prophecy of the OT.
>===>That is pure BOVINE EXCREMENT!
Why so, libbie?
>As much as he tried, the messianic prophecies were NOT
>fulfilled by Jesus, proving that the god of the Romans was
>much stronger!
How do you know he isn't? Gosh, I've never seen one person say "no" to so much
as you do without so much as a hint of what is going on. You really are a sad
sack, libby.
>> Judean
>> belief was for a warrior king forever giving them the promised land
>===>Yes, THAT was the prophecy.
And God surprised them and went as a lover of mankind.
>> familiar in current events, doesn't it) and instead God sent himself as a lover
>> of mankind.
>===>MORE MANURE.
Why, libbie. Can't you honorably back up any of your words? No, I guess not.
>He was just a MAN who WISHED to fulfill the prophecies and become
>"King of the Jews". But the Romans had a different idea.
Sorry - Pilate washed his hands of the sordid mess. Even he was convinced that
Jesus didn't do anything.
>> >> You really are weak on biblical events, aren't you.
>> >===>WHAT "biblical events"???
>> >Yo keep making that stupid statement without any
>> >foundation.
>> All of them. You don't know what the bible says.
>===>I know very well what the various authors compiled in the Bible
>DO IN FACT say. What you THINK you know is the Christos-cultians
>MISINTERPRETATION of everything written.
But why are 2 billion people alive and well today convinced we're right, and a
few dozen like you think we're wrong?
>> You read it like you read a
>> Harry Potter book.
>===>This is the second time you refer to that book.
>Is that what YOU are reading?
>Must meet your intellectual level.
Nope, not me. And I don't see any reason you understand my context.
>> >===>WHAT is "the whole basis of the old covenant and the OT"???
>> >Saul/Paul's mystery cult???
>> The Messiah.
>===>Jesus was NOT "the Messiah".
Of course he is.
>See a REAL "Messiah" referred to in Isaiah 45.
>Now THERE indeed WAS a REAL ONE!
Jesus was that fulfillment.
duke-
*****
Thank God for the almost 99% of
priests that are good priests.
*****
Libertarius
duke wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 09:41:47 -0700, Libertarius
> <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>
> >> You still don't get it, do you?. Christ **is** the prophecy of the OT.
>
> >===>That is pure BOVINE EXCREMENT!
>
> Why so, libbie?
>
> >As much as he tried, the messianic prophecies were NOT
> >fulfilled by Jesus, proving that the god of the Romans was
> >much stronger!
>
> How do you know he isn't? Gosh, I've never seen one person say "no" to so much
> as you do without so much as a hint of what is going on. You really are a sad
> sack, libby.
>
> >> Judean
> >> belief was for a warrior king forever giving them the promised land
>
> >===>Yes, THAT was the prophecy.
>
> And God surprised them and went as a lover of mankind.
===>What "lover"???
One who said he did not come to bring peace but a sword?
One who ordered his men to sell their coats and buy a sword?
One who identified himself in a "parable" as an unwanted king
who said:
"But these enemies of mine,
who did not want me to reign over them,
bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Luke 19:27)
Ah, what "love"!!!
>
>
> >> familiar in current events, doesn't it) and instead God sent himself as a lover
> >> of mankind.
>
> >===>MORE MANURE.
>
> Why, libbie. Can't you honorably back up any of your words? No, I guess not.
>
> >He was just a MAN who WISHED to fulfill the prophecies and become
> >"King of the Jews". But the Romans had a different idea.
>
> Sorry - Pilate washed his hands of the sordid mess. Even he was convinced that
> Jesus didn't do anything.
===>Sure, sure, that is why he had the guy crucified with two of his fellow
revolutionary "bandits", with "KING OF THE JEWS" written on his cross!
>
>
> >> >> You really are weak on biblical events, aren't you.
> >> >===>WHAT "biblical events"???
> >> >Yo keep making that stupid statement without any
> >> >foundation.
> >> All of them. You don't know what the bible says.
>
> >===>I know very well what the various authors compiled in the Bible
> >DO IN FACT say. What you THINK you know is the Christos-cultians
> >MISINTERPRETATION of everything written.
>
> But why are 2 billion people alive and well today convinced we're right, and a
> few dozen like you think we're wrong?
===>WHAT A DELUSION!
That statistic is as valid as if you lumped all non-believers in Capitalism
into one category!
The whole rest of the world thinks you are wrong, i.e.
the OTHER 70% of the world's population!
Those 2 billion you mention consist of
"African Independent Churches (AICs), the Aglipayan
Church, Amish, Anglicans, Armenian Apostolic, Assemblies of God;
Baptists, Calvary Chapel, Catholics, Christadelphians, Christian Science,
the Community of Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
Coptic Christians, Eastern Orthodox churches, Ethiopian Orthodox,
Evangelicals, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Local Church,
Lutherans, Methodists, Nestorians, the New Apostolic Church, Pentecostals,
Plymouth Brethren, Presbyterians, the Salvation Army,
Seventh-Day Adventists, Shakers, Stone-Campbell churches
(Disciples of Christ; Churches of Christ; the "Christian Church and Churches of
Christ";
the International Church of Christ); Uniate churches, United Church of
Christ/Congregationalists,
the Unity Church, Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, Vineyard
churches and others. These groups exhibit varying degrees of similarity,
cooporation, communion, etc. with other groups.
None are known to consider all other Chrisian sub-groups to be equally valid."
(FROM: Major Religions of the World
Ranked by Number of Adherents
Last modified 6 September 2002.)
>
>
> >> You read it like you read a
> >> Harry Potter book.
>
> >===>This is the second time you refer to that book.
> >Is that what YOU are reading?
> >Must meet your intellectual level.
>
> Nope, not me. And I don't see any reason you understand my context.
I most certainly do: you lead a deluded life in a world of FICTION
> >> >===>WHAT is "the whole basis of the old covenant and the OT"???
> >> >Saul/Paul's mystery cult???
> >> The Messiah.
>
> >===>Jesus was NOT "the Messiah".
>
> Of course he is.
===>Only by applying the Humpty Dumpty Principle,
a word meaning whatever you want it to mean.
> >See a REAL "Messiah" referred to in Isaiah 45.
> >Now THERE indeed WAS a REAL ONE!
>
> Jesus was that fulfillment.
===>Fulfillment of WHAT????
You obviously have never read it!
THE REAL MESSIAH:
"Thus says Yahweh to his anointed [ANOINTED=MESSIAH]
to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held,
to subdue nations before him,
and I will loose the loins of kings;
to open the doors before him,
and the gates shall not be shut:
I will go before you,
and make the rough places smooth;
I will break in pieces the doors of brass,
and cut in sunder the bars of iron;
and I will give you the treasures of darkness,
and hidden riches of secret places,
that you may know that it is I, Yahweh,
who call you by your name, even the God of Israel"
etc.
Was Jesus the reincarnation of KING CYRUS???
You're NUTS! -- L.
Bob Crowley
Libertarius is correct in that he is expressing the Jewish belief of
today, and probably then, that the Messiah they were expecting was a
warrior king in the line of David, who would drive out their enemies.
However, the key word is "expecting". We can expect something, and
when it comes, it is not in the form we expected, so we are
disappointed and reject it.
Christ said that Jerusalem would suffer because "you did not recognise
the time of God's coming to you". In short their expectation was so
different from what they got, they failed to recognise Him.
Therefore Christians recognise Christ as the Messiah, the Jews did
not, and still do not, despite nearly 2000 years of terrible suffering
falling upon the children's children. The Romans began it, as a pagan
people, Christian nations continued it (which is a blot upon
Christendom), Moslem nations are antagonistic to Israel, and whereever
they go they seem to attract unfair persecution. Why?
I don't like the way God works sometimes, but perhaps the devil
detests Christians as Christ's people, and Jews because Christ was a
Jew, as were the apostles and Mary.
So if the devil exists, and is the Prince of this world, and Christ is
the Messiah, then logic should tell us that both Jews and Christians
will be persecuted, and the church divided whenever the devil can find
an excuse to do so, while seeming to make it God's will. He's not
called the Deceiver for nothing.
Bob Crowley.
Bob Crow
duke
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>> And God surprised them and went as a lover of mankind.
>===>What "lover"???
>One who said he did not come to bring peace but a sword?
>One who ordered his men to sell their coats and buy a sword?
>One who identified himself in a "parable" as an unwanted king
>who said:
>"But these enemies of mine,
>who did not want me to reign over them,
>bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Luke 19:27)
> Ah, what "love"!!!
I bring you a new commandment: "that you love one another as God loves you"
John 13:34
>> Sorry - Pilate washed his hands of the sordid mess. Even he was convinced that
>> Jesus didn't do anything.
>===>Sure, sure, that is why he had the guy crucified with two of his fellow
>revolutionary "bandits", with "KING OF THE JEWS" written on his cross!
Sure, sure - asking the Jews, they wanted Barabas.
>===>WHAT A DELUSION!
>That statistic is as valid as if you lumped all non-believers in Capitalism
>into one category!
Yet it's a true stat.
>The whole rest of the world thinks you are wrong, i.e.
>the OTHER 70% of the world's population!
We will become 100% of the world one day.
>Those 2 billion you mention consist of
>"African Independent Churches (AICs), the Aglipayan
>Church, Amish, Anglicans, Armenian Apostolic, Assemblies of God;
>Baptists, Calvary Chapel, Catholics, Christadelphians, Christian Science,
>the Community of Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
>Coptic Christians, Eastern Orthodox churches, Ethiopian Orthodox,
>Evangelicals, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Local Church,
>Lutherans, Methodists, Nestorians, the New Apostolic Church, Pentecostals,
>Plymouth Brethren, Presbyterians, the Salvation Army,
>Seventh-Day Adventists, Shakers, Stone-Campbell churches
>(Disciples of Christ; Churches of Christ; the "Christian Church and Churches of
>Christ";
>the International Church of Christ); Uniate churches, United Church of
>Christ/Congregationalists,
>the Unity Church, Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, Vineyard
>churches and others. These groups exhibit varying degrees of similarity,
>cooporation, communion, etc. with other groups.
>None are known to consider all other Chrisian sub-groups to be equally valid."
>(FROM: Major Religions of the World
>Ranked by Number of Adherents
>Last modified 6 September 2002.)
Are they not Christian? Do you know?
>> >> >===>WHAT is "the whole basis of the old covenant and the OT"???
>> >> >Saul/Paul's mystery cult???
>> >> The Messiah.
>> >===>Jesus was NOT "the Messiah".
>> Of course he is.
>===>Only by applying the Humpty Dumpty Principle,
>a word meaning whatever you want it to mean.
No, he is. He died on the cross, and on the better part of 3 days later, left
the tomb on his own accord.
>> >See a REAL "Messiah" referred to in Isaiah 45.
>> >Now THERE indeed WAS a REAL ONE!
>> Jesus was that fulfillment.
>===>Fulfillment of WHAT????
>You obviously have never read it!
The Messiah prophesied by the OT.
>THE REAL MESSIAH:
>"Thus says Yahweh to his anointed [ANOINTED=MESSIAH]
>to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held,
>to subdue nations before him,
love, not war
>and I will loose the loins of kings;
love, not war
>to open the doors before him,
Love not war.
>and the gates shall not be shut:
love not war
>I will go before you,
>and make the rough places smooth;
Love not war
>I will break in pieces the doors of brass,
>and cut in sunder the bars of iron;
Love not war.
>and I will give you the treasures of darkness,
>and hidden riches of secret places,
Love not war
>that you may know that it is I, Yahweh,
>who call you by your name, even the God of Israel"
>etc.
>Was Jesus the reincarnation of KING CYRUS???
>You're NUTS! -- L.
Love not war, libby.
Libertarius
Bob Crowley wrote:
===>That was the belief of Jesus, his master John the Baptizer,
and all of their followers, known as EBIONIM, NAZOREANS, ZEALOTS,
etc., as shown even in the underlying text of the highly edited and
Christianized book of APOCALYPSE ("Revelation").
All else is the invention of Saul/Paul of Tarsus and his cult of the sacrificed
savior god CHRISTOS.
>
> However, the key word is "expecting". We can expect something, and
> when it comes, it is not in the form we expected, so we are
> disappointed and reject it.
>
> Christ said that Jerusalem would suffer because "you did not recognise
> the time of God's coming to you".
===>"Christ" never said a thing.
The Paulinized Jesus character of the Gospels mas made to say
such things.
> In short their expectation was so
> different from what they got, they failed to recognise Him.
===>"Recognize"???
Except for a few actions described in the Gospels suggesting he follwed
Zechariah as a script (March into Jerusalem on a donkey, chasing the
merchants out of the Temple, going out to the Mount of Olives expecting
YHWH to engage in his armed confroontation with the Romans), ultimately
Jesus did not fulfill ANY of the role of the REAL MESSIAH, exemplified
by king Cyrus, so designated in Isaiah 45. The Romans had a different idea,
they captured, tried and executed him with at least two of his associates,
who, according to LUKE, were "under the same sentence of condemnation"
> Therefore Christians recognise Christ as the Messiah,
===>WRONG! Christians recognize Jesus as the CHRISTOS of the
Pauline mystery religion, falsely insisting that that is what the "messiah" was
supposed to be, that their "christism" is the only true "messianism",
just like all sects and denominations insisting theirs is the true
Christianity, also, like Joe Stalin insisting that his Bolshevism was the
true Marxism). ;-) -- L.
Libertarius
duke wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 15:33:12 -0700, Libertarius
> <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>
> >> And God surprised them and went as a lover of mankind.
>
> >===>What "lover"???
>
> >One who said he did not come to bring peace but a sword?
> >One who ordered his men to sell their coats and buy a sword?
> >One who identified himself in a "parable" as an unwanted king
> >who said:
> >"But these enemies of mine,
> >who did not want me to reign over them,
> >bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Luke 19:27)
>
> > Ah, what "love"!!!
>
> I bring you a new commandment: "that you love one another as God loves you"
> John 13:34
===>The author of "JOHN" wrote that,
thus, contradicting what the previous authors said about Jesus,
as I quoted!
> >> Sorry - Pilate washed his hands of the sordid mess. Even he was convinced that
> >> Jesus didn't do anything.
>
> >===>Sure, sure, that is why he had the guy crucified with two of his fellow
> >revolutionary "bandits", with "KING OF THE JEWS" written on his cross!
>
> Sure, sure - asking the Jews, they wanted Barabas.
===>Barabbas was JESUS BAR ABBA, i.e. "Jesus, son of the Father".
> >===>WHAT A DELUSION!
> >That statistic is as valid as if you lumped all non-believers in Capitalism
> >into one category!
>
> Yet it's a true stat.
>
> >The whole rest of the world thinks you are wrong, i.e.
> >the OTHER 70% of the world's population!
>
> We will become 100% of the world one day.
===>You ARE delusional!
> >Those 2 billion you mention consist of
> >"African Independent Churches (AICs), the Aglipayan
> >Church, Amish, Anglicans, Armenian Apostolic, Assemblies of God;
> >Baptists, Calvary Chapel, Catholics, Christadelphians, Christian Science,
> >the Community of Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
> >Coptic Christians, Eastern Orthodox churches, Ethiopian Orthodox,
> >Evangelicals, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Local Church,
> >Lutherans, Methodists, Nestorians, the New Apostolic Church, Pentecostals,
> >Plymouth Brethren, Presbyterians, the Salvation Army,
> >Seventh-Day Adventists, Shakers, Stone-Campbell churches
> >(Disciples of Christ; Churches of Christ; the "Christian Church and Churches of
> >Christ";
> >the International Church of Christ); Uniate churches, United Church of
> >Christ/Congregationalists,
> >the Unity Church, Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, Vineyard
> >churches and others. These groups exhibit varying degrees of similarity,
> >cooporation, communion, etc. with other groups.
> >None are known to consider all other Chrisian sub-groups to be equally valid."
> >(FROM: Major Religions of the World
> >Ranked by Number of Adherents
> >Last modified 6 September 2002.)
>
> Are they not Christian? Do you know?
===>As the article wrote (and you missed it):
"None are known to consider all other Chrisian sub-groups to be equally valid"
> >> >> >===>WHAT is "the whole basis of the old covenant and the OT"???
> >> >> >Saul/Paul's mystery cult???
> >> >> The Messiah.
>
> >> >===>Jesus was NOT "the Messiah".
> >> Of course he is.
> >===>Only by applying the Humpty Dumpty Principle,
> >a word meaning whatever you want it to mean.
>
> No, he is. He died on the cross, and on the better part of 3 days later, left
> the tomb on his own accord.
===>Ah, what "sacrifice"!
Many fakirs of India have done similar feats.
> >> >See a REAL "Messiah" referred to in Isaiah 45.
> >> >Now THERE indeed WAS a REAL ONE!
> >> Jesus was that fulfillment.
>
> >===>Fulfillment of WHAT????
> >You obviously have never read it!
>
> The Messiah prophesied by the OT.
>
> >THE REAL MESSIAH:
>
> >"Thus says Yahweh to his anointed [ANOINTED=MESSIAH]
> >to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held,
> >to subdue nations before him,
>
> love, not war
===>That is NOT the function of the Messiah!
> >and I will loose the loins of kings;
>
> love, not war
>
> >to open the doors before him,
>
> Love not war.
>
> >and the gates shall not be shut:
>
> love not war
>
> >I will go before you,
> >and make the rough places smooth;
>
> Love not war
>
> >I will break in pieces the doors of brass,
> >and cut in sunder the bars of iron;
>
> Love not war.
>
> >and I will give you the treasures of darkness,
> >and hidden riches of secret places,
>
> Love not war
>
> >that you may know that it is I, Yahweh,
> >who call you by your name, even the God of Israel"
> >etc.
>
> >Was Jesus the reincarnation of KING CYRUS???
> >You're NUTS! -- L.
>
> Love not war, libby.
===>OK, go make love, if anyone cares to do it with such a
nitwit Parrot! -- L.
Bob Crowley
I'd like to know where you got this stuff from. The Gospels have
nothing of the writing style of Paul, Hebrews is not Pauline,
Revelation is not Pauline, and it seems to me you have an idee fixe
about Paul starting the Christian faith. Since he was initially
opposed to it, as a Pharisee, and who had a hand in the stoning of
Stephen, it seems a bit odd that he then wants to spend all but seven
of the remaining years of his life in prison, and finally lose his
head for a home grown fable.
What would be the advantage to the stoned, imprisoned, whipped,
tortured, decapitated Paul / Saul of pursuing this course of action?
He'd have to be a devout masochist.
Bob Crowley.
Kadaitcha Man
> Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
> I'd like to know where you got this stuff from.
From a hole in the side of his head. These special revelations just sort of
found their way in there and they've been echoing around in the void for
years.
duke
>Libertarius is correct in that he is expressing the Jewish belief of
>today, and probably then, that the Messiah they were expecting was a
>warrior king in the line of David, who would drive out their enemies.
Correction, I'm the one that said that also.
>However, the key word is "expecting". We can expect something, and
>when it comes, it is not in the form we expected, so we are
>disappointed and reject it.
Correct.
>Christ said that Jerusalem would suffer because "you did not recognise
>the time of God's coming to you". In short their expectation was so
>different from what they got, they failed to recognise Him.
Absolutely.
>Therefore Christians recognise Christ as the Messiah, the Jews did
>not, and still do not, despite nearly 2000 years of terrible suffering
>falling upon the children's children. The Romans began it, as a pagan
>people, Christian nations continued it (which is a blot upon
>Christendom), Moslem nations are antagonistic to Israel, and whereever
>they go they seem to attract unfair persecution. Why?
>I don't like the way God works sometimes, but perhaps the devil
>detests Christians as Christ's people, and Jews because Christ was a
>Jew, as were the apostles and Mary.
Ok so far.
>So if the devil exists, and is the Prince of this world, and Christ is
>the Messiah, then logic should tell us that both Jews and Christians
>will be persecuted, and the church divided whenever the devil can find
>an excuse to do so, while seeming to make it God's will. He's not
>called the Deceiver for nothing.
And so we see that the whole world continues to war against itself.
You should have posted this to libby. He doesn't believe.
Libertarius
Bob Crowley wrote:
===>Of course not. Every writer has his own style.
The four Gospels show four different styles, even when
entire segments are taken from one another. It is the
presentation of Jesus as the "savior Christos" that is Pauline,
regardless of style.
> Hebrews is not Pauline,
===>What else is it???
Traditionally it has bee actually attributed to Saul/Paul, it is THAT
"Pauline"!
> Revelation is not Pauline,
===>It looks like the ORIGINAL TEXT was written by some
militant Nazorean (Ebionite), which was edited by at least one
Pauline redactor.
> and it seems to me you have an idee fixe
> about Paul starting the Christian faith.
===>What is so unique about that idea?
It is a historical FACT!
> Since he was initially
> opposed to it, as a Pharisee,
===>He never was a Pharisee.
He was a servant of the Sadducees and their Rome-appointed
High Priest.
> and who had a hand in the stoning of Stephen,
===>Actually, there never was any "Stephen".
The story is clearly a rewritten version of what happened to
James, the brother of Jesus.
> it seems a bit odd that he then wants to spend all but seven
> of the remaining years of his life in prison,
===>Where do you get that silly notion?
In fact he REMAINED in the service of the Romans,
subverting the Messianic liberation movement with his
"Christos" cult's reinterpretation of what the Messiah
was supposed to be.
It appears to have sold pretty well among the Gentiles,
whose religions he adapted for his new-fangled mystery cult.
> and finally lose his head for a home grown fable.
===>How do you know he lost his head???
THAT is the "fable"!
> What would be the advantage to the stoned, imprisoned, whipped,
> tortured, decapitated Paul / Saul of pursuing this course of action?
===>You seem to believe in LEGENDS, rather than history.
> He'd have to be a devout masochist.
===>Perhaps he was. Certainly he was a paranoid schizophrenic.
(Schizophrenics see visions, hear voices, and regularly talk to "God".
E.g. the recent example of Michael Abram who stabbed ex-Beatle
George Harrison. He "thought he was mission from God".
(Orange County Register, 7/5/02, p. News 21).
It turns out that this man was a paranoid schizophrenic.
Schizophrenics see visions, hear voices, and regularly talk to "God".
Saul/Paul recieved communications from his private deity
he called "CHRISTOS"*
See also:
"Texas woman says God told her to kill sons"
(CNN Tuesday, May 13, 2003 )
"Alleged assassin says God told him to kill Rabin "
etc.
"If you talk to God, you are praying;
If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia.
If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist;
If Go
--Thomas S. Szasz, The Second Sin,
Anchor/Doubleday, Garden City, NY. 1973, Page 113.
*Although the Greek word "christos" was used to translate
the Hebrew word "mashiah", the Pauline concept of
CHRISTOS has no connection to the Hebrew idea of
the "Anointed One", as depicted e.g. in Isaiah 45.
duke
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>> > Ah, what "love"!!!
>> I bring you a new commandment: "that you love one another as God loves you"
>> John 13:34
>===>The author of "JOHN" wrote that,
Wow, what an enlightening comment - no intelligence, but enlightening.
>===>Barabbas was JESUS BAR ABBA, i.e. "Jesus, son of the Father".
So you're saying that Jesus was released and crucified in the same breath???????
>> We will become 100% of the world one day.
>===>You ARE delusional!
And you are in serious danger of being left behind.
>===>Ah, what "sacrifice"!
>Many fakirs of India have done similar feats.
Nope, none have risen from the dead except Jesus.
>> love, not war
>===>That is NOT the function of the Messiah!
What is his function then?
This should be good.
>===>OK, go make love, if anyone cares to do it with such a
>nitwit Parrot! -- L.
At least they know that I know the bible, and that you don't.
Libertarius
duke wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:56:18 -0700, Libertarius
> <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>
> >> > Ah, what "love"!!!
> >> I bring you a new commandment: "that you love one another as God loves you"
> >> John 13:34
>
> >===>The author of "JOHN" wrote that,
>
> Wow, what an enlightening comment - no intelligence, but enlightening.
>
> >===>Barabbas was JESUS BAR ABBA, i.e. "Jesus, son of the Father".
>
> So you're saying that Jesus was released and crucified in the same breath???????
===>No, Stupid. I did not say that.
No representative of the Empire would release a man considered to be a criminal.
He was CRUCIFIED!
> >> We will become 100% of the world one day.
> >===>You ARE delusional!
>
> And you are in serious danger of being left behind.
===>It depends on which of use goes first.
> >===>Ah, what "sacrifice"!
> >Many fakirs of India have done similar feats.
>
> Nope, none have risen from the dead except Jesus.
===>How do you know he was REALLY dead?
Was the daughter of Jairus dead?
(Mark 5:39
And entering in, He said to them,
"Why make a commotion and weep?
The child has not died, but is asleep.")
> >> love, not war
> >===>That is NOT the function of the Messiah!
>
> What is his function then?
>
> This should be good.
>
> >===>OK, go make love, if anyone cares to do it with such a
> >nitwit Parrot! -- L.
>
> At least they know that I know the bible, and that you don't.
===>What age girls do you seduce with your fake
"knowledge" of the Bible?
As I notice, it is about the Kindergarten level! -- L.
Kermit
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:56:18 -0700, Libertarius
> <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>
> >> > Ah, what "love"!!!
> >> I bring you a new commandment: "that you love one another as God loves you"
> >> John 13:34
>
> >===>The author of "JOHN" wrote that,
>
> Wow, what an enlightening comment - no intelligence, but enlightening.
>
> >===>Barabbas was JESUS BAR ABBA, i.e. "Jesus, son of the Father".
>
> So you're saying that Jesus was released and crucified in the same breath???????
>
> >> We will become 100% of the world one day.
> >===>You ARE delusional!
>
> And you are in serious danger of being left behind.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
>
> >===>Ah, what "sacrifice"!
> >Many fakirs of India have done similar feats.
>
> Nope, none have risen from the dead except Jesus.
And Osiris. On the winter solstice, his enemies cut him to bits and
threw the pieces into the river Nile. On the fifth day, December 25,
his sister-wife Isis gathered his body together and he was reborn.
Believe in him and ye shall be redeemed.
Also Lazurus. Also, many Indian fakirs. Really. Just ask them. Their
evidence is as strong as yours.
>
> >> love, not war
> >===>That is NOT the function of the Messiah!
>
> What is his function then?
>
> This should be good.
>
> >===>OK, go make love, if anyone cares to do it with such a
> >nitwit Parrot! -- L.
>
> At least they know that I know the bible, and that you don't.
> duke-
> *****
> Thank God for the almost 99% of
> priests that are good priests.
> *****
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11761-2004Feb27.html
96%. And that's if you include the ones who covered up these crimes as
"good priests". Still, it's probably better than the population in
general, even if not quite as good as secular humanists.
Kermit
"The lyfe so short, the craft so long to lerne"
Bob Crowley
> > > > Libertarius is correct in that he is expressing the Jewish belief of
> > > > today, and probably then, that the Messiah they were expecting was a
> > > > warrior king in the line of David, who would drive out their enemies.
> > >
> > > ===>That was the belief of Jesus, his master John the Baptizer,
> > > and all of their followers, known as EBIONIM, NAZOREANS, ZEALOTS,
> > > etc., as shown even in the underlying text of the highly edited and
> > > Christianized book of APOCALYPSE ("Revelation").
> > > All else is the invention of Saul/Paul of Tarsus and his cult of the sacrificed
> > > savior god CHRISTOS.
> >
> > I'd like to know where you got this stuff from. The Gospels have
> > nothing of the writing style of Paul,
>
> ===>Of course not. Every writer has his own style.
> The four Gospels show four different styles, even when
> entire segments are taken from one another. It is the
> presentation of Jesus as the "savior Christos" that is Pauline,
> regardless of style.
>
> > Hebrews is not Pauline,
>
===>What else is it???
> Traditionally it has bee actually attributed to Saul/Paul, it is THAT
> "Pauline"!
The Lion Handbook to the Bible - "Hebrews - Who wrote the letter?
TEh origin of Hebrews is something of a mystery. The oldest
manuscripts are anonymous, and there are none of the conventional
greetings with which a 1st century usually began. In fact it is more
a treatise than a letter. Even in teh first few centuries no-one knew
for certain who the author was, though many people attributed it to
Paul. Today this is considered very unlikely. Hebrews reflects
neither Paul's style nor his thought. But having said that, we are no
nearer to solving the puzzle. From teh letter, we know that the
author knew Timothy (13:23). He writes extremely polished Greek. And
he is plainly an able teacher. He knows the Old TEstament inside out.
And the version he quotes is the Greek Septuagint - which means he is
probably a Greek-speaking (Hellenistic) Jew, writing to fellow
Greek-speaking Jews. He is a Christian who has thoroughly thought
through the relation of his faith to Judaism."
>
> > Revelation is not Pauline,
>
> ===>It looks like the ORIGINAL TEXT was written by some
> militant Nazorean (Ebionite), which was edited by at least one
> Pauline redactor.
>
Same book - Revelation - Revelation was written about AD 90-95 (Paul
was dead by this time), though some say earlier. Teh author is named
as John. The style and language of REvelation is so different from
John's Gospel that many have concluded this writer must be a different
John. But we do not know of anyone apart from the apostle so well
known that he could simply describe himself as 'John'. And tradition
says that the apostle left Israel to make his home in Ephesus -
capital city of the Roman province of Asia, in whcih the seven
churches of Revelation 2-3 are located, and itself the recipient of
one of the letters.
.... In our own materialistic age it has been only to easy to miss the
spirit of the book. On the one hand, instead of seeing it as
something to catch the imagination, we reduce it to a timetable of
events....
This is a book of visions. The fact that John is not over-concerned
about harmonising details makes it clear that it is the main thrust of
each picture which is important. WE should treat visions as we do
parables, looking first at the whole picture and trying to discover
the main idea.
We are not necessarily meant to take John's visions as a sequence of
events which follow one after another. The eastern mind is not so
preoccupied with chronology as those in the West tend to be.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
> > and it seems to me you have an idee fixe
> > about Paul starting the Christian faith.
>
> ===>What is so unique about that idea?
> It is a historical FACT!
Christ started the Christian faith - others wrote about Him and His
teachings.
> > Since he was initially
> > opposed to it, as a Pharisee,
>
> ===>He never was a Pharisee.
> He was a servant of the Sadducees and their Rome-appointed
> High Priest.
You'll need to show me the evidence for this before I'll believe that.
> > and who had a hand in the stoning of Stephen,
>
> ===>Actually, there never was any "Stephen".
> The story is clearly a rewritten version of what happened to
> James, the brother of Jesus.
If you're going to re-edit the whole Bible to suit your own thesis, we
may as well all do it. Deny bits, add bits, do what you like and make
it your very own special edition.
> > it seems a bit odd that he then wants to spend all but seven
> > of the remaining years of his life in prison,
>
> ===>Where do you get that silly notion?
> In fact he REMAINED in the service of the Romans,
> subverting the Messianic liberation movement with his
> "Christos" cult's reinterpretation of what the Messiah
> was supposed to be.
> It appears to have sold pretty well among the Gentiles,
> whose religions he adapted for his new-fangled mystery cult.
It probably reached a MINORITY of the Gentiles, many of whom were the
underdogs. Since being a Christian meant death for many, it did not
receive widespread membership until it became the official religion.
> > and finally lose his head for a home grown fable.
>
> ===>How do you know he lost his head???
> THAT is the "fable"!
Roman law meant that a Roman Citizen could not be crucified, if the
death penalty applied. Hence tradition has it that Peter, who was not
a Roman citizen, was crucified upside down (at his own request) and
Paul was beheaded (he claimed in one of his letters that his life
would soon be poured out, "as the Lord has plainly told me" - a
suitable image for blood pouring out of a headless neck and severed
head.
> > What would be the advantage to the stoned, imprisoned, whipped,
> > tortured, decapitated Paul / Saul of pursuing this course of action?
>
> ===>You seem to believe in LEGENDS, rather than history.
Frankly I think that charge lies at your door.
> > He'd have to be a devout masochist.
>
> ===>Perhaps he was. Certainly he was a paranoid schizophrenic.
> (Schizophrenics see visions, hear voices, and regularly talk to "God".
> E.g. the recent example of Michael Abram who stabbed ex-Beatle
> George Harrison. He "thought he was mission from God".
> (Orange County Register, 7/5/02, p. News 21).
> It turns out that this man was a paranoid schizophrenic.
> Schizophrenics see visions, hear voices, and regularly talk to "God".
> Saul/Paul recieved communications from his private deity
> he called "CHRISTOS"*
> See also:
> "Texas woman says God told her to kill sons"
> (CNN Tuesday, May 13, 2003 )
> "Alleged assassin says God told him to kill Rabin "
> etc.
> "If you talk to God, you are praying;
> If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia.
> If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist;
> If Go
> --Thomas S. Szasz, The Second Sin,
> Anchor/Doubleday, Garden City, NY. 1973, Page 113.
I'm well aware schizophrenics see "visions" but so do people who are
not schizophrenics. Very occasionally a schizophrenic person will
murder someone too, but I would not be surprised if the murder rate
among 'sane' people was higher than it is amongst schizophrenics.
So what.
> *Although the Greek word "christos" was used to translate
> the Hebrew word "mashiah", the Pauline concept of
> CHRISTOS has no connection to the Hebrew idea of
> the "Anointed One", as depicted e.g. in Isaiah 45.
No ... because the Jewish people of the time were expecting something
like David, whereas God, who actually sent the Messiah (the intention,
the right and the power belonged to Him and Him alone, not the
people), REGARDLESS of what their expectations might be, sent Christ,
the crucified one.
Bob Crowley.
Bob Crowley
> >
>
> > I don't believe in Islam, but it had a founder, Mohammed. I
> >am not a Buddhist, but it had a founder, the Buddha. I am not a
> >Communist, but it had it's intellectual beginnings in Karl Marx.
>
> You seem to think that that is very important (ignoring whether or not
> you are actually right in each and every case). It is beyond me why
> you would think sol
I believe in quantum physics, insofar as one can believe in "science",
mainly because Max Planck, Albert Einstein and a host of other
physicists have done a lot of work to "prove it". But until they
'discovered' it I would not have given the concept the slightest
consideration as being the basis of reality. Yet it existed, whether
they 'found' it or not. So for thousands of years the human race got
around assuming other forms of 'reality', but then one day found its
concepts were faulty.
We get around with easily detectable 'reality' of God. But He exists,
and has spoken through His Son in human form.
> >These movements have authors. The authors exist. Which one is true
> >will depend in the end on just what the Ultimate Reality is.
>
> Why would any one of them be "true" whatever that means and whatever
> "Ultimate Reality" means.
All you have to do is die. No sweat. Then you'll know (or won't
know, depending on whether there is an afterlife or not).
>
> >
> >And we not be absolutely sure of that until the day we die, when we
> >will either become nothing more than disembodied elements, or
> >something else.
>
> And we are to conclude from that - what?
>
That we all take a gamble, one way or the other. You're gambling your
life that Christ was a myth. I'm gambling my life that He is what He
said He was.
On the other hand, very few people come to Christ as a result of
logical deduction. And even if they do, it is because the Holy Spirit
has concluded that it is the best way to 'call' those particular
people.
In your case, I'm beginning to think it might be some other way.
You're certainly not likely to be called on the basis of your current
thought life.
What the method might be in your case, I don't know. It may be
through someone who cares about you, or difficult circumstances, or a
day when it just seems to make a strange sort of sense, or 'messages'
that keep jumping out at you, or an uncanny comment from a person who
should have no knowledge of your thoughts ... I've got no idea. It's
up to God. It probably won't come through arguing on the net.
Bob Crowley.
Libertarius
Bob Crowley wrote:
===>As biased as it is, that "handbook" does acknowledge that Hebrews
has been seen as a Pauline piece, which in fact it is. It goes way beyond
any of the Pauline letters, though, in falsely interpreting passages from
the Septuagint as being a reference to "the Son".
E.g.. right off the bat in Ch. 1,
the blatant twist on Psalms 2:7, a psalm clearly referring to king David,
with the misleading question
'to which of the angels did He ever say, "YOU ARE MY SON,
TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU"?' (Hebrews 1:5)
Obviously it was never said to any of "the angels", but to a man, David.
And the twisting and spinning goes on throughout the book.
No one but a disciple of Saul/Paul could have concocted such a
phony justification for considering Jesus a deity!
> > > Revelation is not Pauline,
> >
> > ===>It looks like the ORIGINAL TEXT was written by some
> > militant Nazorean (Ebionite), which was edited by at least one
> > Pauline redactor.
> >
>
> Same book - Revelation - Revelation was written about AD 90-95 (Paul
> was dead by this time), though some say earlier. Teh author is named
> as John. The style and language of REvelation is so different from
> John's Gospel that many have concluded this writer must be a different
> John. But we do not know of anyone apart from the apostle so well
> known that he could simply describe himself as 'John'.
===>"John" was a common name, as it is even today.
Why could a "John" not introduce himself as "John"???
> And tradition
> says that the apostle left Israel to make his home in Ephesus -
> capital city of the Roman province of Asia, in whcih the seven
> churches of Revelation 2-3 are located, and itself the recipient of
> one of the letters.
===>That is just one theory.
But in fact the basic material is militant and full of expectation
of the imminent return of Jesus to destroy the Roman Empire
and punish his enemies. It was most likely written at the time of
the Jewish War of the sixties by a militant Jesus Messianist, later
redacted by a Pauline Christian editor.
> .... In our own materialistic age it has been only to easy to miss the
> spirit of the book. On the one hand, instead of seeing it as
> something to catch the imagination, we reduce it to a timetable of
> events....
>
> This is a book of visions. The fact that John is not over-concerned
> about harmonising details makes it clear that it is the main thrust of
> each picture which is important. WE should treat visions as we do
> parables, looking first at the whole picture and trying to discover
> the main idea.
===>The author simply imitated the material found in the similarly
aimed book of "Daniel".
> We are not necessarily meant to take John's visions as a sequence of
> events which follow one after another. The eastern mind is not so
> preoccupied with chronology as those in the West tend to be.
>
> &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
>
> > > and it seems to me you have an idee fixe
> > > about Paul starting the Christian faith.
> >
> > ===>What is so unique about that idea?
> > It is a historical FACT!
>
> Christ started the Christian faith - others wrote about Him and His
> teachings.
===>That is the myth of the Church.
There never was anyone named "Christ".
And Jesus was just one of the many Jews who wished to serve as
the Messiah, leading his people out of Roman captivity.
> > > Since he was initially
> > > opposed to it, as a Pharisee,
> >
> > ===>He never was a Pharisee.
> > He was a servant of the Sadducees and their Rome-appointed
> > High Priest.
>
> You'll need to show me the evidence for this before I'll believe that.
===>The evidence is well presented in the book
THE MYTHMAKER by Hyam Maccoby.
If you have no access to the book,
you can read the relevant
excerpt in the article:
"The Problem of Paul
excerpt from:
The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity
by Hyam Maccoby" at
http://www.geocities.com/johndstone2000/truth/files/paul.html
I have the book and it has convinced me that Saul/Paul never
was a Pharisee.
> > > and who had a hand in the stoning of Stephen,
> >
> > ===>Actually, there never was any "Stephen".
> > The story is clearly a rewritten version of what happened to
> > James, the brother of Jesus.
>
> If you're going to re-edit the whole Bible to suit your own thesis, we
> may as well all do it. Deny bits, add bits, do what you like and make
> it your very own special edition.
===>The "Stephen" incident is clearly a remake of
the stoning of James under Paul's authority
as shown by Robert Eisenman
in his book of the same title.
Many events are similarly distortions
of actual events taken from the reports of historian Flavius Josephus
and placed in the "New Testament". E.g.. the election of "Matthias"
to replace Judas replaces the actual election of James.
Publisher’s Abstract:
“In a profound and provocative work of scholarly detection,
Eisenman establishes James—a figure almost entirely
marginalized in the New Testament—as the leader of all
opposition groups in Jerusalem of his day and spiritual heir
of his famous brother Jesus.
James, not Peter, was the true successor to the movement we
now call Christianity. Once we have found the Historical James
we have found the Historical Jesus”
Card Catalog Description:
“Drawing on the Dead Sea Scrolls and on long overlooked early
Church texts, Eisenman reveals in this groundbreaking
major exploration the Christianity of Paul as a distortion of what
James and Jesus preached. Whereas James and his followers,
‘zealous for the Law’ of Moses, were nationalistic and apocalyptic,
Paul’s Hellenized movement promoted itself as pacifist, cosmopolitan,
and faith-based. In an argument with enormous implications,
Eisenman identifies Paul as deeply compromised by Roman contacts,
and James as not simply the leader of Christianity of his day, but the
popular Jewish leader of his time, whose death triggered the
Uprising against Rome. Creative rewriting of early Church documents
has obscured this fact.
Eisenman shows that characters like ‘Judas Iscariot’ and
‘the Apostle James’ did not exist as such and details an actual
physical assault by Paul on James in the Temple.
By rescuing James from the oblivion into which he was deliberately cast,
James the Brother of Jesus reveals one of the most successful historical
rewrite enterprises ever accomplished.”
>
> > > it seems a bit odd that he then wants to spend all but seven
> > > of the remaining years of his life in prison,
> >
> > ===>Where do you get that silly notion?
> > In fact he REMAINED in the service of the Romans,
> > subverting the Messianic liberation movement with his
> > "Christos" cult's reinterpretation of what the Messiah
> > was supposed to be.
> > It appears to have sold pretty well among the Gentiles,
> > whose religions he adapted for his new-fangled mystery cult.
>
> It probably reached a MINORITY of the Gentiles, many of whom were the
> underdogs.
===>But many of whom were of high status, e.g. the Herodian family.
> Since being a Christian meant death for many,
===>Not during the lifetime of Saul/Paul.
> it did not
> receive widespread membership until it became the official religion.
===>It became the official religion exactly because it HAD received
widespread membership. The emperor Constantine knew what he was
doing, attempting to unify his domain under one religion, which combined
elements of many of the other religions that had preexisted his rule.
> > > and finally lose his head for a home grown fable.
> >
> > ===>How do you know he lost his head???
> > THAT is the "fable"!
>
> Roman law meant that a Roman Citizen could not be crucified, if the
> death penalty applied. Hence tradition has it that Peter,
===>That "tradition" is just a set of fables.
> who was not
> a Roman citizen, was crucified upside down (at his own request) and
> Paul was beheaded (he claimed in one of his letters that his life
> would soon be poured out, "as the Lord has plainly told me" - a
> suitable image for blood pouring out of a headless neck and severed
> head.
===>And you actually believe that???
> > > What would be the advantage to the stoned, imprisoned, whipped,
> > > tortured, decapitated Paul / Saul of pursuing this course of action?
> >
> > ===>You seem to believe in LEGENDS, rather than history.
>
> Frankly I think that charge lies at your door.
===>You say so only as one who considers the NT "history"
> > > He'd have to be a devout masochist.
> >
> > ===>Perhaps he was. Certainly he was a paranoid schizophrenic.
> > (Schizophrenics see visions, hear voices, and regularly talk to "God".
> > E.g. the recent example of Michael Abram who stabbed ex-Beatle
> > George Harrison. He "thought he was mission from God".
> > (Orange County Register, 7/5/02, p. News 21).
> > It turns out that this man was a paranoid schizophrenic.
> > Schizophrenics see visions, hear voices, and regularly talk to "God".
> > Saul/Paul recieved communications from his private deity
> > he called "CHRISTOS"*
> > See also:
> > "Texas woman says God told her to kill sons"
> > (CNN Tuesday, May 13, 2003 )
> > "Alleged assassin says God told him to kill Rabin "
> > etc.
> > "If you talk to God, you are praying;
> > If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia.
> > If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist;
> > If Go
> > --Thomas S. Szasz, The Second Sin,
> > Anchor/Doubleday, Garden City, NY. 1973, Page 113.
>
> I'm well aware schizophrenics see "visions" but so do people who are
> not schizophrenics.
===>Really?
Seeing things that are not there is normal behavior in your view?
> Very occasionally a schizophrenic person will
> murder someone too, but I would not be surprised if the murder rate
> among 'sane' people was higher than it is amongst schizophrenics.
===>Irrelevant.
The point was the idea of talking to and hearing from "God".
> So what.
>
> > *Although the Greek word "christos" was used to translate
> > the Hebrew word "mashiah", the Pauline concept of
> > CHRISTOS has no connection to the Hebrew idea of
> > the "Anointed One", as depicted e.g. in Isaiah 45.
>
> No ... because the Jewish people of the time were expecting something
> like David, whereas God, who actually sent the Messiah (the intention,
> the right and the power belonged to Him and Him alone, not the
> people), REGARDLESS of what their expectations might be, sent Christ,
> the crucified one.
===>Yes, that is the Pauline version of the ancient Mystery Religion.
As Maccoby writes (see the above cited article):
"Paul, not Jesus, was the founder of Christianity as a new religion
which developed away from both normal Judaism and the
Nazarene variety of Judaism. In this new religion, the Torah was
abrogated as having had only temporary validity. The central myth
of the new religion was that of an atoning death of a divine being.
Belief in this sacrifice, and a mystical sharing of the death of the deity,
formed the only path to salvation.
Paul derived this religion from Hellenistic sources, chiefly by a
fusion of concepts taken from Gnosticism and concepts taken from
the mystery religions, particularly from that of Attis.
The combination of these elements with
features derived from Judaism, particularly the incorporation of the
Jewish scriptures, reinterpreted to provide a background of sacred
history for the new myth, was unique; and Paul alone was the creator
of this amalgam. Jesus himself had no idea of it, and would have been
amazed and shocked at the role assigned to him by Paul
as a suffering deity."
Enough said. -- L.
David V.
[snip]
> We get around with easily detectable 'reality' of God.
> But He exists, and has spoken through His Son in human
> form.
You claim this god is easily detectable, yet you have been
unable to prove it exists. How is that?
> That we all take a gamble, one way or the other. You're
> gambling your life that Christ was a myth. I'm gambling
> my life that He is what He said He was.
Pascal's wager. A suckers bet. What if you're worshiping the
wrong god? What if the real god put religions here to fool
people and those that weren't fooled are the ones to be
rewarded? There are thousands of other "what if's" that
would make you a loser if you take Pascal's Wager.
> On the other hand, very few people come to Christ as a
> result of logical deduction....
That's something you should keep in mind.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
bev
halco...@yahoo.com (RH) wrote in
messagnews:<524db79f.04030...@posting.google.com>...
> Thomas P. <tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > >>
> > >>>>>>> Christ will come back, but no man knows the hour or
> > >>>>>>> the day. The only clue we have is that it will be at
> > >>>>>>> a time when nobody expects it.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>It's wrong to assume that He ever left. Just because most people
> > >>>have never seen Him, doesn't mean that He's not around.
> > >>>
> > >>>Very soon everyone will see Him. He'll be on the world stage for a
> > >>>long, long time.
> > >>
> > >>He's invisible?
> > >
> > >
>
> > >Only when He wants to be, which is much of the time. For those who
> > >have seen Him or been touched by Him, there's not a gram of doubt.
> >
> > Then it would be his responsibility if I do not believe in him.
>
>
> It doesn't really matter who you believe in, but of course life is
> much more pleasant if you at least believe in yourself and others.
> Lots of today's athiests were extremist christians in their last
> incarnation - and have now returned at the other extreme to balance it
> out a bit. Religion is a help to some and a hindrance to others.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>How grown people can into this stuff, I'll never know.
> > >
>
> > >Isn't it funny that some people conclude that just because they've
> > >never seen someone, that 'that someone' can not possibly exist?
> > >Most also assume that since the physical plane is the only plane
> > >that they can see, that it must be the only one.
> > >
> > >I think that's called 'narrowmindedness'.
> >
> > Not believing in something for which there is no evidence and is
> > totally unlike anything ever experienced before is not being narrow
> > minded. It is a totally rational position.
>
>
>
> Yes that's true. Makes me think of natives who've never left their
> rainforest and have had no contact with the outside world. It's
> totally rational for them not to believe in computers, telephones,
> televisions, etc. They have no reason or need to believe in them.
> There would be no point to it.
>
> One absurd lie that comes from Christianity is that you have to
> believe.... that if you don't, you're no good and you'll be cast into
> a fiery pit and have devils torturing you for allllll eeeeterniteeee.
> I think we'll see that Jesus and the Masters have (and will encourage
> everyone to have) unconditional love for everyone. They won't be
> trying to frighten anyone into believing anything by telling them
> about any fiery pits.
>
> Speaking of devils, the white house does seem to be full of miserable
> devils these days -such a hellish place... where national "leaders"
> recently lied to the world about "massive stockpiles of WMDs", to
> justify an immoral invasion where ~10,000 civilians were slaughtered.
> Now the same liars
> are singing another bs song about not kidnapping a democratically
> elected president of a sovereign nation and our news media is
> regurgitating their spin.
>
> Pretty soon though, all the major SOBs will have great falls and all
> the kings horses and all of their men, will not want to, nor will they
> be able to get the sorry crappers up again. The power belongs to the
> people, not to warmongering liars.
>
> Cheers,
> RH
> ;-)
>
>
> "Man must change or die. There is no other course."
> The World Teacher
> http://www.share-international.org
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Thomas P.
> >
> > None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
> > "But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Studying Hard
> nobody wrote:
> > W.Syme <w.syme....@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >
> >> nobody <no--...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>> Christ will come back, but no man knows the
> >>>>>>> hour or the day. The only clue we have is
> >>>>>>> that it will be at a time when nobody expects
> >>>>>>> it.
> >>>
> >>> It's wrong to assume that He ever left. Just
> >>> because most people have never seen Him, doesn't mean
> >>> that He's not around.
> >>>
> >>> Very soon everyone will see Him. He'll be on the
> >>> world stage for a long, long time.
> >>
> >> He's invisible?
> >
> > Only when He wants to be, which is much of the time.
>
>
> > For those who have seen Him or been touched by Him,
> > there's not a gram of doubt.
>
>
> >> How grown people can into this stuff, I'll never know.
> >>
> >
> > Isn't it funny that some people conclude that just
> > because they've never seen someone, that 'that someone'
> > can not possibly exist?
>
> reason to believe just like there is no reason to believe
> the Great Pumpkin exists.
>
> > Most also assume that since the physical plane is the
> > only plane that they can see, that it must be the only
> > one.
>
>
> > I think that's called 'narrowmindedness'.
>
> christians cannot do.
It must be so hard having to go through life not only believing in
nothing, but having to belittle others with every ounce of your being
just because they do believe in something. You have my pity.
Thomas P.
Crowley) wrote:
>Thomas P. <tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<4k1f401o307sb8a4g...@4ax.com>...
>> >
>>
>> > I don't believe in Islam, but it had a founder, Mohammed. I
>> >am not a Buddhist, but it had a founder, the Buddha. I am not a
>> >Communist, but it had it's intellectual beginnings in Karl Marx.
>>
>> You seem to think that that is very important (ignoring whether or not
>> you are actually right in each and every case). It is beyond me why
>> you would think sol
>
>I believe in quantum physics, insofar as one can believe in "science",
>mainly because Max Planck, Albert Einstein and a host of other
>physicists have done a lot of work to "prove it". But until they
>'discovered' it I would not have given the concept the slightest
>consideration as being the basis of reality. Yet it existed, whether
>they 'found' it or not. So for thousands of years the human race got
>around assuming other forms of 'reality', but then one day found its
>concepts were faulty.
>
>We get around with easily detectable 'reality' of God. But He exists,
>and has spoken through His Son in human form.
Your concluding paragraph has absolutely no logical connection to the
first.
>
>> >These movements have authors. The authors exist. Which one is true
>> >will depend in the end on just what the Ultimate Reality is.
>>
>> Why would any one of them be "true" whatever that means and whatever
>> "Ultimate Reality" means.
>
>All you have to do is die. No sweat. Then you'll know (or won't
>know, depending on whether there is an afterlife or not).
You are not answering the question. You seem to be rambling all over
the place.
>>
>> >
>> >And we not be absolutely sure of that until the day we die, when we
>> >will either become nothing more than disembodied elements, or
>> >something else.
>>
>> And we are to conclude from that - what?
>>
>
>That we all take a gamble, one way or the other. You're gambling your
>life that Christ was a myth.
No, I am not doing that. Christ, to me, is one myth out of uncounted
thousands. I do not base my life on my non-belief in any of those
myths. Please do not assume that you get to tell me what I believe or
what I am thinking.
>I'm gambling my life that He is what He
>said He was.
What some book written by unknown authors said he said to be precise.
>
>On the other hand, very few people come to Christ as a result of
>logical deduction. And even if they do, it is because the Holy Spirit
>has concluded that it is the best way to 'call' those particular
>people.
>
>In your case, I'm beginning to think it might be some other way.
>You're certainly not likely to be called on the basis of your current
>thought life.
>
>What the method might be in your case, I don't know. It may be
>through someone who cares about you, or difficult circumstances, or a
>day when it just seems to make a strange sort of sense, or 'messages'
>that keep jumping out at you, or an uncanny comment from a person who
>should have no knowledge of your thoughts ... I've got no idea. It's
>up to God. It probably won't come through arguing on the net.
It is interesting to note that the degree of arrogance a person
possesses increases with lack of knowledge. After all the errors you
have made here and admitted (usually indirectly and with great
verbosity), you seem totally unable to see another possibility; that
being that you simply do not know what you are talking about.
Thomas P.
Hard) wrote:
A person has to be extremely limited or provincial to think that not
agreeing with his beliefs equals not believing in anything.
>but having to belittle others with every ounce of your being
>just because they do believe in something. You have my pity.
Since that was not being done, why did you mention it?
Libertarius
Studying Hard wrote:
===>You have it backward.
Ironically, it is exactly YOU
who believe in what is in reality "nothing", but you call it "God".
What he is telling you is that he does NOT believe in that "nothing".
Get it?
Libertarius
"Thomas P." wrote:
===>Actually, HE is the one who DOES believe in what is really
NOTHING -- he calls it "God".
David V.
It is much easier to make it in life believing in yourself
than in fanciful sky daddies.
> but having to belittle others with every ounce of your
> being just because they do believe in something. You
> have my pity.
I know you need to feel that way. It's just a way of
suppressing your internal dissonance.
David V.
I think he needs to study a bit harder.
Studying Hard
> >>
> >> snip
> >>
> >> None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful
> >> before. "But he has got nothing on," said a little
> >> child.
> >
> > about 1 billion Catholics.
>
> A billion people can be wrong, and in this case; they are.
Because any opinion different than yours is just...well...wrong.
Billy Goat
> > >And we not be absolutely sure of that until the day we die, when we
> > >will either become nothing more than disembodied elements, or
> > >something else.
> >
> > And we are to conclude from that - what?
> >
>
> That we all take a gamble, one way or the other. You're gambling your
> life that Christ was a myth. I'm gambling my life that He is what He
> said He was.
This is one of the biggest thing that always bugged me about
Christianity. Why is it a gamble? Does God judge us according to
whether or not we believe a book, instead of according to how morally
we live? Why doesn't God save moral people, instead of believers? Why
doesn't God damn evil people, instead of doubters? Why is morality so
irrelevant to God? And how can we call God "good" if He doesn't value
morality?
--Billy
David V.
>>
>>> Thomas P. <tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> wrote
>>>
>>>> Reality can be a help. I recommend trying it.
>>>>
>>>> snip
>>>>
>>>> None of the Emperor's clothes had been so
>>>> successful before. "But he has got nothing on,"
>>>> said a little child.
>>>
>>> Reality includes a Catholic Church 2000 years old
>>> with about 1 billion Catholics.
>>
>> A billion people can be wrong, and in this case; they
>> are.
>
> Because any opinion different than yours is
> just...well...wrong.
My opinion has nothing to do with it. The available evidence
is all that counts. There is no evidence that a god of any
kind exists. Saying that a number of people believe in, or
claim, something is a logical fallacy called Argumentum ad
numerum. This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum
ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people
who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is
that that proposition is correct
duke
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>> So you're saying that Jesus was released and crucified in the same breath???????
>===>No, Stupid. I did not say that.
It sounded like that to me.
>No representative of the Empire would release a man considered to be a criminal.
He wasn't a criminal. Pilate washed his hands of the affair.
>He was CRUCIFIED!
Of course Jesus was.
>> >> We will become 100% of the world one day.
>> >===>You ARE delusional!
>> And you are in serious danger of being left behind.
>===>It depends on which of use goes first.
No, it depends on which train we take.
>> >===>Ah, what "sacrifice"!
>> >Many fakirs of India have done similar feats.
>> Nope, none have risen from the dead except Jesus.
>===>How do you know he was REALLY dead?
I wasn't there, so I take the word of truth that he was.
>Was the daughter of Jairus dead?
>(Mark 5:39
>And entering in, He said to them,
>"Why make a commotion and weep?
>The child has not died, but is asleep.")
There you go. Jesus was dead, and Jairus' daughter was asleep.
>> >> love, not war
>> >===>That is NOT the function of the Messiah!
>> What is his function then?
>> This should be good.
Ah, no answer I see. I figured you couldn't answer that one.
>> >===>OK, go make love, if anyone cares to do it with such a
>> >nitwit Parrot! -- L.
>> At least they know that I know the bible, and that you don't.
>===>What age girls do you seduce with your fake
>"knowledge" of the Bible?
>As I notice, it is about the Kindergarten level! -- L.
In other words, I gotcha.
Libertarius
duke wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:08:17 -0700, Libertarius
> <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>
> >> So you're saying that Jesus was released and crucified in the same breath???????
>
> >===>No, Stupid. I did not say that.
>
> It sounded like that to me.
>
> >No representative of the Empire would release a man considered to be a criminal.
>
> He wasn't a criminal. Pilate washed his hands of the affair.
===>Even if he "washed his hands", that does not make him any
less of a criminal.
He was tried and convicted on his own confession that he considered
himself the "king of the Jews".
SEE: Matthew 27:11
Now Jesus stood before the governor,
and the governor questioned Him, saying,
"Are You the King of the Jews?"
And Jesus said to him, "It is as you say."
ALSO: Luke 22:37
"For I tell you that this which is written must still be fulfilled in me:
'He was counted with the lawless.'
That means CRIMINAL.
ALSO: Luke 23:32
"There were also others, two criminals, led with him to be put to death."
(Literally HETEROI KAKOURGOI DUO - TWO OTHER CRIMINALS)
who were "under the same sentence of condemnation" (Luke 23:40)
Indeed, in the eyes of Rome, they were ALL criminals, being part of
the Zealot messianic resistance movement, with Jesus being their leader.
> >He was CRUCIFIED!
>
> Of course Jesus was.
>
> >> >> We will become 100% of the world one day.
> >> >===>You ARE delusional!
> >> And you are in serious danger of being left behind.
> >===>It depends on which of us goes first.
>
> No, it depends on which train we take.
===>The terminal is the same.
Read ECCLESIASTES
> >> >===>Ah, what "sacrifice"!
> >> >Many fakirs of India have done similar feats.
> >> Nope, none have risen from the dead except Jesus.
>
> >===>How do you know he was REALLY dead?
>
> I wasn't there, so I take the word of truth that he was.
===>That is what being credulous means.
> >Was the daughter of Jairus dead?
> >(Mark 5:39
> >And entering in, He said to them,
> >"Why make a commotion and weep?
> >The child has not died, but is asleep.")
>
> There you go. Jesus was dead, and Jairus' daughter was asleep.
===>He "rose" the ame way that girl did: out of a "sleep",
i.e. unconscious state, if he did at all. Of course it may be just another
of the Pagan legends adopted by the authors.
> >> >> love, not war
> >> >===>That is NOT the function of the Messiah!
> >> What is his function then?
> >> This should be good.
===>I already quoted ISAIAH 45.
THAT is the function of the Messiah.
See also: Luke 1:71,74
"Salvation FROM OUR ENEMIES,
And FROM THE HAND OF ALL WHO HATE US;
To grant us that we, being rescued from the hand of our enemies,
Might serve Him without fear."
SALVATION FROM THE ENEMY, i.e. in this case ROME!
> Ah, no answer I see. I figured you couldn't answer that one.
===>I thought you had SOME familiarity with the Bible.
I was wrong. You only know the few verses your preacher
had you memorize.
> >> >===>OK, go make love, if anyone cares to do it with such a
> >> >nitwit Parrot! -- L.
> >> At least they know that I know the bible, and that you don't.
>
> >===>What age girls do you seduce with your fake
> >"knowledge" of the Bible?
> >As I notice, it is about the Kindergarten level! -- L.
>
> In other words, I gotcha.
===>You got yourself, silly boy, revealed your infantile
nature and ignorance of biblical matters.
jorge
Jesus did just come back, in the form of a movie called Passion by Mel
Gibson.
Bob Crowley
> bob Crowley wrote:
> [snip]
> > We get around with easily detectable 'reality' of God.
> > But He exists, and has spoken through His Son in human
> > form.
>
> You claim this god is easily detectable, yet you have been
> unable to prove it exists. How is that?
Sorry but that was an error of sloppiness on my part. I meant to say
"We get around with NO easilty detectable 'reality' of God... " but I
did a typo, and was in a hurry, and didn't check it properly.
>
> > That we all take a gamble, one way or the other. You're
> > gambling your life that Christ was a myth. I'm gambling
> > my life that He is what He said He was.
>
> Pascal's wager. A suckers bet. What if you're worshiping the
> wrong god? What if the real god put religions here to fool
> people and those that weren't fooled are the ones to be
> rewarded? There are thousands of other "what if's" that
> would make you a loser if you take Pascal's Wager.
>
> > On the other hand, very few people come to Christ as a
> > result of logical deduction....
>
> That's something you should keep in mind.
D
Depends on what you mean by the wrong God. If you mean the atheist's
God, I'm not missing much. A bit of drunkeness maybe, a few parties,
a bit of skirt (no that many skirts would be interested anyway), maybe
I've disqualified myself for a good "career", but in a few years we'll
be pushing up daisies and who will know the difference? The rotting
carcasses under the ground will all be equal.
If it was the Moslem God, then yes, I'm in trouble. If it is Yahweh,
then I'll be in Hell for 12 months maximum. If it's the Buddhist God
or Hindu God, I'll probably get another shot, anyway. But since I
believe it's Christ, then I'll just have to stick with it.
Bob Crowley.
Studying Hard
Why mention it? Let's see...
"it's called rational thinking. That's something christians cannot do."
"it's called a psychosis"
"How grown people can into this stuff, I'll never know."
I'm sure those statements were made with nothing but love.