Catholics & Catholicism

Question:

The problem is that they believe in Christ, the one MooHamid made in his own image, so they think they know more about Christ than you do…

Who knows, perhaps they do?  Perhaps we only believe in the Christ that Paul made (An accusation some have made).  I am Catholic and have faith in Christ as God; however, intellectually I must admit the possibility that my faith is in error. Ultimately there are good and bad muslims and good and bad christians and even good and bad atheists.  How God decides to deal with each is up to him and I for one will not condemn any group for the actions of a few. — Bill

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The problem is that they believe in Christ, the one MooHamid made in his  own image, so they think they know more about Christ than you do… Who knows, perhaps they do?  Perhaps we only believe in the Christ that Paul made (An accusation some have made).  I am Catholic and have faith in Christ as God; however, intellectually I must admit the possibility that my faith is in error. ***If you truly believe your religious belief system is teaching the truth, you could not make such a statement. But, you admit to being a Roman Catholic so we Orthodox can assure you that your faith **IS** in error.

Al, quite the contrary.  Faith does not mean abandoning reason; faith comes from the heart, the internal certainty that God exists.  Reason however must admit that any position taken without conclusive proof could potentially be wrong.  In other words I am maintaining both faith and intellectual honesty. Of course by error, I was not talking about something as minor as the filoque or the exact nature of Papal Supremecy; I am talking about the most basic truths of our shared faith in Christ such as the existence of God and the divinity of Christ. Now if you would like to argue (on strictly friendly grounds) about the differences that seperate the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches, I would be happy to oblige.  My own personal opinion is that there were probably errors on both sides and that each side could gain something from what the other has (Essentially, personally, I wonder if the Pope has too much power, but at the same time I think the Orthodox might be too decentralized, as for the filoque.. well perhaps a reformulation of that phrase of the creed clarifying the Catholic position so that it is clear the the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in the same way as it does from the Father would enable the two churches to heal the unfortunate breech between them). All that being said, this is really something for a different thread . — Bill

Response:

The problem is that they believe in Christ, the one MooHamid made in his own image, so they think they know more about Christ than you do… Who knows, perhaps they do?  Perhaps we only believe in the Christ that Paul made (An accusation some have made).  I am Catholic and have faith in Christ as God; however, intellectually I must admit the possibility that my faith is in error.

***If you truly believe your religious belief system is teaching the truth, you could not make such a statement. But, you admit to being a Roman Catholic so we Orthodox can assure you that your faith **IS** in error. Al

Response:

The problem is that they believe in Christ, the one MooHamid made in his own image, so they think they know more about Christ than you do…

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Real Christians must destroy dirty muslims On the contrary, if we believe that the muslims are in error, then we must pray that they receive and accept the grace of christ and have a conversion from their sinful ways… which of course also applies to many who are nominally Christian. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Islam: Threat to Civilisation It was in 1915 that the Caliphate (aka the Ottoman Empire) decided to exterminate her Christian-Armenian subjects and, incidentally showed their Nazi Germans allies the proper way to conduct genocide; and it was shortly after-wards that Turkey, now a secular republic expelled all the Greeks from Anatolia where they had been living since the days of the Greek city-states. Of course the history of Turkey can also be explained by other methods than simple religious bigotry.  While it does not justify their actions, Turkey’s actions can be explained via normal nationalistic actions and not simple, hate the Christians argument. One example of Islamic takover In the Western world new mosques are going up every day; everywhere where Islam rules, the synagogues, some dating back to Babylonian times have already been shut down and such churches that are still open are on sufferance. Considering there are more Muslims are living in the west it is only to be expected that more mosques are being built. Regarding synagogues, prior to the rise of Zionism and the State of Israel in the 1940s, the Jews and the Muslims enjoyed far better relations than the Christians did with either group.  Even today there are still Jews living peacefully in Islamic nations; the reasons they leave often have more to do with general economic or political conditions not with specific problems do to their jewishness. Equally, wherever Islam has seized power all the Jews have been expelled from territories where they have been living since Babylonian, in some cases Assyrian times, and such Westerners that are still there are either diplomats, journalists or Western renegades selling their expertise to Islam. Patently not true.  Prior to the 1900s and the rise of Zionism, Jews lived far more peacefully in Muslim countries than they did in Christian Countries.  The history of Sephardic Judiasim has far fewer pograms than that of European Judiasim. On September 11th when New York and Washington were successfully attacked, (dead: Islam 19, Christians 3000) the Arab Street went delirious with joy and not just in the Middle East but also in all Islamic enclaves in Europe. And how did the West respond? The opinion- and decision-makers fell all over themselves in their haste to explain Islam, to the point that the Pope and the Prime Minister of Britain went to the mosques, and in effect, apologized for harboring uncharitable thoughts and assuring us what a loving and peaceful religion Islam is. I am not sure about your numbers, nor the assertion that Muslims in every Arab state and in every European enclave; that being said, in most if not all Christian countries during WWII, there were supporters of the Nazis.  So what does that say about Christians? The only European statesman who dared to stand up to defend the values of the West, Silvio Berlusconi, prime minister of Italy, was made to grovel and also apologize to Islam. Cause Berlusconi is hardly a statesman, rather a CEO who is using his position in government to support his own economic ambitions. Islam in Europe Islam tried three times, Poitiers, 732, Vienna 1588 and 1683, to conquer Western Europe by force of arms and each time they were turned back — just. But now, there is no need for Islam to march for the third time on Vienna, nor burst once more across the Pyrenees for the enemy is already within the gates. Europe is and continues to be inundated by a tidal wave of asylum-demanders and illegal immigrants none of whom bother even for an instant to hide their venomous hatred of the West and all it stands for; and the governments of Europe are paralyzed by political-correctness, inertia or sheer moral cowardice to stop that invasion. Hmm, and the West did conquor every Islamic state in the 19th and 20th century save Turkey (which did loose its empire to the West).  Further there was little chance in the latter two dates of Islam conquering the whole of Western Europe. In France, a junior minister admitted, that the government is afraid that their local Muslim population may go on a jihad should France decide to join the United States in going to war with Iraq. For the time being, the French government tries to deflect the jihadists by throwing them their Jewish citizens, but it is only a matter of time before the holy warriors get tired of torching synagogues and kosher shops and turn their attention to churches (as happened once already in England) and wine and pork shops. Or perhaps the junior minister is misreading what the senior officals are doing?  Certainly France is not particularly worried about the reaction of most muslims when it comes to the wearing of head scarves in school. In Holland, Islam has achieved that critical mass of 10%–and a 10% minority full of passionate intensity and burning with fervor to spread the word can always achieve mastery over the apathetic 90% who have lost faith in their institutions and traditions; aided and abetted by Islam’s useful idiots, the European intelligentsia (what a hateful Russian word) who in their relentless culture war against the West are doing invaluable service to ensure Islam’s victory even at a risk of seeing their sons and daughters exhibited in the slave-marts of Araby. How can the Western Intelligentsia being waging war with the West since they are in fact part of the West?  It is true that they are questioning long held beliefs, but then again that has always been the case ever since Martin Luther nailed the 95 thesis to the Cathedral Door 500 years ago. Islam in Britain In Britain, what the Spanish, French and Germans tried to do and failed; Islam succeeded and did so without firing a shot. There are now places in Britain where the Queen’s writ no longer runs but Sharia rules. This loss of sovereignty was amply demonstrated in 1988 when the ruling Ayatollah of Iran issued a death sentence against one Salmon Rushdie the author of the Satanic Verses. The Muslims of Britain made it quite clear that the pronouncement of an Iranian cleric took precedence over the laws of Britain (which goes some length to explain why Britain had to drop the ‘Great’ from its title), and just the other day, another prominent Muslim cleric, domiciled in England, advised Her Britannic Majesty’s Government that, should Britain join the United States against Iraq he’ll pronounce an anathema against the British realm in the full expectation that his fatwa will be obeyed (in less sophisticated societies this is known as treason). Well since the United Kingdom did join the United States against Iraq, I suppose the Muslims in England have less influence than you thought; or maybe the radicals do.  Further it is only treason if you are a subject or citizen of a country; a mere resident cannot commit treason.  Further treason in retrospect can be looked upon heroiclly depending on the context (Does the year 1776 mean anything to you?). And how has Europe (soon to be known as Eurabia) responded to these and other threats? There is now legislation pending in the European Parliament (might have already passed) that will make a letter like this a criminal offence both to the writer as well as to the recipient should the latter fail to alert the authorities. In Germany, the dominant power of the European Union, this is known as Anmeldepflicht. Umm, are you now arguing against this attempt to stem what you, in the previous paragraph, called treason? What would have happened had Islam won the battle of Poitiers (and it was a damned close thing)? Let Edward Gibbons (1737-1794 author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire tell it in his own inimitable way: "A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland: the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet." Nothing like someone dead for 200 years being the spokesperson of your cause.  But for A, B might have happened.  Of course we have no way of know what would have happened had Poitiers had been lost.  Perhaps Christian enclaves would have remained that would have formed the nucleus of resistence that would ultimately have formed the basis for a resurgent Christianity; which, by the way, is what happened in Spain.  Or perhaps the

… read more »

Response:

Real Christians must destroy dirty muslims

On the contrary, if we believe that the muslims are in error, then we must pray that they receive and accept the grace of christ and have a conversion from their sinful ways… which of course also applies to many who are nominally Christian. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Islam: Threat to Civilisation It was in 1915 that the Caliphate (aka the Ottoman Empire) decided to exterminate her Christian-Armenian subjects and, incidentally showed their Nazi Germans allies the proper way to conduct genocide; and it was shortly after-wards that Turkey, now a secular republic expelled all the Greeks from Anatolia where they had been living since the days of the Greek city-states.

Of course the history of Turkey can also be explained by other methods than simple religious bigotry.  While it does not justify their actions, Turkey’s actions can be explained via normal nationalistic actions and not simple, hate the Christians argument. One example of Islamic takover In the Western world new mosques are going up every day; everywhere where Islam rules, the synagogues, some dating back to Babylonian times have already been shut down and such churches that are still open are on sufferance.

Considering there are more Muslims are living in the west it is only to be expected that more mosques are being built. Regarding synagogues, prior to the rise of Zionism and the State of Israel in the 1940s, the Jews and the Muslims enjoyed far better relations than the Christians did with either group.  Even today there are still Jews living peacefully in Islamic nations; the reasons they leave often have more to do with general economic or political conditions not with specific problems do to their jewishness. Equally, wherever Islam has seized power all the Jews have been expelled from territories where they have been living since Babylonian, in some cases Assyrian times, and such Westerners that are still there are either diplomats, journalists or Western renegades selling their expertise to Islam.

Patently not true.  Prior to the 1900s and the rise of Zionism, Jews lived far more peacefully in Muslim countries than they did in Christian Countries.  The history of Sephardic Judiasim has far fewer pograms than that of European Judiasim. On September 11th when New York and Washington were successfully attacked, (dead: Islam 19, Christians 3000) the Arab Street went delirious with joy and not just in the Middle East but also in all Islamic enclaves in Europe. And how did the West respond? The opinion- and decision-makers fell all over themselves in their haste to explain Islam, to the point that the Pope and the Prime Minister of Britain went to the mosques, and in effect, apologized for harboring uncharitable thoughts and assuring us what a loving and peaceful religion Islam is.

I am not sure about your numbers, nor the assertion that Muslims in every Arab state and in every European enclave; that being said, in most if not all Christian countries during WWII, there were supporters of the Nazis.  So what does that say about Christians? The only European statesman who dared to stand up to defend the values of the West, Silvio Berlusconi, prime minister of Italy, was made to grovel and also apologize to Islam.

Cause Berlusconi is hardly a statesman, rather a CEO who is using his position in government to support his own economic ambitions. Islam in Europe Islam tried three times, Poitiers, 732, Vienna 1588 and 1683, to conquer Western Europe by force of arms and each time they were turned back — just. But now, there is no need for Islam to march for the third time on Vienna, nor burst once more across the Pyrenees for the enemy is already within the gates. Europe is and continues to be inundated by a tidal wave of asylum-demanders and illegal immigrants none of whom bother even for an instant to hide their venomous hatred of the West and all it stands for; and the governments of Europe are paralyzed by political-correctness, inertia or sheer moral cowardice to stop that invasion.

Hmm, and the West did conquor every Islamic state in the 19th and 20th century save Turkey (which did loose its empire to the West).  Further there was little chance in the latter two dates of Islam conquering the whole of Western Europe. In France, a junior minister admitted, that the government is afraid that their local Muslim population may go on a jihad should France decide to join the United States in going to war with Iraq. For the time being, the French government tries to deflect the jihadists by throwing them their Jewish citizens, but it is only a matter of time before the holy warriors get tired of torching synagogues and kosher shops and turn their attention to churches (as happened once already in England) and wine and pork shops.

Or perhaps the junior minister is misreading what the senior officals are doing?  Certainly France is not particularly worried about the reaction of most muslims when it comes to the wearing of head scarves in school. In Holland, Islam has achieved that critical mass of 10%–and a 10% minority full of passionate intensity and burning with fervor to spread the word can always achieve mastery over the apathetic 90% who have lost faith in their institutions and traditions; aided and abetted by Islam’s useful idiots, the European intelligentsia (what a hateful Russian word) who in their relentless culture war against the West are doing invaluable service to ensure Islam’s victory even at a risk of seeing their sons and daughters exhibited in the slave-marts of Araby.

How can the Western Intelligentsia being waging war with the West since they are in fact part of the West?  It is true that they are questioning long held beliefs, but then again that has always been the case ever since Martin Luther nailed the 95 thesis to the Cathedral Door 500 years ago. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Islam in Britain In Britain, what the Spanish, French and Germans tried to do and failed; Islam succeeded and did so without firing a shot. There are now places in Britain where the Queen’s writ no longer runs but Sharia rules. This loss of sovereignty was amply demonstrated in 1988 when the ruling Ayatollah of Iran issued a death sentence against one Salmon Rushdie the author of the Satanic Verses. The Muslims of Britain made it quite clear that the pronouncement of an Iranian cleric took precedence over the laws of Britain (which goes some length to explain why Britain had to drop the ‘Great’ from its title), and just the other day, another prominent Muslim cleric, domiciled in England, advised Her Britannic Majesty’s Government that, should Britain join the United States against Iraq he’ll pronounce an anathema against the British realm in the full expectation that his fatwa will be obeyed (in less sophisticated societies this is known as treason).

Well since the United Kingdom did join the United States against Iraq, I suppose the Muslims in England have less influence than you thought; or maybe the radicals do.  Further it is only treason if you are a subject or citizen of a country; a mere resident cannot commit treason.  Further treason in retrospect can be looked upon heroiclly depending on the context (Does the year 1776 mean anything to you?). And how has Europe (soon to be known as Eurabia) responded to these and other threats? There is now legislation pending in the European Parliament (might have already passed) that will make a letter like this a criminal offence both to the writer as well as to the recipient should the latter fail to alert the authorities. In Germany, the dominant power of the European Union, this is known as Anmeldepflicht.

Umm, are you now arguing against this attempt to stem what you, in the previous paragraph, called treason? What would have happened had Islam won the battle of Poitiers (and it was a damned close thing)? Let Edward Gibbons (1737-1794 author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire tell it in his own inimitable way: "A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland: the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet."

Nothing like someone dead for 200 years being the spokesperson of your cause.  But for A, B might have happened.  Of course we have no way of know what would have happened had Poitiers had been lost.  Perhaps Christian enclaves would have remained that would have formed the nucleus of resistence that would ultimately have formed the basis for a resurgent Christianity; which, by the way, is what happened in Spain.  Or perhaps the Muslims would have lost another battle a couple of weeks later that would have stemmed the tide.  Ultimately all we know is that Poitiers is what stopped the Muslims, not that their conquest of Europe was inevitable but for that battle. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Many of us are puzzled by the point-blank refusal of Western Intellectuals to state the obvious fact that the West is immeasurably superior to Islam. Harmony in music; perspective in painting; painless surgery; the eradication of many diseases that had plagued mankind throughout the ages; the abolishment of slavery; the harnessing of

… read more »

Response:

Real Christians must destroy dirty muslims + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Islam: Threat to Civilisation It was in 1915 that the Caliphate (aka the Ottoman Empire) decided to exterminate her Christian-Armenian subjects and, incidentally showed their Nazi Germans allies the proper way to conduct genocide; and it was shortly after-wards that Turkey, now a secular republic expelled all the Greeks from Anatolia where they had been living since the days of the Greek city-states. One example of Islamic takover One item amongst dozens should suffice. In the 1960s Islam exploded in both Indonesia as well as Malaysia, but as there were no Jews and very few Westerners to kill, the Chinese had to play the role of the victims and butchered they were in the tens of thousands, and should there be an encore if and when the U.S. makes its move against Iraq, the Chinese once more will be the victims. In the Western world new mosques are going up every day; everywhere where Islam rules, the synagogues, some dating back to Babylonian times have already been shut down and such churches that are still open are on sufferance. Equally, wherever Islam has seized power all the Jews have been expelled from territories where they have been living since Babylonian, in some cases Assyrian times, and such Westerners that are still there are either diplomats, journalists or Western renegades selling their expertise to Islam. In the West, every major and many a minor university has at least one chair devoted to Islamic studies every one of which staffed by Islamic scholars. How many Islamic universities have departments of Western studies? And how many (if any) of them are staffed with Western scholars? On September 11th when New York and Washington were successfully attacked, (dead: Islam 19, Christians 3000) the Arab Street went delirious with joy and not just in the Middle East but also in all Islamic enclaves in Europe. And how did the West respond? The opinion- and decision-makers fell all over themselves in their haste to explain Islam, to the point that the Pope and the Prime Minister of Britain went to the mosques, and in effect, apologized for harboring uncharitable thoughts and assuring us what a loving and peaceful religion Islam is. The only European statesman who dared to stand up to defend the values of the West, Silvio Berlusconi, prime minister of Italy, was made to grovel and also apologize to Islam. Islam in Europe Islam tried three times, Poitiers, 732, Vienna 1588 and 1683, to conquer Western Europe by force of arms and each time they were turned back — just. But now, there is no need for Islam to march for the third time on Vienna, nor burst once more across the Pyrenees for the enemy is already within the gates. Europe is and continues to be inundated by a tidal wave of asylum-demanders and illegal immigrants none of whom bother even for an instant to hide their venomous hatred of the West and all it stands for; and the governments of Europe are paralyzed by political-correctness, inertia or sheer moral cowardice to stop that invasion. In France, a junior minister admitted, that the government is afraid that their local Muslim population may go on a jihad should France decide to join the United States in going to war with Iraq. For the time being, the French government tries to deflect the jihadists by throwing them their Jewish citizens, but it is only a matter of time before the holy warriors get tired of torching synagogues and kosher shops and turn their attention to churches (as happened once already in England) and wine and pork shops. In Holland, Islam has achieved that critical mass of 10%–and a 10% minority full of passionate intensity and burning with fervor to spread the word can always achieve mastery over the apathetic 90% who have lost faith in their institutions and traditions; aided and abetted by Islam’s useful idiots, the European intelligentsia (what a hateful Russian word) who in their relentless culture war against the West are doing invaluable service to ensure Islam’s victory even at a risk of seeing their sons and daughters exhibited in the slave-marts of Araby. Islam in Britain In Britain, what the Spanish, French and Germans tried to do and failed; Islam succeeded and did so without firing a shot. There are now places in Britain where the Queen’s writ no longer runs but Sharia rules. This loss of sovereignty was amply demonstrated in 1988 when the ruling Ayatollah of Iran issued a death sentence against one Salmon Rushdie the author of the Satanic Verses. The Muslims of Britain made it quite clear that the pronouncement of an Iranian cleric took precedence over the laws of Britain (which goes some length to explain why Britain had to drop the ‘Great’ from its title), and just the other day, another prominent Muslim cleric, domiciled in England, advised Her Britannic Majesty’s Government that, should Britain join the United States against Iraq he’ll pronounce an anathema against the British realm in the full expectation that his fatwa will be obeyed (in less sophisticated societies this is known as treason). And how has Europe (soon to be known as Eurabia) responded to these and other threats? There is now legislation pending in the European Parliament (might have already passed) that will make a letter like this a criminal offence both to the writer as well as to the recipient should the latter fail to alert the authorities. In Germany, the dominant power of the European Union, this is known as Anmeldepflicht. What would have happened had Islam won the battle of Poitiers (and it was a damned close thing)? Let Edward Gibbons (1737-1794 author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire tell it in his own inimitable way: "A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland: the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet." Many of us are puzzled by the point-blank refusal of Western Intellectuals to state the obvious fact that the West is immeasurably superior to Islam. Harmony in music; perspective in painting; painless surgery; the eradication of many diseases that had plagued mankind throughout the ages; the abolishment of slavery; the harnessing of electricity, of steam and oil; the principles of flight, of photography; household plumbing; telephone, television and the computer; the list goes on and on. Further, the universal languages of the arts and sciences are: Latin, English French and German all Western tongues. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Islamic students go to Western universities in their tens of thousands, very few Westerners attend Islamic universities save for religious studies. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Response:

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – message message The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 6 (this is not for the atheistic evolutionist) No. 5  Misrepresentation of Reality Certain arguments which appear constantly in evolutionist publications, show how mental  and phychological assurance is needed: "No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened, nor that all living creatures are cousins of one another." R. Dawkins "Never before has a doctrine set up by a single person…been proved to be so true, as the theory of descent formulated by Charles Darwin" K. Lorenz Why does the doctrine of evolution require such assurances? One will never find such confessions of belief in scientific journals dealing with physics, chemistry, or informatics. Is it because the "theory of evolution" does not qualify as a scientific theory at all?  Below are some good examples: 1. No natural process which resulted in information forming automatically in matter, has ever been observed, and never will. 2. No transition from one basic kind(insect, bird, bovine, canine, etc) to another has ever been observed yet the theory requires it as an absolute. 3. The hypercycle theory devised by M. Eigen for explaining the origin of the first life, has never been verified experimentally. And this conceptual system also does not qualify to be a theory, neither is there any relation to reality. 4. The frequently quoted transitional forms and "missing links" have never been found.  All fossils represent complete, perfect organisms. It has also become clear from real scientific objections that evolution cannot "deliver the goods" as pretended by its supporters. The question rightly arises why it is believed so emphatically, while the creation account of the Bible is so readily brushed aside? The correct answer is:  They hate God and wish to destroy Him. This is the all consumming reason for the theory of evolution both atheistic and theistic.  The actually are one in the same after all are they not? You hit the nail on the head with that one partner. Nicely done. Bowing down to your idol again, I see… Thats rich, coming from a guy who worships a ritz cracker Lessee, you think I worship a cracker?  Yet you refuse to obey the man who instituted the rite. The council of trent instituted that in 1545-63 HE was the one who said to eat His body and drink His blood.  You know that. Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. In remembrance of me, not as a replacement for me. You have to take a lot of liberties with this to imply that a priest can turn a wafer into the Master. You clearly have never read the liturgy then, since it is God Himself who does the transubstantiation, not the priest. Paste the liturgy in your next reply and I will read it. It’s a bit long for that.  But read the order of the communion service from any Episcopalian or Anglican prayer book.  It’s essentially the same thing. It’s entirely composed of prayers.  The priest assumes no power of his own other than that promised by God in response to earnest prayer. Anyone who has told you different was either ignorant or fibbing about it (or possible gotten hold of an unorthodox liturgy–to say the least). Of course you probably think God doesn’t really answer prayers any more and isn’t keeping the promises He made so long ago. He has answered my prayers so many times that I lost count long ago. Ditto. The original church did not hold your belief. The thought of eating the actual body of the Master is such a horible concept. The concious mind recoils at the thought. How can you possibly believe this? It doesn’t even make any sense in light of the New Covenant. I could never buy into it. John 6: 51  I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52  The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57  As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58  This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. You make a good case for transubstantiation. I have read John six several times. However the next couple of verses make this section appear less literal. ( I can’t believe I said that)           Joh 6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught           in Capernaum. Joh 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? Joh 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. A few verses above the Master said we must eat His flesh to have eternal life. Right after that He says the flesh profiteth nothing. My impression is that He means we must take in what He has to offer. As in accepting His Lordship, His instructions, etc. Rather than actually eat flesh.

Nor is eating the Eucharist actually eating flesh in any material sense of the word. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Do not confuse the doctrine of transubstantiation with a physical, alchemical kind of change.  It is the SUBSTANCE of the bread and wine that are changed, not the fact that they are, chemically and materially bread and wine.  This is, perhaps, a bit subtle to a materialist (which most protestants are), but it is nevertheless what the Church has been teaching for two millenia. Yes it’s subtle. But I understand what you are saying to an extent. The communion rite is more than just a commemoration of Our Lord (though it is clearly that, too); it is a way to bring Him directly into our bodies and our community at large.  And it is a way which HE instituted. — Dave Oldridge+ I haven’t located the liturgy yet. I found all sorts of info about the liturgy but not the liturgy itself. I am sure it is on the net somewhere though. One question that I have. Suppose the liturgy is prayed by a non priest, for whatever reason, just a believer, is the effect the same?

Well, you’ll get different opinions on that one.  Generally a believer can administer the sacrament if it’s consecrated by a priest and a believer can administer the sacrament of baptism, though lay people are usually only called to do it in an emergency. Catechesis is more important in traditional rites (there’s just more to learn, basically). — Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 A false witness is worse than no witness at all.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 6 (this is not for the atheistic evolutionist) No. 5  Misrepresentation of Reality Certain arguments which appear constantly in evolutionist publications, show how mental  and phychological assurance is needed: "No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened, nor that all living creatures are cousins of one another." R. Dawkins "Never before has a doctrine set up by a single person…been proved to be so true, as the theory of descent formulated by Charles Darwin" K. Lorenz Why does the doctrine of evolution require such assurances? One will never find such confessions of belief in scientific journals dealing with physics, chemistry, or informatics. Is it because the "theory of evolution" does not qualify as a scientific theory at all?  Below are some good examples: 1. No natural process which resulted in information forming automatically in matter, has ever been observed, and never will. 2. No transition from one basic kind(insect, bird, bovine, canine, etc) to another has ever been observed yet the theory requires it as an absolute. 3. The hypercycle theory devised by M. Eigen for explaining the origin of the first life, has never been verified experimentally. And this conceptual system also does not qualify to be a theory, neither is there any relation to reality. 4. The frequently quoted transitional forms and "missing links" have never been found.  All fossils represent complete, perfect organisms. It has also become clear from real scientific objections that evolution cannot "deliver the goods" as pretended by its supporters. The question rightly arises why it is believed so emphatically, while the creation account of the Bible is so readily brushed aside? The correct answer is:  They hate God and wish to destroy Him. This is the all consumming reason for the theory of evolution both atheistic and theistic.  The actually are one in the same after all are they not? You hit the nail on the head with that one partner. Nicely done. Bowing down to your idol again, I see… Thats rich, coming from a guy who worships a ritz cracker Lessee, you think I worship a cracker?  Yet you refuse to obey the man who instituted the rite. The council of trent instituted that in 1545-63 HE was the one who said to eat His body and drink His blood.  You know that. Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. In remembrance of me, not as a replacement for me. You have to take a lot of liberties with this to imply that a priest can turn a wafer into the Master. You clearly have never read the liturgy then, since it is God Himself who does the transubstantiation, not the priest. Paste the liturgy in your next reply and I will read it. It’s a bit long for that.  But read the order of the communion service from any Episcopalian or Anglican prayer book.  It’s essentially the same thing. It’s entirely composed of prayers.  The priest assumes no power of his own other than that promised by God in response to earnest prayer. Anyone who has told you different was either ignorant or fibbing about it (or possible gotten hold of an unorthodox liturgy–to say the least). Of course you probably think God doesn’t really answer prayers any more and isn’t keeping the promises He made so long ago. He has answered my prayers so many times that I lost count long ago. Ditto. The original church did not hold your belief. The thought of eating the actual body of the Master is such a horible concept. The concious mind recoils at the thought. How can you possibly believe this? It doesn’t even make any sense in light of the New Covenant. I could never buy into it. John 6: 51  I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52  The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57  As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58  This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

You make a good case for transubstantiation. I have read John six several times. However the next couple of verses make this section appear less literal. ( I can’t believe I said that)           Joh 6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Joh 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? Joh 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. A few verses above the Master said we must eat His flesh to have eternal life. Right after that He says the flesh profiteth nothing. My impression is that He means we must take in what He has to offer. As in accepting His Lordship, His instructions, etc. Rather than actually eat flesh. Do not confuse the doctrine of transubstantiation with a physical, alchemical kind of change.  It is the SUBSTANCE of the bread and wine that are changed, not the fact that they are, chemically and materially bread and wine.  This is, perhaps, a bit subtle to a materialist (which most protestants are), but it is nevertheless what the Church has been teaching for two millenia.

Yes it’s subtle. But I understand what you are saying to an extent. The communion rite is more than just a commemoration of Our Lord (though it is clearly that, too); it is a way to bring Him directly into our bodies and our community at large.  And it is a way which HE instituted. — Dave Oldridge+

I haven’t located the liturgy yet. I found all sorts of info about the liturgy but not the liturgy itself. I am sure it is on the net somewhere though. One question that I have. Suppose the liturgy is prayed by a non priest, for whatever reason, just a believer, is the effect the same? Og

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. In remembrance of me, not as a replacement for me. You have to take a lot of liberties with this to imply that a priest can turn a wafer into the Master. You clearly have never read the liturgy then, since it is God Himself who does the transubstantiation, not the priest. Paste the liturgy in your next reply and I will read it. Of course you probably think God doesn’t really answer prayers any more and isn’t keeping the promises He made so long ago. He has answered my prayers so many times that I lost count long ago. The original church did not hold your belief. The thought of eating the actual body of the Master is such a horible concept. The concious mind recoils at the thought. How can you possibly believe this? It doesn’t even make any sense in light of the New Covenant. I could never buy into it. Og These poor lost souls don’t buy into it either.  They are indoctrinated from birth into it.  Many are the RCCs that I have helped to see the truth and became free from this cult. Many of them are priests who when presented the truth realize what a confusing and man made religion it really is. Praise God that some will escape. I can imagine that it would be hard to break away from something that you have been spoonfed your whole life by people you trusted.  I myself recieved some false impressions growing up in a watered down church, so I know how hard it is to get to the truth. What amazes me is just how far rome has gotten from the church described in the Book of Acts. It’s like another religion entirely. I have not yet learned how to witness effectivly to catholics. Og

A good read is "Trail of Blood" by J.M. Carroll available from Bryon Station Baptist Chruch, 3175 Briar Hill Rd, Lexington, Kentucky 40516. I think it costs $3.00 and it is an excellent description of the history of the churches through the centuries. As for witnessing to RCCs the Word of God is the best but let them read it for themselves.  I have watched God move through His Word, soften their hearts and show them His real love and forgiveness which turns them toward Him and away from the imposter. It really works!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. In remembrance of me, not as a replacement for me. You have to take a lot of liberties with this to imply that a priest can turn a wafer into the Master. You clearly have never read the liturgy then, since it is God Himself who does the transubstantiation, not the priest. Paste the liturgy in your next reply and I will read it. Of course you probably think God doesn’t really answer prayers any more and isn’t keeping the promises He made so long ago. He has answered my prayers so many times that I lost count long ago. The original church did not hold your belief. The thought of eating the actual body of the Master is such a horible concept. The concious mind recoils at the thought. How can you possibly believe this? It doesn’t even make any sense in light of the New Covenant. I could never buy into it. Og These poor lost souls don’t buy into it either.  They are indoctrinated from birth into it.  Many are the RCCs that I have helped to see the truth and became free from this cult. Many of them are priests who when presented the truth realize what a confusing and man made religion it really is. Praise God that some will escape.             Otherwise, there won’t be anyone beneath YOU in Protestant Heaven….

The way IKH is headed, this should be the LEAST of his worries. — Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 A false witness is worse than no witness at all.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. In remembrance of me, not as a replacement for me. You have to take a lot of liberties with this to imply that a priest can turn a wafer into the Master. You clearly have never read the liturgy then, since it is God Himself who does the transubstantiation, not the priest. Paste the liturgy in your next reply and I will read it. Of course you probably think God doesn’t really answer prayers any more and isn’t keeping the promises He made so long ago. He has answered my prayers so many times that I lost count long ago. The original church did not hold your belief. The thought of eating the actual body of the Master is such a horible concept. The concious mind recoils at the thought. How can you possibly believe this? It doesn’t even make any sense in light of the New Covenant. I could never buy into it. Og These poor lost souls don’t buy into it either.  They are indoctrinated from birth into it.  Many are the RCCs that I have helped to see the truth and became free from this cult. Many of them are priests who when presented the truth realize what a confusing and man made religion it really is. Praise God that some will escape.

            Otherwise, there won’t be anyone beneath YOU in Protestant Heaven…. Paul

Response:

The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 6 (this is not for the atheistic evolutionist) No. 5  Misrepresentation of Reality Certain arguments which appear constantly in evolutionist publications, show how mental  and phychological assurance is needed: "No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened, nor that all living creatures are cousins of one another." R. Dawkins "Never before has a doctrine set up by a single person…been proved to be so true, as the theory of descent formulated by Charles Darwin" K. Lorenz

Umm, neither of these are arguments.  They are conclusions.  Not saying they are right conclusions–just saying they aren’t arguing for anything. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why does the doctrine of evolution require such assurances?  One will never find such confessions of belief in scientific journals dealing with physics, chemistry, or informatics.  Is it because the "theory of evolution" does not qualify as a scientific theory at all?  Below are some good examples: 1. No natural process which resulted in information forming automatically in matter, has ever been observed, and never will. 2. No transition from one basic kind(insect, bird, bovine, canine, etc) to another has ever been observed yet the theory requires it as an absolute. 3. The hypercycle theory devised by M. Eigen for explaining the origin of the first life, has never been verified experimentally.  And this conceptual system also does not qualify to be a theory, neither is there any relation to reality. 4. The frequently quoted transitional forms and "missing links" have never been found.  All fossils represent complete, perfect organisms.

You are arguing against evolution?  The theory of evolution?  You are saying the fact that there’s no proof it took place one afternoon somehow disproves it?  Do you understand what modern evolution theory claims? It has also become clear from real scientific objections that evolution cannot "deliver the goods" as pretended by its supporters.

I grow so tired of the "believe my science but don’t listen to their science" crowd.  Name three legitimate (please define legitimate as broadly as you like) living scientist making the "real scientific objections" you refer to. I assure you that anyone reading large quantities of scientific texts is not encountering many(if any) arguments against the influence of so-called "natural selection" on biology.  Natural selection is given nearly the same credence as gravity by the scientific community.     There are debates about the extent to which natural selection instigated religion, various social orders and our behaviors–but little debate as to it’s existence and and the fact that it played a vital role in the evolution of organisms. "Apparent age" creation is not good science any more that biblical evolutionism is a good Christian doctrine. Either accept creation on faith or accept science.   The question rightly arises why it is believed so emphatically, while the creation account of the Bible is so readily brushed aside?

The creation recorded by the Bible (or the creation described by any number of other faiths) is not and has not been readily brushed aside. In fact, nearly every culture is prejudiced to believe in a creation story (by God or a great turtle or whatever).  It is very difficult for a culture to launch open-minded men into science who will accept what they discover, rather than see what they were told they would see before they looked.  If there was a historical scientific prejudice–it is in favor of a creation story. The correct answer is:  They hate God and wish to destroy Him

Scientist do not hate God, they seek to discover him, if he will be discovered.  If he chooses not to be seen/ felt/ heard/ measured then a good scientist cannot in good conscience report his existence or influence.  As honest scientist and good men they must report what they experience–with as little prejudice as possible.  Otherwise they are useless as scientist.  So far they report that evolution is how animals reached their current form and that evolution was driven by a sometimes efficient, sometimes not so efficient force called natural selection. The only way to scientific truth is to accept what you see and experience–not to twist the world to match what you already believe. The God that built the laws of the Universe and gave us the intelligence to probe it for truth is not against an honest search for the causes and effects of that Universe.  Yet you equate an open mind to hatred of God. This is the all consumming reason for the theory of evolution both atheistic and theistic.  The actually are one in the same after all are they not?

Are you seriously saying this?  Creationism is not a requirement of Christianity on any gospel tract I’ve seen–if you have to believe in the literal Genesis account of creation to get to heaven–better add that to the Salvation Message.  How do you think one acquires God’s deliverance from sin and a passage into heaven?  But you don’t say a man can’t go to heaven if he doesn’t believe your version of creationism–you say he hates God and wants to destroy him. Believe creation as recorded in the beginning of Genesis if you will. So long as you don’t undermine your own arguments by posting statements like "It has also become clear from real scientific objections that evolution can’t deliver the goods", I will respect your belief.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. In remembrance of me, not as a replacement for me. You have to take a lot of liberties with this to imply that a priest can turn a wafer into the Master. You clearly have never read the liturgy then, since it is God Himself who does the transubstantiation, not the priest. Paste the liturgy in your next reply and I will read it. Of course you probably think God doesn’t really answer prayers any more and isn’t keeping the promises He made so long ago. He has answered my prayers so many times that I lost count long ago. The original church did not hold your belief. The thought of eating the actual body of the Master is such a horible concept. The concious mind recoils at the thought. How can you possibly believe this? It doesn’t even make any sense in light of the New Covenant. I could never buy into it. Og These poor lost souls don’t buy into it either.  They are indoctrinated from birth into it.  Many are the RCCs that I have helped to see the truth and became free from this cult. Many of them are priests who when presented the truth realize what a confusing and man made religion it really is. Praise God that some will escape.

I can imagine that it would be hard to break away from something that you have been spoonfed your whole life by people you trusted.  I myself recieved some false impressions growing up in a watered down church, so I know how hard it is to get to the truth. What amazes me is just how far rome has gotten from the church described in the Book of Acts. It’s like another religion entirely. I have not yet learned how to witness effectivly to catholics. Og

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Lessee, you think I worship a cracker?  Yet you refuse to obey the man who instituted the rite. The council of trent instituted that in 1545-63 HE was the one who said to eat His body and drink His blood.  You know that. Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. In remembrance of me, not as a replacement for me. You have to take a lot of liberties with this to imply that a priest can turn a wafer into the Master. Og A cult can do that you know.  If you read their catachism you will find they can do all sorts of tricks.  When they get tired of a trick they start a new one and never talk about the old one again.  Kind of a handy DIY thing you know.

Sigh….it’s pretty obvious now, KnowNothing, that you have no use for Christianity or Christ, other than as a route to some presumed personal power (which you obviously feel you lack without your big bully false deity to back you up). — Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 A false witness is worse than no witness at all.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. In remembrance of me, not as a replacement for me. You have to take a lot of liberties with this to imply that a priest can turn a wafer into the Master. You clearly have never read the liturgy then, since it is God Himself who does the transubstantiation, not the priest. Paste the liturgy in your next reply and I will read it. Of course you probably think God doesn’t really answer prayers any more and isn’t keeping the promises He made so long ago. He has answered my prayers so many times that I lost count long ago. The original church did not hold your belief. The thought of eating the actual body of the Master is such a horible concept. The concious mind recoils at the thought. How can you possibly believe this? It doesn’t even make any sense in light of the New Covenant. I could never buy into it. Og These poor lost souls don’t buy into it either.  They are indoctrinated from birth into it.  Many are the RCCs that I have helped to see the truth and became free from this cult. Many of them are priests who when presented the truth realize what a confusing and man made religion it really is. Praise God that some will escape.

Since I am not a ROMAN catholic, there is nothing to escape.   — Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 A false witness is worse than no witness at all.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. In remembrance of me, not as a replacement for me. You have to take a lot of liberties with this to imply that a priest can turn a wafer into the Master. You clearly have never read the liturgy then, since it is God Himself who does the transubstantiation, not the priest. Paste the liturgy in your next reply and I will read it. Of course you probably think God doesn’t really answer prayers any more and isn’t keeping the promises He made so long ago. He has answered my prayers so many times that I lost count long ago. The original church did not hold your belief. The thought of eating the actual body of the Master is such a horible concept. The concious mind recoils at the thought. How can you possibly believe this? It doesn’t even make any sense in light of the New Covenant. I could never buy into it. Og

These poor lost souls don’t buy into it either.  They are indoctrinated from birth into it.  Many are the RCCs that I have helped to see the truth and became free from this cult. Many of them are priests who when presented the truth realize what a confusing and man made religion it really is. Praise God that some will escape.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 6 (this is not for the atheistic evolutionist) No. 5  Misrepresentation of Reality Certain arguments which appear constantly in evolutionist publications, show how mental  and phychological assurance is needed: "No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened, nor that all living creatures are cousins of one another." R. Dawkins "Never before has a doctrine set up by a single person…been proved to be so true, as the theory of descent formulated by Charles Darwin" K. Lorenz Why does the doctrine of evolution require such assurances? One will never find such confessions of belief in scientific journals dealing with physics, chemistry, or informatics. Is it because the "theory of evolution" does not qualify as a scientific theory at all?  Below are some good examples: 1. No natural process which resulted in information forming automatically in matter, has ever been observed, and never will. 2. No transition from one basic kind(insect, bird, bovine, canine, etc) to another has ever been observed yet the theory requires it as an absolute. 3. The hypercycle theory devised by M. Eigen for explaining the origin of the first life, has never been verified experimentally. And this conceptual system also does not qualify to be a theory, neither is there any relation to reality. 4. The frequently quoted transitional forms and "missing links" have never been found.  All fossils represent complete, perfect organisms. It has also become clear from real scientific objections that evolution cannot "deliver the goods" as pretended by its supporters. The question rightly arises why it is believed so emphatically, while the creation account of the Bible is so readily brushed aside? The correct answer is:  They hate God and wish to destroy Him. This is the all consumming reason for the theory of evolution both atheistic and theistic.  The actually are one in the same after all are they not? You hit the nail on the head with that one partner. Nicely done. Bowing down to your idol again, I see… Thats rich, coming from a guy who worships a ritz cracker Lessee, you think I worship a cracker?  Yet you refuse to obey the man who instituted the rite. The council of trent instituted that in 1545-63 HE was the one who said to eat His body and drink His blood.  You know that. Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. In remembrance of me, not as a replacement for me. You have to take a lot of liberties with this to imply that a priest can turn a wafer into the Master. You clearly have never read the liturgy then, since it is God Himself who does the transubstantiation, not the priest. Paste the liturgy in your next reply and I will read it.

It’s a bit long for that.  But read the order of the communion service from any Episcopalian or Anglican prayer book.  It’s essentially the same thing. It’s entirely composed of prayers.  The priest assumes no power of his own other than that promised by God in response to earnest prayer.   Anyone who has told you different was either ignorant or fibbing about it (or possible gotten hold of an unorthodox liturgy–to say the least). Of course you probably think God doesn’t really answer prayers any more and isn’t keeping the promises He made so long ago. He has answered my prayers so many times that I lost count long ago.

Ditto. The original church did not hold your belief. The thought of eating the actual body of the Master is such a horible concept. The concious mind recoils at the thought. How can you possibly believe this? It doesn’t even make any sense in light of the New Covenant. I could never buy into it.

John 6: 51  I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52  The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57  As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58  This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. Do not confuse the doctrine of transubstantiation with a physical, alchemical kind of change.  It is the SUBSTANCE of the bread and wine that are changed, not the fact that they are, chemically and materially bread and wine.  This is, perhaps, a bit subtle to a materialist (which most protestants are), but it is nevertheless what the Church has been teaching for two millenia. The communion rite is more than just a commemoration of Our Lord (though it is clearly that, too); it is a way to bring Him directly into our bodies and our community at large.  And it is a way which HE instituted. — Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 A false witness is worse than no witness at all.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Lessee, you think I worship a cracker?  Yet you refuse to obey the man who instituted the rite. The council of trent instituted that in 1545-63 HE was the one who said to eat His body and drink His blood.  You know that. Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. In remembrance of me, not as a replacement for me. You have to take a lot of liberties with this to imply that a priest can turn a wafer into the Master. Og

A cult can do that you know.  If you read their catachism you will find they can do all sorts of tricks.  When they get tired of a trick they start a new one and never talk about the old one again.  Kind of a handy DIY thing you know.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 6 (this is not for the atheistic evolutionist) No. 5  Misrepresentation of Reality Certain arguments which appear constantly in evolutionist publications, show how mental  and phychological assurance is needed: "No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened, nor that all living creatures are cousins of one another." R. Dawkins "Never before has a doctrine set up by a single person…been proved to be so true, as the theory of descent formulated by Charles Darwin" K. Lorenz Why does the doctrine of evolution require such assurances? One will never find such confessions of belief in scientific journals dealing with physics, chemistry, or informatics.  Is it because the "theory of evolution" does not qualify as a scientific theory at all?  Below are some good examples: 1. No natural process which resulted in information forming automatically in matter, has ever been observed, and never will. 2. No transition from one basic kind(insect, bird, bovine, canine, etc) to another has ever been observed yet the theory requires it as an absolute. 3. The hypercycle theory devised by M. Eigen for explaining the origin of the first life, has never been verified experimentally. And this conceptual system also does not qualify to be a theory, neither is there any relation to reality. 4. The frequently quoted transitional forms and "missing links" have never been found.  All fossils represent complete, perfect organisms. It has also become clear from real scientific objections that evolution cannot "deliver the goods" as pretended by its supporters. The question rightly arises why it is believed so emphatically, while the creation account of the Bible is so readily brushed aside? The correct answer is:  They hate God and wish to destroy Him. This is the all consumming reason for the theory of evolution both atheistic and theistic.  The actually are one in the same after all are they not? You hit the nail on the head with that one partner. Nicely done. Bowing down to your idol again, I see… Thats rich, coming from a guy who worships a ritz cracker Lessee, you think I worship a cracker?  Yet you refuse to obey the man who instituted the rite. The council of trent instituted that in 1545-63 HE was the one who said to eat His body and drink His blood.  You know that. Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. In remembrance of me, not as a replacement for me. You have to take a lot of liberties with this to imply that a priest can turn a wafer into the Master. You clearly have never read the liturgy then, since it is God Himself who does the transubstantiation, not the priest.

Paste the liturgy in your next reply and I will read it. Of course you probably think God doesn’t really answer prayers any more and isn’t keeping the promises He made so long ago.

He has answered my prayers so many times that I lost count long ago. The original church did not hold your belief. The thought of eating the actual body of the Master is such a horible concept. The concious mind recoils at the thought. How can you possibly believe this? It doesn’t even make any sense in light of the New Covenant. I could never buy into it. Og

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 6 (this is not for the atheistic evolutionist) No. 5  Misrepresentation of Reality Certain arguments which appear constantly in evolutionist publications, show how mental  and phychological assurance is needed: "No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened, nor that all living creatures are cousins of one another." R. Dawkins "Never before has a doctrine set up by a single person…been proved to be so true, as the theory of descent formulated by Charles Darwin" K. Lorenz Why does the doctrine of evolution require such assurances? One will never find such confessions of belief in scientific journals dealing with physics, chemistry, or informatics.  Is it because the "theory of evolution" does not qualify as a scientific theory at all?  Below are some good examples: 1. No natural process which resulted in information forming automatically in matter, has ever been observed, and never will. 2. No transition from one basic kind(insect, bird, bovine, canine, etc) to another has ever been observed yet the theory requires it as an absolute. 3. The hypercycle theory devised by M. Eigen for explaining the origin of the first life, has never been verified experimentally. And this conceptual system also does not qualify to be a theory, neither is there any relation to reality. 4. The frequently quoted transitional forms and "missing links" have never been found.  All fossils represent complete, perfect organisms. It has also become clear from real scientific objections that evolution cannot "deliver the goods" as pretended by its supporters. The question rightly arises why it is believed so emphatically, while the creation account of the Bible is so readily brushed aside? The correct answer is:  They hate God and wish to destroy Him. This is the all consumming reason for the theory of evolution both atheistic and theistic.  The actually are one in the same after all are they not? You hit the nail on the head with that one partner. Nicely done. Bowing down to your idol again, I see… Thats rich, coming from a guy who worships a ritz cracker Lessee, you think I worship a cracker?  Yet you refuse to obey the man who instituted the rite. The council of trent instituted that in 1545-63 HE was the one who said to eat His body and drink His blood.  You know that. Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. In remembrance of me, not as a replacement for me. You have to take a lot of liberties with this to imply that a priest can turn a wafer into the Master.

You clearly have never read the liturgy then, since it is God Himself who does the transubstantiation, not the priest.  Of course you probably think God doesn’t really answer prayers any more and isn’t keeping the promises He made so long ago. — Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 A false witness is worse than no witness at all.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 6 (this is not for the atheistic evolutionist) No. 5  Misrepresentation of Reality Certain arguments which appear constantly in evolutionist publications, show how mental  and phychological assurance is needed: "No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened, nor that all living creatures are cousins of one another." R. Dawkins "Never before has a doctrine set up by a single person…been proved to be so true, as the theory of descent formulated by Charles Darwin" K. Lorenz Why does the doctrine of evolution require such assurances?  One will never find such confessions of belief in scientific journals dealing with physics, chemistry, or informatics.  Is it because the "theory of evolution" does not qualify as a scientific theory at all?  Below are some good examples: 1. No natural process which resulted in information forming automatically in matter, has ever been observed, and never will. 2. No transition from one basic kind(insect, bird, bovine, canine, etc) to another has ever been observed yet the theory requires it as an absolute. 3. The hypercycle theory devised by M. Eigen for explaining the origin of the first life, has never been verified experimentally. And this conceptual system also does not qualify to be a theory, neither is there any relation to reality. 4. The frequently quoted transitional forms and "missing links" have never been found.  All fossils represent complete, perfect organisms. It has also become clear from real scientific objections that evolution cannot "deliver the goods" as pretended by its supporters. The question rightly arises why it is believed so emphatically, while the creation account of the Bible is so readily brushed aside? The correct answer is:  They hate God and wish to destroy Him. This is the all consumming reason for the theory of evolution both atheistic and theistic.  The actually are one in the same after all are they not? You hit the nail on the head with that one partner. Nicely done. Bowing down to your idol again, I see… Thats rich, coming from a guy who worships a ritz cracker Lessee, you think I worship a cracker?  Yet you refuse to obey the man who instituted the rite.

The council of trent instituted that in 1545-63 HE was the one who said to eat His body and drink His blood.  You know that.

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. In remembrance of me, not as a replacement for me. You have to take a lot of liberties with this to imply that a priest can turn a wafer into the Master. Og

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 6 (this is not for the atheistic evolutionist) No. 5  Misrepresentation of Reality Certain arguments which appear constantly in evolutionist publications, show how mental  and phychological assurance is needed: "No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened, nor that all living creatures are cousins of one another." R. Dawkins "Never before has a doctrine set up by a single person…been proved to be so true, as the theory of descent formulated by Charles Darwin" K. Lorenz Why does the doctrine of evolution require such assurances?  One will never find such confessions of belief in scientific journals dealing with physics, chemistry, or informatics.  Is it because the "theory of evolution" does not qualify as a scientific theory at all?  Below are some good examples: 1. No natural process which resulted in information forming automatically in matter, has ever been observed, and never will. 2. No transition from one basic kind(insect, bird, bovine, canine, etc) to another has ever been observed yet the theory requires it as an absolute. 3. The hypercycle theory devised by M. Eigen for explaining the origin of the first life, has never been verified experimentally. And this conceptual system also does not qualify to be a theory, neither is there any relation to reality. 4. The frequently quoted transitional forms and "missing links" have never been found.  All fossils represent complete, perfect organisms. It has also become clear from real scientific objections that evolution cannot "deliver the goods" as pretended by its supporters. The question rightly arises why it is believed so emphatically, while the creation account of the Bible is so readily brushed aside? The correct answer is:  They hate God and wish to destroy Him. This is the all consumming reason for the theory of evolution both atheistic and theistic.  The actually are one in the same after all are they not? You hit the nail on the head with that one partner. Nicely done. Bowing down to your idol again, I see…

Thats rich, coming from a guy who worships a ritz cracker Og Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 6 (this is not for the atheistic evolutionist) No. 5  Misrepresentation of Reality Certain arguments which appear constantly in evolutionist publications, show how mental  and phychological assurance is needed: "No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened, nor that all living creatures are cousins of one another." R. Dawkins "Never before has a doctrine set up by a single person…been proved to be so true, as the theory of descent formulated by Charles Darwin" K. Lorenz Why does the doctrine of evolution require such assurances?  One will never find such confessions of belief in scientific journals dealing with physics, chemistry, or informatics.  Is it because the "theory of evolution" does not qualify as a scientific theory at all?  Below are some good examples: 1. No natural process which resulted in information forming automatically in matter, has ever been observed, and never will. 2. No transition from one basic kind(insect, bird, bovine, canine, etc) to another has ever been observed yet the theory requires it as an absolute. 3. The hypercycle theory devised by M. Eigen for explaining the origin of the first life, has never been verified experimentally. And this conceptual system also does not qualify to be a theory, neither is there any relation to reality. 4. The frequently quoted transitional forms and "missing links" have never been found.  All fossils represent complete, perfect organisms. It has also become clear from real scientific objections that evolution cannot "deliver the goods" as pretended by its supporters. The question rightly arises why it is believed so emphatically, while the creation account of the Bible is so readily brushed aside? The correct answer is:  They hate God and wish to destroy Him. This is the all consumming reason for the theory of evolution both atheistic and theistic.  The actually are one in the same after all are they not? You hit the nail on the head with that one partner. Nicely done. Bowing down to your idol again, I see… Thats rich, coming from a guy who worships a ritz cracker

Lessee, you think I worship a cracker?  Yet you refuse to obey the man who instituted the rite.  HE was the one who said to eat His body and drink His blood.  You know that. — Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 A false witness is worse than no witness at all.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 6 (this is not for the atheistic evolutionist) No. 5  Misrepresentation of Reality Certain arguments which appear constantly in evolutionist publications, show how mental  and phychological assurance is needed: "No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened, nor that all living creatures are cousins of one another." R. Dawkins "Never before has a doctrine set up by a single person…been proved to be so true, as the theory of descent formulated by Charles Darwin" K. Lorenz Why does the doctrine of evolution require such assurances?  One will never find such confessions of belief in scientific journals dealing with physics, chemistry, or informatics.  Is it because the "theory of evolution" does not qualify as a scientific theory at all?  Below are some good examples: 1. No natural process which resulted in information forming automatically in matter, has ever been observed, and never will. 2. No transition from one basic kind(insect, bird, bovine, canine, etc) to another has ever been observed yet the theory requires it as an absolute. 3. The hypercycle theory devised by M. Eigen for explaining the origin of the first life, has never been verified experimentally. And this conceptual system also does not qualify to be a theory, neither is there any relation to reality. 4. The frequently quoted transitional forms and "missing links" have never been found.  All fossils represent complete, perfect organisms. It has also become clear from real scientific objections that evolution cannot "deliver the goods" as pretended by its supporters. The question rightly arises why it is believed so emphatically, while the creation account of the Bible is so readily brushed aside? The correct answer is:  They hate God and wish to destroy Him. This is the all consumming reason for the theory of evolution both atheistic and theistic.  The actually are one in the same after all are they not? You hit the nail on the head with that one partner. Nicely done.

Bowing down to your idol again, I see… — Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 A false witness is worse than no witness at all.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 6 (this is not for the atheistic evolutionist) No. 5  Misrepresentation of Reality Certain arguments which appear constantly in evolutionist publications, show how mental  and phychological assurance is needed: "No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened, nor that all living creatures are cousins of one another." R. Dawkins "Never before has a doctrine set up by a single person…been proved to be so true, as the theory of descent formulated by Charles Darwin" K. Lorenz Why does the doctrine of evolution require such assurances?  One will never find such confessions of belief in scientific journals dealing with physics, chemistry, or informatics.  Is it because the "theory of evolution" does not qualify as a scientific theory at all?  Below are some good examples: 1. No natural process which resulted in information forming automatically in matter, has ever been observed, and never will. 2. No transition from one basic kind(insect, bird, bovine, canine, etc) to another has ever been observed yet the theory requires it as an absolute. 3. The hypercycle theory devised by M. Eigen for explaining the origin of the first life, has never been verified experimentally.  And this conceptual system also does not qualify to be a theory, neither is there any relation to reality. 4. The frequently quoted transitional forms and "missing links" have never been found.  All fossils represent complete, perfect organisms. It has also become clear from real scientific objections that evolution cannot "deliver the goods" as pretended by its supporters.  The question rightly arises why it is believed so emphatically, while the creation account of the Bible is so readily brushed aside? The correct answer is:  They hate God and wish to destroy Him. This is the all consumming reason for the theory of evolution both atheistic and theistic.  The actually are one in the same after all are they not?

You hit the nail on the head with that one partner. Nicely done. Og

Response:

The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 6 (this is not for the atheistic evolutionist) No. 5  Misrepresentation of Reality Certain arguments which appear constantly in evolutionist publications, show how mental  and phychological assurance is needed: "No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened, nor that all living creatures are cousins of one another." R. Dawkins "Never before has a doctrine set up by a single person…been proved to be so true, as the theory of descent formulated by Charles Darwin" K. Lorenz Why does the doctrine of evolution require such assurances?  One will never find such confessions of belief in scientific journals dealing with physics, chemistry, or informatics.  Is it because the "theory of evolution" does not qualify as a scientific theory at all?  Below are some good examples: 1. No natural process which resulted in information forming automatically in matter, has ever been observed, and never will. 2. No transition from one basic kind(insect, bird, bovine, canine, etc) to another has ever been observed yet the theory requires it as an absolute. 3. The hypercycle theory devised by M. Eigen for explaining the origin of the first life, has never been verified experimentally.  And this conceptual system also does not qualify to be a theory, neither is there any relation to reality. 4. The frequently quoted transitional forms and "missing links" have never been found.  All fossils represent complete, perfect organisms. It has also become clear from real scientific objections that evolution cannot "deliver the goods" as pretended by its supporters.  The question rightly arises why it is believed so emphatically, while the creation account of the Bible is so readily brushed aside? The correct answer is:  They hate God and wish to destroy Him. This is the all consumming reason for the theory of evolution both atheistic and theistic.  The actually are one in the same after all are they not?

Response:

The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 6 (this is not for the atheistic evolutionist) No. 5  Misrepresentation of Reality Certain arguments which appear constantly in evolutionist publications, show how mental  and phychological assurance is needed: "No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened, nor that all living creatures are cousins of one another." R. Dawkins

This is the simple truth. "Never before has a doctrine set up by a single person…been proved to be so true, as the theory of descent formulated by Charles Darwin" K. Lorenz

This is probably a bit of an exaggeration, since general relativity probably also qualifies and is a bit better-tested that general evolution. Why does the doctrine of evolution require such assurances?  One will

It’s not a doctrine and doesn’t require them.  Why are you lying about it yet again? never find such confessions of belief in scientific journals dealing with physics, chemistry, or informatics.  Is it because the "theory of evolution" does not qualify as a scientific theory at all?  Below are some good examples:

Actually, one will, especially in physics. 1. No natural process which resulted in information forming automatically in matter, has ever been observed, and never will.

This is simply false to observed fact.  Just about EVERY natural process results in the formation of "information" by some measure or other. 2. No transition from one basic kind(insect, bird, bovine, canine, etc) to another has ever been observed yet the theory requires it as an absolute.

Another total falsehood.  There are many transitions, including some important ones between rather large clades (such as amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, reptiles and dinosaurs, dinosaurs and birds).  The hominin line is actually quite cluttered now. 3. The hypercycle theory devised by M. Eigen for explaining the origin of the first life, has never been verified experimentally.  And this conceptual system also does not qualify to be a theory, neither is there any relation to reality.

Maybe it doesn’t.  I haven’t seen any hard theory on the origin of life.   We simply don’t know enough about it yet.   4. The frequently quoted transitional forms and "missing links" have never been found.  All fossils represent complete, perfect organisms.

Lying again, I see. It has also become clear from real scientific objections that evolution cannot "deliver the goods" as pretended by its supporters. The question rightly arises why it is believed so emphatically, while the creation account of the Bible is so readily brushed aside?

It is believed to be true on the basis of large amounts of evidence, some of which you have lied about in this post.  Why do you do that?  You surely do not hope to convince those of us who actually know the science, so I can only conclude that you have so little faith in your DAMNED (literally) heresy that you feel it is necessary to lie. The correct answer is:  They hate God and wish to destroy Him.

No, it is YOU who is doing the God-hating around here and you refuse to obey Him.  You drop His name as a sop to your vanity.  But you HATE Him with a passion, since you will never actually obey Him. This is the all consumming reason for the theory of evolution both atheistic and theistic.  The actually are one in the same after all are they not?

Nope…the reason for the theory of evolution is to explain what we see in the natural world.  The reason you lie about it is because you have no faith in God and your idol has clay feet and you know it, so you lie to protect it, since, for some reason, you feel you cannot limp through life without your idol. Now, repeat after me.  "I have sinned.  I am truly and heartily sorry that I have sinned and repent of it.  I will try in the future to avoid sinning and I ask God, in Jesus name to forgive those sins that I am aware of and have repented and even those I have forgotten to repent.   And I ask God to guide me in ways of righteous behaviour instead of offensive lies against others.  Amen." If you can bring yourself to say that simple prayer and really MEAN it instead of just making the noise, it will do you a world of spiritual good. — Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 A false witness is worse than no witness at all.

Response:

Question:

Supporters of the Byzantine text type are clearly motivated by a desperate desire to establish Jesus as a pre-existing divine being.

No, Paul, I’m not motivated by any such desperate desire. The apostles never taught such a thing, but to make their case they need the Byzantine text. Once one sees the entire issue through these motives, everything that Byzantine supporters write becomes totally transparent. It is emotion driven from start to finish.

Nonsense. So, they need the Vaticanus text type to look as bad as they can. They need it to originate in Egypt even though it originated in Palestine.

How do you know this? They need it to be fourth century, even though it can be traced to the first. They need it to be tainted with Gnosticism, even though it is very Hebraic and most definitely unitarian. As one who initially bought into the notion that the Byzantine text type was the purest text, I finally had to face the fact of what was really going on here.

And myself, I’ve been a credulous supporter of "modern eclectic text" for great many years. But when I started to examine these things for myself, I’ve found out that the whole thing is nothing more than just a house of cards. Its a fundamentalist issue rather than historical one. Therefore I have become oblivious to the worn out, outdated arguments of the fundies, their ignorance is bliss in the good of KJV.

I’m definitely not a fundie. But for those with an open mind and a Berean spirit, their is new evidence that supports an entirely different scenario than is what is commonly believed on both sides of the issue. But let’s not bother the fundies with new facts, they spent so much time creating their house of cards that they actually believe that they have the stronger case. I’ve heard all the arguments, and they are definitely smug in their self deception, so lets not disturb their sleep. All that one ever needs in studying the Bible is honesty, and it is apparent that they have none! A theologically driven argument closes the door to honesty, and once we understand this, then anything that comes out of their mouth is immediately suspect, and therefore, irrelevant. Paul R. Finch

I’m waiting for you to present even one valid argument that the modern eclectic text is superior to the traditional Byzantine text. All we get from you so far is empty rhetorics. Yours, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The original New Testament gospels and epistles were in the possession of the Christians in the first century in Antioch. Exact copies of these were sent out with missionaries to different cities. In Alexandria Egypt the gnostics got a hold of them and deliberately changed 5% of the scriptures  to match their own heretical beliefs, in the 4th century. The so-called Alexandrian text type is a total myth and has been debunked by Theodore Skeat. Paul, In what way was it "debunked"? Paul R. Finch

  Colwell a CT supporter on his study of the "Alexandrian text type", "These results show   convincingly that any attempt to reconstruct an archetype of the   Beta Text-Type on a quantitative basis is doomed to failure. The text   thus reconstructed is not reconstructed but constructed; it is an   artificial entity that never existed." Colwell, "The Significance   of Grouping of New Testament Manuscripts,", New Testament Studies,   IV (1957-1958), 86,87   Colwell uses "Beta Text-type" to refer to today’s ‘Alexandrian" text.  Regards,  Jim

Response:

 Since you can’t refute a Burgon, Scrivener, Miller, Hoskier,  Maurice Robinson, and others, you resort to the ad hominem and  Genetic fallacies. Who are these great scholars mentioned above, and give us their background please.

 You might try a goggle search.  Burgon got the chair of Newman when Newman went to Rome at Oxford.  Scrivenet was on the RV committee.  Anthony Hort proposed a recension/conflation by Lucian of Antioch of all Greek Church  texts to explain their overall unity. Burgon responded that their was  no record of such a recension/conflation in all of Greek Church history;  and beside, Lucian of Antioch was the teacher of Arius.   Kenyon a CT supported later agreed that it never occured; but CT  supporters unable to admit they were wrong continue on in spite  of the FACT, their is just no record of the recension/conflation  which makes the overall unity of the Greek Church texts decisive  that they are the best representatives of the autographs. If you  are going to coment on an issue, you might read the other side.  Regards,  Jim

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The original New Testament gospels and epistles were in the possession of the Christians in the first century in Antioch. Exact copies of these were sent out with missionaries to different cities. In Alexandria Egypt the gnostics got a hold of them and deliberately changed 5% of the scriptures to match their own heretical beliefs, in the 4th century. The so-called Alexandrian text type is a total myth and has been debunked by Theodore Skeat. Paul, In what way was it "debunked"?       Alexandrian text-type http://www.fact-index.com/a/al/alexandrian_text_type.html The origin of the Vaticanus text type is Caesarea in the first century, not Alexandria in the fourth. There’s no evidence of this. The Apostles John and his elders completed the canon and safe guarded its provenance by placing a complete codex in the libraries of Jerusalem and Caesarea in Palestine. The Byzantine text type is a later church edition and is a flagrant corruption of the true "Caesarean" text. How do you know this? Acts — New Perspectives in New Testament History." Paul R. Finch http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/01189.htm Yours, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith

Supporters of the Byzantine text type are clearly motivated by a desperate desire to establish Jesus as a pre-existing divine being. The apostles never taught such a thing, but to make their case they need the Byzantine text. Once one sees the entire issue through these motives, everything that Byzantine supporters write becomes totally transparent. It is emotion driven from start to finish. So, they need the Vaticanus text type to look as bad as they can. They need it to originate in Egypt even though it originated in Palestine. They need it to be fourth century, even though it can be traced to the first. They need it to be tainted with Gnosticism, even though it is very Hebraic and most definitely unitarian. As one who initially bought into the notion that the Byzantine text type was the purest text, I finally had to face the fact of what was really going on here. Its a fundamentalist issue rather than historical one. Therefore I have become oblivious to the worn out, outdated arguments of the fundies, their ignorance is bliss in the good of KJV. But for those with an open mind and a Berean spirit, their is new evidence that supports an entirely different scenario than is what is commonly believed on both sides of the issue. But let’s not bother the fundies with new facts, they spent so much time creating their house of cards that they actually believe that they have the stronger case. I’ve heard all the arguments, and they are definitely smug in their self deception, so lets not disturb their sleep. All that one ever needs in studying the Bible is honesty, and it is apparent that they have none! A theologically driven argument closes the door to honesty, and once we understand this, then anything that comes out of their mouth is immediately suspect, and therefore, irrelevant. Paul R. Finch

Response:

 Since you can’t refute a Burgon, Scrivener, Miller, Hoskier,  Maurice Robinson, and others, you resort to the ad hominem and  Genetic fallacies.

Who are these great scholars mentioned above, and give us their background please. — Stephen Bayzik

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The original New Testament gospels and epistles were in the possession of the Christians in the first century in Antioch. Exact copies of these were sent out with missionaries to different cities. In Alexandria Egypt the gnostics got a hold of them and deliberately changed 5% of the scriptures to match their own heretical beliefs, in the 4th century. The so-called Alexandrian text type is a total myth and has been debunked by Theodore Skeat. Paul, In what way was it "debunked"?       Alexandrian text-type http://www.fact-index.com/a/al/alexandrian_text_type.html The origin of the Vaticanus text type is Caesarea in the first century, not Alexandria in the fourth. There’s no evidence of this. The Apostles John and his elders completed the canon and safe guarded its provenance by placing a complete codex in the libraries of Jerusalem and Caesarea in Palestine. The Byzantine text type is a later church edition and is a flagrant corruption of the true "Caesarean" text. How do you know this? Acts — New Perspectives in New Testament History." Paul R. Finch http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/01189.htm Yours, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith Supporters of the Byzantine text type are clearly motivated by a desperate desire to establish Jesus as a pre-existing divine being. The apostles never taught such a thing, but to make their case they need the Byzantine text.

Micah 5:2   But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. The prophet Micah taught that Messiah would be one who existed from everlasting. Excerpts from the article by Robert Stewart: There again, he might have in mind the "oldest and one of the most excellent of the versions" (to quote Scrivener) which is the translation of the Greek into Syriac called the Peshitta.  Paul’s missionary base was at Antioch, in Syria, and the Syriac-speaking Christians had the Scriptures translated into their own language.  It is universally acknowledged that the Peshitta is a translation of the Byzantine text and, according to church historians (Eusebius and others), the Peshitta dates from c AD 150.  Terence H Brown confirms that "the Syriac version was older by two centuries than the Nestorian heresy (AD 431)". Naturally, Westcott and Hort were not happy with the ancient church tradition that the Peshitta dated from the second century, and so they maintained, without any evidence whatsoever, that the Peshitta dated from c AD 425. In reality, it is the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts (which disagree with each other) that date from around the 4th century. Why is it that the universal text (which is also called the byzantine text) has been found in many different cities, and the Alexandrian text comes from only one city in Egypt? The corrupters, the gnostic heretics, were in Alexandria.  I would remind you that some Old Latin versions were based on the Greek Vulgate (the Byzantine text) whilst other versions were based on manuscripts from Alexandria, and yet others were varying mixtures of both text-types to the degree that Jerome complained that there were "almost as many versions as manuscripts". I would remind you of the quotation from "Languages, Literature and Art", which states that "Roman Britain shared the particular textual version which, from the third century, had been used in Gaul (as opposed, say, to the ‘African [Alexandrian] Old Latin’ versions used in the north African provinces)," and that I have examined the Old Latin used in Britain and Ireland myself, at specific disputed passages, and can confirm that the Celtic Old Latin text has Byzantine readings. Greek scholar John W Burgon made an exhaustive examination of the quotations of seventy-six early Christian writers (pre 4th century) and found them to be 66% in support of Byzantine readings.  He concluded: "Do they witness to the traditional [Byzantine] text as existing from the first or do they not?  The results of the evidence, both as regards the quantity and the quality of the testimony, enable us to reply not only that the traditional [Byzantine] text was in existence, but that it was predominant during the period under review." (The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels; John Williams Burgon; Bell; 1896; p 116) Greek scholar Wilbur N Pickering has researched this claim and reveals that: "Byzantine readings are recognised (most notably) by the Didache, Diognetus, and Justin Martyr in the first half of the second century [AD 100-150]; by the Gospel of Peter, Athenagorus, Hegesippus, and Irenaeus (heavily) in the second half [AD 150-199]; by Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Clementines, Hippolytus, and Origen (all heavily) in the first half of the third century [AD 200-250]; by Gregory of Thaumaturgus, Novatian, Cyprian (heavily), Dionysius of Alexandria, and Archelaus in the second half [AD 250-299]".  ("The Identity of the New Testament Text"; Wilbur N Pickering; Nelson; 1980; p 75) In reality, the combined witness of the papyrus manuscripts found in Egypt testify to only one indisputable truth, and that is concerning the negligence and incompetence of the Alexandrian copyists. Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable. On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or whole sentences are frequently written twice over or begun and immediately cancelled. A whole clause omitted, because it happens to end in the words of the clause preceeding happens 115 times in the New Testament. The above is excerpts from the book: Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By  Barry Burton. Find it here: http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp Once one sees the entire issue through – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -these motives, everything that Byzantine supporters write becomes totally transparent. It is emotion driven from start to finish. So, they need the Vaticanus text type to look as bad as they can. They need it to originate in Egypt even though it originated in Palestine. They need it to be fourth century, even though it can be traced to the first. They need it to be tainted with Gnosticism, even though it is very Hebraic and most definitely unitarian. As one who initially bought into the notion that the Byzantine text type was the purest text, I finally had to face the fact of what was really going on here. Its a fundamentalist issue rather than historical one. Therefore I have become oblivious to the worn out, outdated arguments of the fundies, their ignorance is bliss in the good of KJV. But for those with an open mind and a Berean spirit, their is new evidence that supports an entirely different scenario than is what is commonly believed on both sides of the issue. But let’s not bother the fundies with new facts, they spent so much time creating their house of cards that they actually believe that they have the stronger case. I’ve heard all the arguments, and they are definitely smug in their self deception, so lets not disturb their sleep. All that one ever needs in studying the Bible is honesty, and it is apparent that they have none! A theologically driven argument closes the door to honesty, and once we understand this, then anything that comes out of their mouth is immediately suspect, and therefore, irrelevant. Paul R. Finch

Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Accounts Starting At $6.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com                <<<<<<<   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <<<<<<<<

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The original New Testament gospels and epistles were in the possession  of the Christians in the first century in Antioch. Exact copies of these  were sent out with missionaries to different cities. In Alexandria Egypt  the gnostics got a hold of them and deliberately changed 5% of the  scriptures  to match their own heretical beliefs, in the 4th century. The so-called Alexandrian text type is a total myth and has been  debunked by Theodore Skeat. Paul, In what way was it "debunked"?       Alexandrian text-type http://www.fact-index.com/a/al/alexandrian_text_type.html The origin of the Vaticanus text type is Caesarea in the first century,  not Alexandria in the fourth. There’s no evidence of this. The Apostles John and his elders completed the canon and safe guarded  its provenance by placing a complete codex in the libraries of Jerusalem and Caesarea in  Palestine. The Byzantine text type is a later church edition and is a flagrant corruption of the true "Caesarean" text. How do you know this?  Acts — New Perspectives in New Testament History." Paul R. Finch http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/01189.htm Yours, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith Supporters of the Byzantine text type are clearly motivated by a desperate desire to establish Jesus as a pre-existing divine being. The apostles never taught such a thing, but to make their case they need the Byzantine text. Once one sees the entire issue through these motives, everything that Byzantine supporters write becomes totally transparent. It is emotion driven from start to finish. So, they need the Vaticanus text type to look as bad as they can. They need it to originate in Egypt even though it originated in Palestine. They need it to be fourth century, even though it can be traced to the first. They need it to be tainted with Gnosticism, even though it is very Hebraic and most definitely unitarian. As one who initially bought into the notion that the Byzantine text type was the purest text, I finally had to face the fact of what was really going on here. Its a fundamentalist issue rather than historical one. Therefore I have become oblivious to the worn out, outdated arguments of the fundies, their ignorance is bliss in the good of KJV. But for those with an open mind and a Berean spirit, their is new evidence that supports an entirely different scenario than is what is commonly believed on both sides of the issue. But let’s not bother the fundies with new facts, they spent so much time creating their house of cards that they actually believe that they have the stronger case. I’ve heard all the arguments, and they are definitely smug in their self deception, so lets not disturb their sleep. All that one ever needs in studying the Bible is honesty, and it is apparent that they have none! A theologically driven argument closes the door to honesty, and once we understand this, then anything that comes out of their mouth is immediately suspect, and therefore, irrelevant. Paul R. Finch

 Since you can’t refute a Burgon, Scrivener, Miller, Hoskier,  Maurice Robinson, and others, you resort to the ad hominem and  Genetic fallacies.  Regards,  Jim

Response:

There are also some pretty gnostic-sounding passages that Westcott & Hort inserted into their ‘eclectic Greek NT’. Would you mind quoting some?

Hi, Wilfried, "Stone" has already posted a whole bunch of relevant stuff , but some of what he posted is of doubtful quality (such as the Chick productions). Here’s some much better material, Gnostic Corruptions in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament      http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html This article is quite well written. Its author seems to be Dr. Thomas M. Strouse, of Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary. He analyses the following passages, Matthew 8:29 Matthew 19:17 Mark 1:1 Luke 4:4 Luke 22:43-44 John 1:18 John 3:13 John 9:35 John 10:14-15 Acts 2:30 I Corinthians 15:47 II Corinthians 4:6 Galatians 6:17 Ephesians 3:9 I Timothy 3:16 I John 4:3 The big problem with such analyses is sorting out which Byzantine passages really have the claim to be more original than what W&H cooked up. As I said before, personally, I don’t think that Byzantine text is "the original text". I merely say that it’s a far more reliable text, as compared with what W&H cooked up in the 19c. We should keep in mind that it’s possible that some of what Strouse describes as "Gnostic corruptions" (in relation to the Byzantine text) may also be not "Gnostic", but part of the original gospel text. Yet I think I agree with Strouse in most of these cases. He also presents quite a good analysis of Alexandrian Gnosticism in general. Regards, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky  -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku The distressing realization is forced upon us that the "progress" of the past hundred years has been precisely in the wrong direction — our modern versions and critical texts are several times farther removed from the original than are the Authorised Version (KJV) and TR! How could such a calamity have come upon us?! — Wilbur Pickering

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There are also some pretty gnostic-sounding passages that Westcott & Hort inserted into their ‘eclectic Greek NT’. Would you mind quoting some? Hi, Wilfried, "Stone" has already posted a whole bunch of relevant stuff , but some of what he posted is of doubtful quality (such as the Chick productions). Here’s some much better material, Gnostic Corruptions in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament      http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html This article is quite well written. Its author seems to be Dr. Thomas M. Strouse, of Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary. He analyses the following passages, Matthew 8:29 Matthew 19:17 Mark 1:1 Luke 4:4 Luke 22:43-44 John 1:18 John 3:13 John 9:35 John 10:14-15 Acts 2:30 I Corinthians 15:47 II Corinthians 4:6 Galatians 6:17 Ephesians 3:9 I Timothy 3:16 I John 4:3 The big problem with such analyses is sorting out which Byzantine passages really have the claim to be more original than what W&H cooked up. As I said before, personally, I don’t think that Byzantine text is "the original text". I merely say that it’s a far more reliable text, as compared with what W&H cooked up in the 19c. We should keep in mind that it’s possible that some of what Strouse describes as "Gnostic corruptions" (in relation to the Byzantine text) may also be not "Gnostic", but part of the original gospel text. Yet I think I agree with Strouse in most of these cases. He also presents quite a good analysis of Alexandrian Gnosticism in general. Regards, Yuri.

Seven of the above references occur in Stone’s list. I thought that Alexandrian Gnosticism was a red herring. Now I know it is. The basic reason is that both the gnostic and Christian literature have as their primary sources the Jewish literature of The New Covenant In The Spirit. Geoff

Response:

snipped for more space to post in. The Syriatic Greek text, the textus receptus was carried by Christian missionaries into Alexandria in Egypt where unbelieving philosophers changed the words around, creating the corrupted Alexandrian Greek text. It now seems to me that the Alexandrian text was a corruption of the truly original text, and that the TR was a further corruption of the Alexandrian. Geoff

No. The TR matches the pleshitta, a Greek text that can be traced back to the first century: You can find a reference or two to this in the following article. The Alexandrian text is only as old as the 4th century. Manuscript History Article by Robert Stewart, posted on alt.religion.christian.baptist under the title, Greek New Testament When sharing Bible readings with Christian friends, you may have noticed that certain verses appear to be missing (or in dispute) indicated by the introduction of a hyphen or brackets at such places as Matt 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44,46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; 24:12; 40; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; Rom 16:24; etc. Then again there are those strange comments casting doubt over the readings of Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53 – 8:11 and talk of "ancient" and "late" manuscripts.  For most Christians, this is all a bit above their heads, and we tend to leave it all in the more than capable hands of those who know about such things. Before my conversion to Christianity, I was engaged in a study of the Bible with a man who used the Authorised Version (AV) and I used the New International Version (NIV).  As we studied various doctrines, we discovered that the readings of the AV were often contradicted by the NIV, sometimes to an alarming degree.  This encouraged me into some serious critical study of the Greek New Testament and modern Bible translations. In approaching the NIV, I read in the Preface that the Greek text used was "an eclectic one".  The word "eclectic" had me looking for my Dictionary.  I found that the word "eclectic" means "chosen from various sources".  That reminds me.  In the local shop we had a "Pick ‘n’ Mix" counter where the children could pick their various favourite sweets, toffees, and candies from a wide selection.  They put them all in one bag and were weighed together as one purchase.  The word "eclectic" means "Pick ‘n’ Mix". I wrote to the International Bible Society to enquire about the "eclectic" text of the NIV.  Ralph Earle advised me that the Greek text of the NIV was basically that found in the United Bible Societies/Nestle-Aland printed Greek New Testament text.  I subsequently discovered that this modern UBS/Nestle-Aland "eclectic" text forms the basis for most of the modern translations of the New Testament. My investigations revealed that the joint UBS/Nestle-Aland Editorial Committee was presided over by the renowned Jesuit named Carlo Maria Martini, Cardinal Archbishop of Milan (the largest Roman Catholic diocese in the world), President of the Council of European Bishops, former Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, "Rector Magnificus" of the Gregorian University, and regarded by many as "the Pope in Waiting". To cut a long story short, and to leapfrog several years, I delved further and further into the labyrinth of this fascinating subject. As I did, it slowly dawned on me that, working on a theory first propounded by Westcott and Hort in 1881, the translators of most of the modern Bibles had deserted the traditional New Testament text of the Greek speaking churches and had, instead, introduced rare and peculiar readings of a handful of obscure manuscripts, primarily (but not exclusively) Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. These minority readings, chosen from various sources, had been introduced into the modern UBS/Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament text under the supervision of the most prominent Roman Catholic Greek Scholar in the world. Got your attention?  Good.  So let us start this story at the beginning …  … Antioch in Syria (modern day Antakya in Turkey), on the navigable Orontes River twenty miles from the Mediterranean Sea, was founded in 301 BC by Seleucus I, one of the generals and successors of Alexander the Great.  In New Testament times it was the eastern capital of the Roman Empire, famous for its magnificent architecture rivalled only by Rome and Alexandria. Following the outbreak of persecution of Christians in Jerusalem, and after the death of Stephen the martyr, many disciples fled to Antioch (Acts 11:19) where "great numbers believed".  After his conversion to Christianity, Paul taught the church in Antioch for a whole year and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called "Christians" (Acts 11:25-26). Paul made his missionary base in Antioch and it was from Antioch that Paul made his missionary tours to establish churches in Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth, Ephesus, and other cities and towns throughout Asia Minor and Greece.  History records that it was to Antioch (not Jerusalem or Rome) that these Greek speaking churches naturally gravitated.  No wonder Antioch was called the "Mother of all the Gentile churches". Not surprisingly, with the desolation of Jerusalem by Titus, son of the Roman emperor Vespasian, in AD 70, it was Antioch which became the natural successor as the world centre of Christianity. According to the church historian Eusebius, the apostle John was an elder in the church at Ephesus, Asia Minor, and John was personally involved in collecting and forming the writings of the New Testament. It can be safely said that the original hand written autographs of John, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 & 2 Peter, 1 & 2 & 3 John, and the Revelation were held in Asia Minor and Greece. The Christians who fled Jerusalem before its desolation took their precious manuscripts with them.  Scholars estimate that at least twenty, and possibly as many as twenty-four, of the original autographs of the twenty-seven New Testament books were held in the region of Asia Minor and Greece. That the church jealously guarded over these writings is easily confirmed.  For example Irenaeus (AD 140 – 202, who had moved out from Asia Minor to Lyons, France, by AD 177) records that a disputed reading of Revelation 13:18 had been settled by examining "all the most approved and ancient copies" and by consulting men who had personally spoken about the disputed reading with the apostle John in Ephesus.  Likewise Tertullian (about AD 208) is on record challenging heretics to examine the original writings of the apostles and specifically states that they were still available for examination in such places as Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, and Ephesus, etc. With the need for accurate copies of the New Testament to be made, and with the advent of the Christian "school of Antioch" (and affiliated scriptoria), the early Greek speaking church went to great lengths to ensure that reliable copies of the original autographs were made.  The New Testament of the Greek speaking churches, in the eastern portion of the Roman Empire, was known as the Greek Vulgate. The eastern Greek speaking portion of the Roman Empire later became known as the Byzantine Empire (AD 330 – 1453).  Its political capital was the ancient city of Byzantium (renamed Constantinople; now Istanbul, Turkey).  For this reason, the traditional New Testament text of the Greek speaking churches is often referred to by scholars as the Byzantine text. The eastern Greek speaking churches were often at loggerheads with the Church of Rome and were finally alienated from the Latin speaking West by a formal schism (AD 1054) between the Greek Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.  In the east, the Greek churches preserved the Byzantine text, the traditional text of the Greek speaking churches. In the west, the Roman Catholic Latin speaking churches had the Latin Vulgate compiled by Jerome (AD 345 – 419). In 1453, the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople (Byzantium), bringing the Byzantine Empire to an end.  Greek Orthodox Christians fled to western Europe, some of them bringing their Greek New Testament manuscripts with them.  Interestingly, these events coincided with the invention of the printing press by Johann Gutenberg, of the German city of Mainz.  In 1516 a Dutch Roman Catholic priest, named Desiderius Erasmus, printed his first edition of the Greek New Testament, based on a handful of Byzantine manuscripts, alongside a new Latin translation. It was not long before sharp-eyed scholars noticed that the text of the printed Greek New Testament of Erasmus, and his Latin translation, were substantially different from the text of the Roman Catholic Bible, the Latin Vulgate. A controversy raged.  The Protestant Reformation began. The controversy regarding the traditional New Testament text of the Greek speaking churches is still with us today.  Which brings me to a book entitled "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?" by James R White. In 1993, A V Publications released a book entitled "New Age Bible Versions", by Gail Riplinger, a book which attacked modern versions of the Bible.  The book was quickly adopted by members of what is known as the "King James Only" movement, sometimes referred to as Ruckmanism (after Dr Peter Ruckman of the Pensacola Bible Institute).  The Winter 1996 issue of the Christian Research Journal contained an article entitled "Is Your Modern Translation Corrupt?" written by James R White.  The article was written following the publication of a book entitled "The King James Only Controversy" by the same author.  The article and book were written primarily to answer those, like Riplinger and Ruckman, who claim that the King James Version is the one and only inspired and inerrant Word of God. It is not my purpose, here, to defend or attack the King James Only … read more »

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Geoff Hudson wrote in article: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fba079c7.0409080150.2d20ae1a%40p… .google.com "Dear friends, Here’s something that I’ve found on the Net recently. While the main subject of the long article from which these quotes have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic summary is generally quite valid, I think." If anyone has taken the trouble to see what the "long article" was about, they will see that the writer is complaining about W & H’s "spiritualism" with Kabbalistic overtones. Yes, Hudson, it seems that Westcott & Hort were into some weird stuff… It’s strange that so many Christian fundamentalists are using the fruits of their labours, their ‘eclectic Greek NT’, while disregarding their somewhat odd theological inclinations. Here are two quotes from the article: "This report was written to demonstrate that the sources used by the Hebraic Roots Movement (Talmud, Mishnah, Midrash, Halakah and Haggada) evolved into and purvey the same occult teachings as the Kabbalah/Zohar, the preeminent compendium of Jewish mysticism. Schools of Kabbalah generally require a knowledge of these Rabbinic sources" "B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were themselves practical occultists who determined to replace the Received Greek Text (Textus Receptus) with the Alexandrian family of Gnostic manuscripts, which more closely reflected their belief system. The well-documented facts of the occult associations and dishonorable intentions of these two Anglican scholars can be found in The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival." Questions: 1. What does the writer mean when he implies that the Alexandrian family of manuscripts were more "gnostic" than the TR?  Does he in fact mean they are more Spirit based? In general, Alexandria in ancient times was believed to have been a hotbed of Gnosticism. There are also some pretty gnostic-sounding passages that Westcott & Hort inserted into their ‘eclectic Greek NT’. But you can also describe these passages as "Spirit based" I suppose… 2. What does the writer mean by the "occult revival"?  For example, does he mean Pentecostalism? Well, I think we’re talking here about something that’s a bit more serious than that. I don’t think that the Pentecostals are generally seen as a bunch of Gnostics, somehow… 3. If the W & H text leans towards Spirit worship, then I might think that their text was more correct than those that don’t. Your opinion only. It is my view that the pre-war New Covenant In the Spirit was indeed Kabbalistic with its worship of the Spirit as Lord, its visions, language of heavenly ascents as in Revelation and as stated by "Paul" (where he says he was caught up to heaven while on earth), and with reference to the editor’s "spiritual gifts" which in the original were surely gifts of different spirits. SO, WERE W & H MORE CORRECT AFTER ALL? I don’t think so, although the opinions may vary. And is the article writer’s perjorative reference to gnosticism just one big red herring (an artificial excuse for rejecting the text of W $ H)? No, I don’t think it’s a red herring. I can understand that some of the NT may have been edited later by the Jesus cult movement to combat gnosticism. Or maybe to include gnosticism? But that does not preclude the existence of a pre-war Jewish (and Gentile) Kabbalistic New Covenant In the Spirit which is what (imo) the original NT documents were about. Hudson Well, I don’t want to sound dogmatic, but I don’t think your view will find much support among the mainstream Christians. Although one never knows… Yours, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky  -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku The distressing realization is forced upon us that the "progress" of the past hundred years has been precisely in the wrong direction — our modern versions and critical texts are several times farther removed from the original than are the Authorised Version (KJV) and TR! How could such a calamity have come upon us?! — Wilbur Pickering The original New Testament gospels and epistles were in the possession of the Christians in the first century in Antioch. Exact copies of these were sent out with missionaries to different cities. In Alexandria Egypt the gnostics got a hold of them and deliberately changed 5% of the scriptures to match their own heretical beliefs, in the 4th century.

This is just one theory… Because Alexandria has a dry arid climate, very old manuscripts containing these corrupted scriptures were found. 5 corrupted manuscripts come from Alexandria. They disagree with each other in various places and they disagree with the textus receptus in about 5% of important places. When the Roman catholic church was being invented by the Emporer Constantine, in the 4th century, by mixing pagan Roman religion with Christianity, he sent a man named Eusebius to get manuscripts for the Roman catholic Bible. He had access to the Real Old and New Testament books (the massoretic text and the textus receptus)

No, he had no access to the textus receptus. That’s a 1000 years later. and he had access to the corrupted Alexandrian texts. He chose the wrong manuscripts, the corrupted Alexandrian texts for the catholic Bible. Jerome later translated this into the Latin Vulgate for the catholic church.

Latin Vulgate is not an Alexandrian text. The Byzantine text or textus receptus, and the massoretic text (for the old testament) were still the manuscripts used in the Eastern part of the Roman empire by the Greek speaking peoples. These are the real original unaltered texts. During the reformation the protestants adopted the real unaltered texts as their Bible, the massoretic text (old testament) and the textus receptus (new testament) which was translated into the protestant King James Bible, the Tyndale Bible, and Luther’s German Bible.  The catholic church is behind the introduction of the modern versions containing the Alexandrian Hort and Wescott text.

This is incorrect. In fact, the Catholic Church resisted W&H innovation longer than any other mainstream denominations. The Catholic church is trying to pull down the protestant KJV Bible and replace it with the corrupted Alexandrian text that they adopted.

There’s no evidence of that. That is the reason for the market being flooded with corrupted Alexandrian text Bibles. It is this ongoing war between catholicism and protestantism that is causing the problem.

Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky  -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku The distressing realization is forced upon us that the "progress" of the past hundred years has been precisely in the wrong direction — our modern versions and critical texts are several times farther removed from the original than are the Authorised Version (KJV) and TR! How could such a calamity have come upon us?! — Wilbur Pickering

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In general, Alexandria in ancient times was believed to have been a hotbed of Gnosticism. There are also some pretty gnostic-sounding passages that Westcott & Hort inserted into their ‘eclectic Greek NT’.  FYI – I Emailed the Greek See of Alexandria and asked them        if their texts were different than other Greek Churches?        They Emailed me back saying, "they are completly the        same".      Regards,      Jim You are incorrect. The Greek vulgate or the textus receptus differs from the Alexandrian text like as what follows:   You don’t understand. The Greek See of Alexandria are saying their text is the  Greek Vulgate. The so-called Alexandrian text is unknown to the Greek See of  Alexandria and was probably produced by gnostics, not the Greek Church of Alexandria which survived the Arabs and Turks, and God willing will survive the "German Scholarship". Pray for them, the just lost their Patriarch in a plane crash. Regards, Jim

Hi, Jim, True, at this time, the Greek See of Alexandria is using the Greek Vulgate. But this doesn’t mean that they’ve always used the Greek Vulgate, as we know it now. It seems like what we know as ‘Alexandrian text’ was the favoured text in Alexandria in the 4c. But then it was replaced with the more Byzantine text later on — because Alexandria was ruled by Constantinople. Best, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku History repeats itself. It has to, because nobody listens.

Response:

The original New Testament gospels and epistles were in the possession of the Christians in the first century in Antioch. Exact copies of these were sent out with missionaries to different cities. In Alexandria Egypt the gnostics got a hold of them and deliberately changed 5% of the scriptures to match their own heretical beliefs, in the 4th century. The so-called Alexandrian text type is a total myth and has been debunked by Theodore Skeat.

Paul, In what way was it "debunked"?       Alexandrian text-type http://www.fact-index.com/a/al/alexandrian_text_type.html The origin of the Vaticanus text type is Caesarea in the first century, not Alexandria in the fourth.

There’s no evidence of this. The Apostles John and his elders completed the canon and safe guarded its provenance by placing a complete codex in the libraries of Jerusalem and Caesarea in Palestine. The Byzantine text type is a later church edition and is a flagrant corruption of the true "Caesarean" text.

How do you know this? New Perspectives in New Testament History." Paul R. Finch http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/01189.htm

Yours, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Geoff Hudson wrote in article: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fba079c7.0409080150.2d20ae1a%40p…. google.com "Dear friends, Here’s something that I’ve found on the Net recently. While the main subject of the long article from which these quotes have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic summary is generally quite valid, I think." If anyone has taken the trouble to see what the "long article" was about, they will see that the writer is complaining about W & H’s "spiritualism" with Kabbalistic overtones. Yes, Hudson, it seems that Westcott & Hort were into some weird stuff… It’s strange that so many Christian fundamentalists are using the fruits of their labours, their ‘eclectic Greek NT’, while disregarding their somewhat odd theological inclinations. Here are two quotes from the article: "This report was written to demonstrate that the sources used by the Hebraic Roots Movement (Talmud, Mishnah, Midrash, Halakah and Haggada) evolved into and purvey the same occult teachings as the Kabbalah/Zohar, the preeminent compendium of Jewish mysticism. Schools of Kabbalah generally require a knowledge of these Rabbinic sources" "B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were themselves practical occultists who determined to replace the Received Greek Text (Textus Receptus) with the Alexandrian family of Gnostic manuscripts, which more closely reflected their belief system. The well-documented facts of the occult associations and dishonorable intentions of these two Anglican scholars can be found in The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival." Questions: 1. What does the writer mean when he implies that the Alexandrian family of manuscripts were more "gnostic" than the TR?  Does he in fact mean they are more Spirit based? In general, Alexandria in ancient times was believed to have been a hotbed of Gnosticism. There are also some pretty gnostic-sounding passages that Westcott & Hort inserted into their ‘eclectic Greek NT’.  FYI – I Emailed the Greek See of Alexandria and asked them        if their texts were different than other Greek Churches?        They Emailed me back saying, "they are completly the        same".      Regards,      Jim You are incorrect. The Greek vulgate or the textus receptus differs from the Alexandrian text like as what follows: 1Jonh 5:7 is pulled out of the modern alexandrian text versions by someone in Alexandria that did not believe in the trinity. 1John 5:8 is in its place. IJohn 5:7 (King James version) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 is by far not the only reason. Changes that were made to the scriptures in Alexandria, Egypt, by unbelieving philosophers, in the Alexandrian text, attack other important doctrines of the Christian faith. You can go to this website and see for yourself how the changes that were made to the Alexandrian text, affect important doctrines of the Christian faith; the unsaved philosophers that made these changes were not real Christians. http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html Examples: The modern Alexandrian texts attack these doctrines: The deity of Christ:  1 Timothy 3:16 " God was manifest in the flesh" – KJV 1 Tim. 3:16 " He who was revealed in the flesh – NAS Heb. 2:11 " he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one" – KJV Heb. 2:11 "he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin" – Revised Version Christ did not have an origin: Jesus said before Abraham was I am, John 8:58   Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Psalms 90:2   Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. Micah 5:2 kjv whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting Micah 5:2 Revised standard whose origin is from of old, from ancient days Verse attacking the doctrine of salvation by faith: 1 Peter 2:2 kjv "desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby." 1 Peter 2:2 revised version "long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation" Salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus and repentance, you do not grow up to it by doing works: Ephesians 2:8   For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Ephesians 2:9   Not of works, lest any man should boast. Verse attacking ressurection of Christ: Luke 24:6 KJV   He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Luke 24:6 " Remember how he told you while he was still in Gallilee – revised standard It left out, he is not here, but is risen Verse attacking word of God: Luke 4:4 KJV  And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4 " And Jesus answered him, It is written man shall not live on bread alone" NAS Leaves out " but by every word of God" Verses attacking the virgin birth: Isaiah 7:14 KJV  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14 "behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son" – Revised Standard version Is. 7:14 Good News Bible, "a young woman who is pregnant will have a son" Luke 1:34 kjv Luke 1:34   Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Luke 1:34 Revised standard "how shall this be since I have no husband" The KJV plainly shows Mary to be a virgin: The revised standard opens up the possibility that she conceived a child by another man that was not  Joseph. Excerpts from Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By  Barry Burton. Find it here: http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp There are other examples of how the corrupted Alexandrian text modern Bible versions have changed the words aroung to attack important doctrines of the Christian faith. Psalms 12:6   The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Psalms 12:7   Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The King James Version is God’s true word in English. The modern versions come from a corrupted Alexandrian text that had the words changed in important places. The New King James Bible (NKJV), has proven to be a hoax, and is not a true translation of the Textus Receptus. Some of the words were deliberately changed for reasons other than translation. http://www.llano.net/baptist/isnkjbwordofgod.htm 1 John 5:7 is in the textus receptus which was found in its original Greek form long before the fourteenth century. Research textus receptus on the internet. The textus receptus is the greek text of the New Testament that came from Antioch in Syria. This is the real original unaltered text. 1 John 5:7 was written by the apostle John and it is in the Syriatic Greek text.  Acts 11:26   And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. The Syriatic Greek text, the textus receptus was carried by Christian missionaries into Alexandria in Egypt where unbelieving philosophers changed the words around, creating the corrupted Alexandrian Greek text. It now seems to me that the Alexandrian text was a corruption of the truly original text, and that the TR was a further corruption of the Alexandrian. Geoff

 Please read John Burgon’s, "The Revision Revised" or Wibur Pickering’s  "The Idenity of The New Testamant Text", for the other side.   Regards,   Jim

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Geoff Hudson wrote in article: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fba079c7.0409080150.2d20ae1a%40p…. google.com "Dear friends, Here’s something that I’ve found on the Net recently. While the main subject of the long article from which these quotes have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic summary is generally quite valid, I think." If anyone has taken the trouble to see what the "long article" was about, they will see that the writer is complaining about W & H’s "spiritualism" with Kabbalistic overtones. Yes, Hudson, it seems that Westcott & Hort were into some weird stuff… It’s strange that so many Christian fundamentalists are using the fruits of their labours, their ‘eclectic Greek NT’, while disregarding their somewhat odd theological inclinations. Here are two quotes from the article: "This report was written to demonstrate that the sources used by the Hebraic Roots Movement (Talmud, Mishnah, Midrash, Halakah and Haggada) evolved into and purvey the same occult teachings as the Kabbalah/Zohar, the preeminent compendium of Jewish mysticism. Schools of Kabbalah generally require a knowledge of these Rabbinic sources" "B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were themselves practical occultists who determined to replace the Received Greek Text (Textus Receptus) with the Alexandrian family of Gnostic manuscripts, which more closely reflected their belief system. The well-documented facts of the occult associations and dishonorable intentions of these two Anglican scholars can be found in The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival." Questions: 1. What does the writer mean when he implies that the Alexandrian family of manuscripts were more "gnostic" than the TR?  Does he in fact mean they are more Spirit based? In general, Alexandria in ancient times was believed to have been a hotbed of Gnosticism. There are also some pretty gnostic-sounding passages that Westcott & Hort inserted into their ‘eclectic Greek NT’.  FYI – I Emailed the Greek See of Alexandria and asked them        if their texts were different than other Greek Churches?        They Emailed me back saying, "they are completly the        same".      Regards,      Jim You are incorrect. The Greek vulgate or the textus receptus differs from the Alexandrian text like as what follows: 1Jonh 5:7 is pulled out of the modern alexandrian text versions by someone in Alexandria that did not believe in the trinity. 1John 5:8 is in its place. IJohn 5:7 (King James version) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 is by far not the only reason. Changes that were made to the scriptures in Alexandria, Egypt, by unbelieving philosophers, in the Alexandrian text, attack other important doctrines of the Christian faith. You can go to this website and see for yourself how the changes that were made to the Alexandrian text, affect important doctrines of the Christian faith; the unsaved philosophers that made these changes were not real Christians. http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html Examples: The modern Alexandrian texts attack these doctrines: The deity of Christ:  1 Timothy 3:16 " God was manifest in the flesh" – KJV 1 Tim. 3:16 " He who was revealed in the flesh – NAS Heb. 2:11 " he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one" – KJV Heb. 2:11 "he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin" – Revised Version Christ did not have an origin: Jesus said before Abraham was I am, John 8:58   Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Psalms 90:2   Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. Micah 5:2 kjv whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting Micah 5:2 Revised standard whose origin is from of old, from ancient days Verse attacking the doctrine of salvation by faith: 1 Peter 2:2 kjv "desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby." 1 Peter 2:2 revised version "long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation" Salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus and repentance, you do not grow up to it by doing works: Ephesians 2:8   For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Ephesians 2:9   Not of works, lest any man should boast. Verse attacking ressurection of Christ: Luke 24:6 KJV   He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Luke 24:6 " Remember how he told you while he was still in Gallilee – revised standard It left out, he is not here, but is risen Verse attacking word of God: Luke 4:4 KJV  And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4 " And Jesus answered him, It is written man shall not live on bread alone" NAS Leaves out " but by every word of God" Verses attacking the virgin birth: Isaiah 7:14 KJV  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14 "behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son" – Revised Standard version Is. 7:14 Good News Bible, "a young woman who is pregnant will have a son" Luke 1:34 kjv Luke 1:34   Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Luke 1:34 Revised standard "how shall this be since I have no husband" The KJV plainly shows Mary to be a virgin: The revised standard opens up the possibility that she conceived a child by another man that was not  Joseph. Excerpts from Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By  Barry Burton. Find it here: http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp There are other examples of how the corrupted Alexandrian text modern Bible versions have changed the words aroung to attack important doctrines of the Christian faith. Psalms 12:6   The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Psalms 12:7   Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The King James Version is God’s true word in English. The modern versions come from a corrupted Alexandrian text that had the words changed in important places. The New King James Bible (NKJV), has proven to be a hoax, and is not a true translation of the Textus Receptus. Some of the words were deliberately changed for reasons other than translation. http://www.llano.net/baptist/isnkjbwordofgod.htm 1 John 5:7 is in the textus receptus which was found in its original Greek form long before the fourteenth century. Research textus receptus on the internet. The textus receptus is the greek text of the New Testament that came from Antioch in Syria. This is the real original unaltered text. 1 John 5:7 was written by the apostle John and it is in the Syriatic Greek text.  Acts 11:26   And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. The Syriatic Greek text, the textus receptus was carried by Christian missionaries into Alexandria in Egypt where unbelieving philosophers changed the words around, creating the corrupted Alexandrian Greek text.

It now seems to me that the Alexandrian text was a corruption of the truly original text, and that the TR was a further corruption of the Alexandrian. Geoff

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Geoff Hudson wrote in article: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fba079c7.0409080150.2d20ae1a%40p…. google.com "Dear friends, Here’s something that I’ve found on the Net recently. While the main subject of the long article from which these quotes have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic summary is generally quite valid, I think." If anyone has taken the trouble to see what the "long article" was about, they will see that the writer is complaining about W & H’s "spiritualism" with Kabbalistic overtones. Yes, Hudson, it seems that Westcott & Hort were into some weird stuff… It’s strange that so many Christian fundamentalists are using the fruits of their labours, their ‘eclectic Greek NT’, while disregarding their somewhat odd theological inclinations. Here are two quotes from the article: "This report was written to demonstrate that the sources used by the Hebraic Roots Movement (Talmud, Mishnah, Midrash, Halakah and Haggada) evolved into and purvey the same occult teachings as the Kabbalah/Zohar, the preeminent compendium of Jewish mysticism. Schools of Kabbalah generally require a knowledge of these Rabbinic sources" "B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were themselves practical occultists who determined to replace the Received Greek Text (Textus Receptus) with the Alexandrian family of Gnostic manuscripts, which more closely reflected their belief system. The well-documented facts of the occult associations and dishonorable intentions of these two Anglican scholars can be found in The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival." Questions: 1. What does the writer mean when he implies that the Alexandrian family of manuscripts were more "gnostic" than the TR?  Does he in fact mean they are more Spirit based? In general, Alexandria in ancient times was believed to have been a hotbed of Gnosticism. There are also some pretty gnostic-sounding passages that Westcott & Hort inserted into their ‘eclectic Greek NT’.

They are more gnostic sounding because they are nearer to the original documents which were about the appearing of the Spirit of God on the earth. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  FYI – I Emailed the Greek See of Alexandria and asked them        if their texts were different than other Greek Churches?        They Emailed me back saying, "they are completly the        same".      Regards,      Jim You are incorrect. The Greek vulgate or the textus receptus differs from the Alexandrian text like as what follows: 1Jonh 5:7 is pulled out of the modern alexandrian text versions by someone in Alexandria that did not believe in the trinity. 1John 5:8 is in its place. IJohn 5:7 (King James version) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 is by far not the only reason. Changes that were made to the scriptures in Alexandria, Egypt, by unbelieving philosophers, in the Alexandrian text, attack other important doctrines of the Christian faith. You can go to this website and see for yourself how the changes that were made to the Alexandrian text, affect important doctrines of the Christian faith; the unsaved philosophers that made these changes were not real Christians. http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html

Thankyou Stone for this reference.   Why didn’t you provide such a list Yuri, or do you have a better list? I can take these examples one by one. Geoff

Response:

The Byzantine text or textus receptus, and the massoretic text (for the old testament) were still the manuscripts used in the Eastern part of the Roman empire by the Greek speaking peoples. These are the real original unaltered texts.

Alexandria was part of the Byzantine empire and the people were also Greek speaking. There is no difference. It was all the same. Gnostics were everywhere.

Response:

The original New Testament gospels and epistles were in the possession of the Christians in the first century in Antioch. Exact copies of these were sent out with missionaries to different cities. In Alexandria Egypt the gnostics got a hold of them and deliberately changed 5% of the scriptures to match their own heretical beliefs, in the 4th century.

The so-called Alexandrian text type is a total myth and has been debunked by Theodore Skeat. The origin of the Vaticanus text type is Caesarea in the first century, not Alexandria in the fourth. The Apostles John and his elders completed the canon and safe guarded its provenance by placing a complete codex in the libraries of Jerusalem and Caesarea in Palestine. The Byzantine text type is a later church edition and is a flagrant corruption of the true "Caesarean" text. New Perspectives in New Testament History." Paul R. Finch http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/01189.htm

Response:

Geoff Hudson wrote in article:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fba079c7.0409080150.2d20ae1a%40p…. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – google.com "Dear friends, Here’s something that I’ve found on the Net recently. While the main subject of the long article from which these quotes have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic summary is generally quite valid, I think." If anyone has taken the trouble to see what the "long article" was about, they will see that the writer is complaining about W & H’s "spiritualism" with Kabbalistic overtones. Yes, Hudson, it seems that Westcott & Hort were into some weird stuff… It’s strange that so many Christian fundamentalists are using the fruits of their labours, their ‘eclectic Greek NT’, while disregarding their somewhat odd theological inclinations. Here are two quotes from the article: "This report was written to demonstrate that the sources used by the Hebraic Roots Movement (Talmud, Mishnah, Midrash, Halakah and Haggada) evolved into and purvey the same occult teachings as the Kabbalah/Zohar, the preeminent compendium of Jewish mysticism. Schools of Kabbalah generally require a knowledge of these Rabbinic sources" "B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were themselves practical occultists who determined to replace the Received Greek Text (Textus Receptus) with the Alexandrian family of Gnostic manuscripts, which more closely reflected their belief system. The well-documented facts of the occult associations and dishonorable intentions of these two Anglican scholars can be found in The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival." Questions: 1. What does the writer mean when he implies that the Alexandrian family of manuscripts were more "gnostic" than the TR?  Does he in fact mean they are more Spirit based? In general, Alexandria in ancient times was believed to have been a hotbed of Gnosticism. There are also some pretty gnostic-sounding passages that Westcott & Hort inserted into their ‘eclectic Greek NT’.  FYI – I Emailed the Greek See of Alexandria and asked them        if their texts were different than other Greek Churches?        They Emailed me back saying, "they are completly the        same".      Regards,      Jim You are incorrect. The Greek vulgate or the textus receptus differs from the Alexandrian text like as what follows:

  You don’t understand. The Greek See of Alexandria are saying their text is the  Greek Vulgate. The so-called Alexandrian text is unknown to the Greek See of  Alexandria and was probably produced by gnostics, not the Greek Church of Alexandria which survived the Arabs and Turks, and God willing will survive the "German Scholarship". Pray for them, the just lost their Patriarch in a plane crash. Regards, Jim – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1Jonh 5:7 is pulled out of the modern alexandrian text versions by someone in Alexandria that did not believe in the trinity. 1John 5:8 is in its place. IJohn 5:7 (King James version) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 is by far not the only reason. Changes that were made to the scriptures in Alexandria, Egypt, by unbelieving philosophers, in the Alexandrian text, attack other important doctrines of the Christian faith. You can go to this website and see for yourself how the changes that were made to the Alexandrian text, affect important doctrines of the Christian faith; the unsaved philosophers that made these changes were not real Christians. http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html Examples: The modern Alexandrian texts attack these doctrines: The deity of Christ:  1 Timothy 3:16 " God was manifest in the flesh" – KJV 1 Tim. 3:16 " He who was revealed in the flesh – NAS Heb. 2:11 " he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one" – KJV Heb. 2:11 "he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin" – Revised Version Christ did not have an origin: Jesus said before Abraham was I am, John 8:58   Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Psalms 90:2   Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. Micah 5:2 kjv whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting Micah 5:2 Revised standard whose origin is from of old, from ancient days Verse attacking the doctrine of salvation by faith: 1 Peter 2:2 kjv "desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby." 1 Peter 2:2 revised version "long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation" Salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus and repentance, you do not grow up to it by doing works: Ephesians 2:8   For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Ephesians 2:9   Not of works, lest any man should boast. Verse attacking ressurection of Christ: Luke 24:6 KJV   He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Luke 24:6 " Remember how he told you while he was still in Gallilee – revised standard It left out, he is not here, but is risen Verse attacking word of God: Luke 4:4 KJV  And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4 " And Jesus answered him, It is written man shall not live on bread alone" NAS Leaves out " but by every word of God" Verses attacking the virgin birth: Isaiah 7:14 KJV  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14 "behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son" – Revised Standard version Is. 7:14 Good News Bible, "a young woman who is pregnant will have a son" Luke 1:34 kjv Luke 1:34   Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Luke 1:34 Revised standard "how shall this be since I have no husband" The KJV plainly shows Mary to be a virgin: The revised standard opens up the possibility that she conceived a child by another man that was not Joseph. Excerpts from Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By  Barry Burton. Find it here: http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp There are other examples of how the corrupted Alexandrian text modern Bible versions have changed the words aroung to attack important doctrines of the Christian faith. Psalms 12:6   The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Psalms 12:7   Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The King James Version is God’s true word in English. The modern versions come from a corrupted Alexandrian text that had the words changed in important places. The New King James Bible (NKJV), has proven to be a hoax, and is not a true translation of the Textus Receptus. Some of the words were deliberately changed for reasons other than translation. http://www.llano.net/baptist/isnkjbwordofgod.htm 1 John 5:7 is in the textus receptus which was found in its original Greek form long before the fourteenth century. Research textus receptus on the internet. The textus receptus is the greek text of the New Testament that came from Antioch in Syria. This is the real original unaltered text. 1 John 5:7 was written by the apostle John and it is in the Syriatic Greek text.  Acts 11:26   And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. The Syriatic Greek text, the textus receptus was carried by Christian missionaries into Alexandria in Egypt where unbelieving philosophers changed the words around, creating the corrupted Alexandrian Greek text. The Roman emporer Constantine, in the 4th century ordered a man named Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, to make him 50 Bibles for the newly formed roman catholic church, which is a mixture of pagan roman religion mixed with Christianity; in short, Rome hijacked Christianity and created a perverted form of Christianity which is not really Christian. Eusebius had a choice to make up the 50 bibles, for the roman catholic church, either using the Greek manuscripts from Alexandria, or the Greek manuscripts from Antioch. [Eusebius was not a real Christian. He did not believe that Jesus was God almighty. He falsely believed like Jehovah witnesses do today, that Jesus was a lesser God.] 1 John 5:7 was in the manuscripts from Antioch, and there was no way that Eusebius was going to use those manuscripts, because they disagreed with his personal false belief. So Eusebius chose the corrupted manuscripts from Alexandria Egypt, to make up the 50 greek bibles for the Roman catholic church. Egyptian philosophers, that believed like Eusebius did, had already removed 1 John 5:7 from the corrupted Alexandrian greek manuscripts. Jerome later translated this corrupted Greek text into the Latin Vulgate. So you see that John the apostle wrote 1 John

… read more »

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Geoff Hudson wrote in article: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fba079c7.0409080150.2d20ae1a%40p… "Dear friends, Here’s something that I’ve found on the Net recently. While the main subject of the long article from which these quotes have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic summary is generally quite valid, I think." If anyone has taken the trouble to see what the "long article" was about, they will see that the writer is complaining about W & H’s "spiritualism" with Kabbalistic overtones. Yes, Hudson, it seems that Westcott & Hort were into some weird stuff… It’s strange that so many Christian fundamentalists are using the fruits of their labours, their ‘eclectic Greek NT’, while disregarding their somewhat odd theological inclinations. Here are two quotes from the article: "This report was written to demonstrate that the sources used by the Hebraic Roots Movement (Talmud, Mishnah, Midrash, Halakah and Haggada) evolved into and purvey the same occult teachings as the Kabbalah/Zohar, the preeminent compendium of Jewish mysticism. Schools of Kabbalah generally require a knowledge of these Rabbinic sources" "B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were themselves practical occultists who determined to replace the Received Greek Text (Textus Receptus) with the Alexandrian family of Gnostic manuscripts, which more closely reflected their belief system. The well-documented facts of the occult associations and dishonorable intentions of these two Anglican scholars can be found in The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival." Questions: 1. What does the writer mean when he implies that the Alexandrian family of manuscripts were more "gnostic" than the TR?  Does he in fact mean they are more Spirit based? In general, Alexandria in ancient times was believed to have been a hotbed of Gnosticism. There are also some pretty gnostic-sounding passages that Westcott & Hort inserted into their ‘eclectic Greek NT’.

  FYI – I Emailed the Greek See of Alexandria and asked them         if their texts were different than other Greek Churches?         They Emailed me back saying, "they are completly the         same".       Regards,       Jim – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The distressing realization is forced upon us that the "progress" of the past hundred years has been precisely in the wrong direction — our modern versions and critical texts are several times farther removed from the original than are the Authorised Version (KJV) and TR! How could such a calamity have come upon us?! — Wilbur Pickering

Response:

Geoff Hudson wrote in article: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fba079c7.0409080150.2d20ae1a%40p… "Dear friends, Here’s something that I’ve found on the Net recently. While the main subject of the long article from which these quotes have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic summary is generally quite valid, I think." If anyone has taken the trouble to see what the "long article" was about, they will see that the writer is complaining about W & H’s "spiritualism" with Kabbalistic overtones.

Yes, Hudson, it seems that Westcott & Hort were into some weird stuff… It’s strange that so many Christian fundamentalists are using the fruits of their labours, their ‘eclectic Greek NT’, while disregarding their somewhat odd theological inclinations. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Here are two quotes from the article: "This report was written to demonstrate that the sources used by the Hebraic Roots Movement (Talmud, Mishnah, Midrash, Halakah and Haggada) evolved into and purvey the same occult teachings as the Kabbalah/Zohar, the preeminent compendium of Jewish mysticism. Schools of Kabbalah generally require a knowledge of these Rabbinic sources" "B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were themselves practical occultists who determined to replace the Received Greek Text (Textus Receptus) with the Alexandrian family of Gnostic manuscripts, which more closely reflected their belief system. The well-documented facts of the occult associations and dishonorable intentions of these two Anglican scholars can be found in The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival." Questions: 1. What does the writer mean when he implies that the Alexandrian family of manuscripts were more "gnostic" than the TR?  Does he in fact mean they are more Spirit based?

In general, Alexandria in ancient times was believed to have been a hotbed of Gnosticism. There are also some pretty gnostic-sounding passages that Westcott & Hort inserted into their ‘eclectic Greek NT’. But you can also describe these passages as "Spirit based" I suppose… 2. What does the writer mean by the "occult revival"?  For example, does he mean Pentecostalism?

Well, I think we’re talking here about something that’s a bit more serious than that. I don’t think that the Pentecostals are generally seen as a bunch of Gnostics, somehow… 3. If the W & H text leans towards Spirit worship, then I might think that their text was more correct than those that don’t.

Your opinion only. It is my view that the pre-war New Covenant In the Spirit was indeed Kabbalistic with its worship of the Spirit as Lord, its visions, language of heavenly ascents as in Revelation and as stated by "Paul" (where he says he was caught up to heaven while on earth), and with reference to the editor’s "spiritual gifts" which in the original were surely gifts of different spirits. SO, WERE W & H MORE CORRECT AFTER ALL?

I don’t think so, although the opinions may vary. And is the article writer’s perjorative reference to gnosticism just one big red herring (an artificial excuse for rejecting the text of W $ H)?

No, I don’t think it’s a red herring. I can understand that some of the NT may have been edited later by the Jesus cult movement to combat gnosticism.

Or maybe to include gnosticism? But that does not preclude the existence of a pre-war Jewish (and Gentile) Kabbalistic New Covenant In the Spirit which is what (imo) the original NT documents were about. Hudson

Well, I don’t want to sound dogmatic, but I don’t think your view will find much support among the mainstream Christians. Although one never knows… Yours, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky  -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku The distressing realization is forced upon us that the "progress" of the past hundred years has been precisely in the wrong direction — our modern versions and critical texts are several times farther removed from the original than are the Authorised Version (KJV) and TR! How could such a calamity have come upon us?! — Wilbur Pickering

Response:

Geoff Hudson wrote in article:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fba079c7.0409080150.2d20ae1a%40p…. google.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Dear friends, Here’s something that I’ve found on the Net recently. While the main subject of the long article from which these quotes have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic summary is generally quite valid, I think." If anyone has taken the trouble to see what the "long article" was about, they will see that the writer is complaining about W & H’s "spiritualism" with Kabbalistic overtones. Yes, Hudson, it seems that Westcott & Hort were into some weird stuff… It’s strange that so many Christian fundamentalists are using the fruits of their labours, their ‘eclectic Greek NT’, while disregarding their somewhat odd theological inclinations. Here are two quotes from the article: "This report was written to demonstrate that the sources used by the Hebraic Roots Movement (Talmud, Mishnah, Midrash, Halakah and Haggada) evolved into and purvey the same occult teachings as the Kabbalah/Zohar, the preeminent compendium of Jewish mysticism. Schools of Kabbalah generally require a knowledge of these Rabbinic sources" "B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were themselves practical occultists who determined to replace the Received Greek Text (Textus Receptus) with the Alexandrian family of Gnostic manuscripts, which more closely reflected their belief system. The well-documented facts of the occult associations and dishonorable intentions of these two Anglican scholars can be found in The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival." Questions: 1. What does the writer mean when he implies that the Alexandrian family of manuscripts were more "gnostic" than the TR?  Does he in fact mean they are more Spirit based? In general, Alexandria in ancient times was believed to have been a hotbed of Gnosticism. There are also some pretty gnostic-sounding passages that Westcott & Hort inserted into their ‘eclectic Greek NT’.  FYI – I Emailed the Greek See of Alexandria and asked them        if their texts were different than other Greek Churches?        They Emailed me back saying, "they are completly the        same".      Regards,      Jim

You are incorrect. The Greek vulgate or the textus receptus differs from the Alexandrian text like as what follows: 1Jonh 5:7 is pulled out of the modern alexandrian text versions by someone in Alexandria that did not believe in the trinity. 1John 5:8 is in its place. IJohn 5:7 (King James version) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 is by far not the only reason. Changes that were made to the scriptures in Alexandria, Egypt, by unbelieving philosophers, in the Alexandrian text, attack other important doctrines of the Christian faith. You can go to this website and see for yourself how the changes that were made to the Alexandrian text, affect important doctrines of the Christian faith; the unsaved philosophers that made these changes were not real Christians. http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html Examples: The modern Alexandrian texts attack these doctrines: The deity of Christ:  1 Timothy 3:16 " God was manifest in the flesh" – KJV 1 Tim. 3:16 " He who was revealed in the flesh – NAS Heb. 2:11 " he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one" – KJV Heb. 2:11 "he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin" – Revised Version Christ did not have an origin: Jesus said before Abraham was I am, John 8:58   Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Psalms 90:2   Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. Micah 5:2 kjv whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting Micah 5:2 Revised standard whose origin is from of old, from ancient days Verse attacking the doctrine of salvation by faith: 1 Peter 2:2 kjv "desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby." 1 Peter 2:2 revised version "long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation" Salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus and repentance, you do not grow up to it by doing works: Ephesians 2:8   For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Ephesians 2:9   Not of works, lest any man should boast. Verse attacking ressurection of Christ: Luke 24:6 KJV   He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Luke 24:6 " Remember how he told you while he was still in Gallilee – revised standard It left out, he is not here, but is risen Verse attacking word of God: Luke 4:4 KJV  And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4 " And Jesus answered him, It is written man shall not live on bread alone" NAS Leaves out " but by every word of God" Verses attacking the virgin birth: Isaiah 7:14 KJV  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14 "behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son" – Revised Standard version Is. 7:14 Good News Bible, "a young woman who is pregnant will have a son" Luke 1:34 kjv Luke 1:34   Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Luke 1:34 Revised standard "how shall this be since I have no husband" The KJV plainly shows Mary to be a virgin: The revised standard opens up the possibility that she conceived a child by another man that was not  Joseph. Excerpts from Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By  Barry Burton. Find it here: http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp There are other examples of how the corrupted Alexandrian text modern Bible versions have changed the words aroung to attack important doctrines of the Christian faith. Psalms 12:6   The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Psalms 12:7   Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The King James Version is God’s true word in English. The modern versions come from a corrupted Alexandrian text that had the words changed in important places. The New King James Bible (NKJV), has proven to be a hoax, and is not a true translation of the Textus Receptus. Some of the words were deliberately changed for reasons other than translation. http://www.llano.net/baptist/isnkjbwordofgod.htm 1 John 5:7 is in the textus receptus which was found in its original Greek form long before the fourteenth century. Research textus receptus on the internet. The textus receptus is the greek text of the New Testament that came from Antioch in Syria. This is the real original unaltered text. 1 John 5:7 was written by the apostle John and it is in the Syriatic Greek text.  Acts 11:26   And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. The Syriatic Greek text, the textus receptus was carried by Christian missionaries into Alexandria in Egypt where unbelieving philosophers changed the words around, creating the corrupted Alexandrian Greek text. The Roman emporer Constantine, in the 4th century ordered a man named Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, to make him 50 Bibles for the newly formed roman catholic church, which is a mixture of pagan roman religion mixed with Christianity; in short, Rome hijacked Christianity and created a perverted form of Christianity which is not really Christian. Eusebius had a choice to make up the 50 bibles, for the roman catholic church, either using the Greek manuscripts from Alexandria, or the Greek manuscripts from Antioch. [Eusebius was not a real Christian. He did not believe that Jesus was God almighty. He falsely believed like Jehovah witnesses do today, that Jesus was a lesser God.] 1 John 5:7 was in the manuscripts from Antioch, and there was no way that Eusebius was going to use those manuscripts, because they disagreed with his personal false belief. So Eusebius chose the corrupted manuscripts from Alexandria Egypt, to make up the 50 greek bibles for the Roman catholic church. Egyptian philosophers, that believed like Eusebius did, had already removed 1 John 5:7 from the corrupted Alexandrian greek manuscripts. Jerome later translated this corrupted Greek text into the Latin Vulgate. So you see that John the apostle wrote 1 John 5:7, and it was in the original Syriatic Greek text from Antioch, and it was around before the 4th century. References: CONSTANTINE, published by Ramsay Mc mullen page 112 Sabotage, magazine by Jack Chick For an in depth study of what was done to the manuscripts in Alexandria read these books: WHICH BIBLE by David Otis Fuller, Institure for biblical textual studies, 2233 Michigan st. NE Grand Rapids, MI 49503 GOD ONLY WROTE ONE BIBLE, by J. J. Ray, the eye opener publishers, P. O. Box, 7944 Eugene, OR 97401 MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE, by P. S. Ruckman, Bible baptist bookstore, P. O. Box 7135 Pensacola Fl. 32534 THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED, by Edward F. Hills, THD. order from the eye opener publishers, P. O. box 7944 Eugene OR 97401 Website about corrupt manuscripts and corrupt Bible versions: http://www.avpublications.com/ 1.) The publisher of obscene material, Rupert Murdoch, … read more »

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Geoff Hudson wrote in article: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fba079c7.0409080150.2d20ae1a%40p… .google.com "Dear friends, Here’s something that I’ve found on the Net recently. While the main subject of the long article from which these quotes have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic summary is generally quite valid, I think." If anyone has taken the trouble to see what the "long article" was about, they will see that the writer is complaining about W & H’s "spiritualism" with Kabbalistic overtones. Yes, Hudson, it seems that Westcott & Hort were into some weird stuff… It’s strange that so many Christian fundamentalists are using the fruits of their labours, their ‘eclectic Greek NT’, while disregarding their somewhat odd theological inclinations. Here are two quotes from the article: "This report was written to demonstrate that the sources used by the Hebraic Roots Movement (Talmud, Mishnah, Midrash, Halakah and Haggada) evolved into and purvey the same occult teachings as the Kabbalah/Zohar, the preeminent compendium of Jewish mysticism. Schools of Kabbalah generally require a knowledge of these Rabbinic sources" "B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were themselves practical occultists who determined to replace the Received Greek Text (Textus Receptus) with the Alexandrian family of Gnostic manuscripts, which more closely reflected their belief system. The well-documented facts of the occult associations and dishonorable intentions of these two Anglican scholars can be found in The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival." Questions: 1. What does the writer mean when he implies that the Alexandrian family of manuscripts were more "gnostic" than the TR?  Does he in fact mean they are more Spirit based? In general, Alexandria in ancient times was believed to have been a hotbed of Gnosticism. There are also some pretty gnostic-sounding passages that Westcott & Hort inserted into their ‘eclectic Greek NT’. But you can also describe these passages as "Spirit based" I suppose… 2. What does the writer mean by the "occult revival"?  For example, does he mean Pentecostalism? Well, I think we’re talking here about something that’s a bit more serious than that. I don’t think that the Pentecostals are generally seen as a bunch of Gnostics, somehow… 3. If the W & H text leans towards Spirit worship, then I might think that their text was more correct than those that don’t. Your opinion only. It is my view that the pre-war New Covenant In the Spirit was indeed Kabbalistic with its worship of the Spirit as Lord, its visions, language of heavenly ascents as in Revelation and as stated by "Paul" (where he says he was caught up to heaven while on earth), and with reference to the editor’s "spiritual gifts" which in the original were surely gifts of different spirits. SO, WERE W & H MORE CORRECT AFTER ALL? I don’t think so, although the opinions may vary. And is the article writer’s perjorative reference to gnosticism just one big red herring (an artificial excuse for rejecting the text of W $ H)? No, I don’t think it’s a red herring. I can understand that some of the NT may have been edited later by the Jesus cult movement to combat gnosticism. Or maybe to include gnosticism? But that does not preclude the existence of a pre-war Jewish (and Gentile) Kabbalistic New Covenant In the Spirit which is what (imo) the original NT documents were about. Hudson Well, I don’t want to sound dogmatic, but I don’t think your view will find much support among the mainstream Christians. Although one never knows… Yours, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky  -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku The distressing realization is forced upon us that the "progress" of the past hundred years has been precisely in the wrong direction — our modern versions and critical texts are several times farther removed from the original than are the Authorised Version (KJV) and TR! How could such a calamity have come upon us?! — Wilbur Pickering

The original New Testament gospels and epistles were in the possession of the Christians in the first century in Antioch. Exact copies of these were sent out with missionaries to different cities. In Alexandria Egypt the gnostics got a hold of them and deliberately changed 5% of the scriptures to match their own heretical beliefs, in the 4th century. Because Alexandria has a dry arid climate, very old manuscripts containing these corrupted scriptures were found. 5 corrupted manuscripts come from Alexandria. They disagree with each other in various places and they disagree with the textus receptus in about 5% of important places. When the Roman catholic church was being invented by the Emporer Constantine, in the 4th century, by mixing pagan Roman religion with Christianity, he sent a man named Eusebius to get manuscripts for the Roman catholic Bible. He had access to the Real Old and New Testament books (the massoretic text and the textus receptus) and he had access to the corrupted Alexandrian texts. He chose the wrong manuscripts, the corrupted Alexandrian texts for the catholic Bible. Jerome later translated this into the Latin Vulgate for the catholic church. The Byzantine text or textus receptus, and the massoretic text (for the old testament) were still the manuscripts used in the Eastern part of the Roman empire by the Greek speaking peoples. These are the real original unaltered texts. During the reformation the protestants adopted the real unaltered texts as their Bible, the massoretic text (old testament) and the textus receptus (new testament) which was translated into the protestant King James Bible, the Tyndale Bible, and Luther’s German Bible.  The catholic church is behind the introduction of the modern versions containing the Alexandrian Hort and Wescott text. The Catholic church is trying to pull down the protestant KJV Bible and replace it with the corrupted Alexandrian text that they adopted. That is the reason for the market being flooded with corrupted Alexandrian text Bibles. It is this ongoing war between catholicism and protestantism that is causing the problem. Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Accounts Starting At $6.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com                <<<<<<<   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <<<<<<<<

Response:

There are also some pretty gnostic-sounding passages that Westcott & Hort inserted into their ‘eclectic Greek NT’.

Would you mind quoting some?

Response:

There are also some pretty gnostic-sounding passages that Westcott & Hort inserted into their ‘eclectic Greek NT’. Would you mind quoting some?

On a slightly different but related point, where’s my favourite troll? It worries me when he’s too quiet. — You can’t fool me: there ain’t no Sanity Clause.  -Chico Marx http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (MontanaSkies)) said, directing the reply to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic Pope fears Bush is Antichrist [snip] Just as a matter of interest, why would any Christian fear the end times? Presumably these would be the final and absolute confirmation of their beliefs and while there may be some unpleasantness here on earth for a while, on presumes that they believe they know it’ll all turn out alright in the end. At least for some people. — "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You." – Attrib: Pauline Reage. Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion? See: <http://www.Video2CD.com. 35.00 gets your video on DVD. all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read. ** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.

good logical point!!! — http://baltimorechronicle.com/041704reTreason.shtml http://www.truthinaction.net/iraq/illegaljayne.htm As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air — however slight -lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness. Justice William O. Douglas, US Supreme Court (1939-75) "It shows us that there were senior people in the Bush administration who were seriously contemplating the use of torture, and trying to figure out whether there were any legal loopholes that might allow them to commit criminal acts, They seem to be putting forward a theory that the president in wartime can essentially do what he wants regardless of what the law may say," Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch – commenting upon Defense Department Lawyer Will Dunham’s 56-page legalization of torture memo. If you add all of those up, you should have a conservative rebellion against the giant corporation in the White House masquerading as a human being named George W. Bush. Just as progressives have been abandoned by the corporate Democrats and told, "You got nowhere to go other than to stay home or vote for the Democrats", this is the fate of the authentic conservatives in the Republican Party. Ralph Nader – June 2004 – The American Conservative Magazine "But I believe in torture and I will torture you." -An American soldier shares the joys of Democracy with an Iraqi prisoner. "My mother praises me for fighting the Americans. If we are killed, our wives and mothers will rejoice that we died defending the freedom of our country. -Iraqi Mahdi fighter "We were bleeding from 3 a.m. until sunrise, soon American soldiers came. One of them kicked me to see if I was alive. I pretended I was dead so he wouldn’t kill me. The soldier was laughing, when Yousef cried, the soldier said: "’No, stop," -Shihab, survivor of USSA bombing of Iraqi wedding. "the absolute convergence of the neoconservatives with the Christian Zionists and the pro-Israel lobby, driving U.S. Mideast policy." -Don Wagner, an evangelical South Carolina minister "Bush, in Austin, criticized President Clinton’s administration for the Kosovo military action.’Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is,’ Bush said." Houston Chronicle 4/9/99 "Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilize their country." Washington, D.C., May 5, 2004 "The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem of terrorism. What they will do is stagger along until there’s a major incident and then suddenly say, ‘Oh my God, shouldn’t we be organized to deal with this?’" – Paul Bremer, speaking to a McCormick Tribune Foundation conference on terrorism in Wheaton, Ill. on Feb. 26, 2001. "On Jan. 26, 1998, President Clinton received a letter imploring him to use his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime the "aim of American foreign policy" and to use military action because "diplomacy is failing." Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged, they would "offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor." Signing the pledge were Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Richard L. Armitage, Jeffrey Bergner, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, Peter W. Rodman, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, R. James Woolsey and Robert B. Zoellick, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Four years before 9/11, the neocons had Baghdad on their minds." -philip (usenet) "I had better things to do in the 60s than fight in Vietnam," -Richard Cheney, Kerry critic. "I hope they will understand that in order for this government to get up and running   – to be effective – some of its sovereignty will have to be given back, if I can put it that way, or limited by them, It’s sovereignty but [some] of that sovereignty they are going to allow us to exercise on their behalf and with their permission." – Powell 4/27/04 "We’re trying to explain how things are going, and they are going as they are going," he said, adding: "Some things are going well and some things obviously are not going well. You’re going to have good days and bad days." On the road to democracy, this "is one moment, and there will be other moments. And there will be good moments and there will be less good moments." – Rumsfeld 4/6/04 "I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country’s gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom." ~ Bush the Crusader RUSSERT: Are you prepared to lose? BUSH: No, I’m not going to lose. RUSSERT: If you did, what would you do? BUSH: Well, I don’t plan on losing. I’ve got a vision for what I want to do for the country. changing times here in America, too., 2/8/04 "And that’s very important for, I think, the people to understand where I’m coming from, to know that this is a dangerous world. I wish it wasn’t. I’m a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind. – pResident of the United State of America, 2/8/04 "Let’s talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that based on intelligence, that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." – Vice President Dick Cheney, on "Meet the Press", 3/16/03 "I don’t know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons." – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, 6/24/03 "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing (invading Iraq)." – Richard Perle "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours." – Colin Powell February 24 2001 "We have been successful for the last ten years in keeping him from developing those weapons and we will continue to be successful." "He threatens not the United States." "But I also thought that we had pretty much removed his stings and frankly for ten years we really have." ‘But what is interesting is that with the regime that has been in place for the past ten years, I think a pretty good job has been done of keeping him from breaking out and suddenly showing up one day and saying "look what I got." He hasn’t been able to do that.’   – Colin Powell February 26 2001

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The correct title of the writing to which you refer is The Revelation (not Revelations) of St. John the Divine. Regarding the meaning of most of Revelation, it should be admitted that we simply do not know.  All the speculation about Revelation is just that, no matter how intricate. But thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ! Stanley F. Nelson Dallas. As soon as I get my early voting ballot in the mail, I will vote for John Kerry and John Edwards. Folks, I regret to report that you all MISSED the end of the world. The Bible tells me so: Mat 16:28 28 Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Mark 9:1 1   And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." So instead of Christians fighting each other who is the top nacho, Pope, Ecumenical Patriarch or ArchBishop of Canturberry why not ask those who actually lived when Jesus gave his speaches! Thats right if you read the above two quotes they have to STILL be on this earth or else the world should have already come to an end!!

yep. the world ended 2000 yrs ago. We’ve been living in Hell ever since. Only most don’t know it. ;-/. — http://baltimorechronicle.com/041704reTreason.shtml http://www.truthinaction.net/iraq/illegaljayne.htm As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air — however slight -lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness. Justice William O. Douglas, US Supreme Court (1939-75) "It shows us that there were senior people in the Bush administration who were seriously contemplating the use of torture, and trying to figure out whether there were any legal loopholes that might allow them to commit criminal acts, They seem to be putting forward a theory that the president in wartime can essentially do what he wants regardless of what the law may say," Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch – commenting upon Defense Department Lawyer Will Dunham’s 56-page legalization of torture memo. If you add all of those up, you should have a conservative rebellion against the giant corporation in the White House masquerading as a human being named George W. Bush. Just as progressives have been abandoned by the corporate Democrats and told, "You got nowhere to go other than to stay home or vote for the Democrats", this is the fate of the authentic conservatives in the Republican Party. Ralph Nader – June 2004 – The American Conservative Magazine "But I believe in torture and I will torture you." -An American soldier shares the joys of Democracy with an Iraqi prisoner. "My mother praises me for fighting the Americans. If we are killed, our wives and mothers will rejoice that we died defending the freedom of our country. -Iraqi Mahdi fighter "We were bleeding from 3 a.m. until sunrise, soon American soldiers came. One of them kicked me to see if I was alive. I pretended I was dead so he wouldn’t kill me. The soldier was laughing, when Yousef cried, the soldier said: "’No, stop," -Shihab, survivor of USSA bombing of Iraqi wedding. "the absolute convergence of the neoconservatives with the Christian Zionists and the pro-Israel lobby, driving U.S. Mideast policy." -Don Wagner, an evangelical South Carolina minister "Bush, in Austin, criticized President Clinton’s administration for the Kosovo military action.’Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is,’ Bush said." Houston Chronicle 4/9/99 "Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilize their country." Washington, D.C., May 5, 2004 "The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem of terrorism. What they will do is stagger along until there’s a major incident and then suddenly say, ‘Oh my God, shouldn’t we be organized to deal with this?’" – Paul Bremer, speaking to a McCormick Tribune Foundation conference on terrorism in Wheaton, Ill. on Feb. 26, 2001. "On Jan. 26, 1998, President Clinton received a letter imploring him to use his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime the "aim of American foreign policy" and to use military action because "diplomacy is failing." Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged, they would "offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor." Signing the pledge were Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Richard L. Armitage, Jeffrey Bergner, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, Peter W. Rodman, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, R. James Woolsey and Robert B. Zoellick, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Four years before 9/11, the neocons had Baghdad on their minds." -philip (usenet) "I had better things to do in the 60s than fight in Vietnam," -Richard Cheney, Kerry critic. "I hope they will understand that in order for this government to get up and running   – to be effective – some of its sovereignty will have to be given back, if I can put it that way, or limited by them, It’s sovereignty but [some] of that sovereignty they are going to allow us to exercise on their behalf and with their permission." – Powell 4/27/04 "We’re trying to explain how things are going, and they are going as they are going," he said, adding: "Some things are going well and some things obviously are not going well. You’re going to have good days and bad days." On the road to democracy, this "is one moment, and there will be other moments. And there will be good moments and there will be less good moments." – Rumsfeld 4/6/04 "I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country’s gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom." ~ Bush the Crusader RUSSERT: Are you prepared to lose? BUSH: No, I’m not going to lose. RUSSERT: If you did, what would you do? BUSH: Well, I don’t plan on losing. I’ve got a vision for what I want to do for the country. changing times here in America, too., 2/8/04 "And that’s very important for, I think, the people to understand where I’m coming from, to know that this is a dangerous world. I wish it wasn’t. I’m a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind. – pResident of the United State of America, 2/8/04 "Let’s talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that based on intelligence, that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." – Vice President Dick Cheney, on "Meet the Press", 3/16/03 "I don’t know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons." – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, 6/24/03 "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing (invading Iraq)." – Richard Perle "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours." – Colin Powell February 24 2001 "We have been successful for the last ten years in keeping him from developing those weapons and we will continue to be successful." "He threatens not the United States." "But I also thought that we had pretty much removed his stings and frankly for ten years we really have." ‘But what is interesting is that with the regime that has been in place for the past ten years, I think a pretty good job has been done of keeping him from breaking out and suddenly showing up one day and saying "look what I got." He hasn’t been able to do that.’   – Colin Powell February 26 2001

Response:

I’m not going to parse your argument about the Bible. All I wanted to do was to argue politics a bit. I shouldn’t do that, but it is something of a venting of political frustration you might say. I merely pointed out a fact to some folks who probably were aware of it at some time, but forgot… then you jumped in with an assertion that the Bible was wrong because a certain prophesy was not fulfilled. I took the time away from my scedule to explain that you were in error — even citing chapter and verse. You say it is rationalizing, but rationalizing is something that YOU do — in YOUR mind. I suggest you consider why you would want to do that. You know, I’m a democrat. Worse than that, a liberal democrat. Even worse, a "yellow dog" liberal democrat. That means I aways vote for democrats —   straight ticket. Yep. But sometimes other democrats really aggravate me. What is all this athestic praddle? Look at this nonsense you wrote. The word "saved" doesn’t always mean the same thing. Who is being saved — and from what? Do you really think that "saved" in the mosaic period meant the same thing as "saved" in the christian era? Do you ever consider the context, the audience or any background before you throw out words "without knowledge"? You obviously have contempt for christians and the Bible as well. Otherwise, you would at least give them fair treatment. You’re impressed with Dr Ehrman, I see. He’s "agnostic", as they call it, right? So, as you critique the Bible, you call upon the name of Dr Ehrman. See? If you call upon the name of the Lord, you will be saved — but that doesn’t mean just step out the front door and holler — or it could mean just that (other things will come of it) — it depends on you and what’s going on in your head. Sounds like doubletalk doesn’t it? That’s why you see that phrase alot when you study the Bible, "He who has ears, let him hear." Justice. What is justice? I know God loves justice. I do to sometimes, but it depends on what it means. Ever hear the story about the woman who went to speak with the judge about the pending fate of her son? Her son who had been convicted of some great offense. The judge said he didn’t see any mitigating circumstance and he thought the man deserved 20 years (or whatever). The mother said in reply, "Sir, I haven’t come to ask for justice but to plead for mercy". Well, getting back to the point, what do you think the world would be like today had Christ not lived? A long time ago, before he became a spokesman for the Republican party, I listened to Paul Harvey alot. Speaking about Jesus he said that He, one Man, has positively impacted the lives of more people, influenced more governments and societies over a greater period of time than all the congresses that have ever sat, more than all the kings, presidents and prime ministers who have ever ruled, etc. Sorry I can’t do Mr Harvey’s rhetoric "justice". But what he said is true. Next time you’re really sick, with no money or insurance, check in to the nearest agnostic or atheist charity hospital. Then write me a letter explaining that Christ didn’t bring justice to this world. The fact is, He set a higher standard and brought it to far more people than any Hebrew Rabbi could imagine. And there’s more to come. Finally, If it’s the arguement you want, then I concede. See, I don’t want to inspire you to consult Dr Ehrman’s work to come up with yet another argument. Isn’t he one of the guys on the "recommended" list for debunking the "christian right"? In these days when the Bible is used so callously to support the political agenda of out of control fanatics, who seem bent on controlling the world, it is easy to be mislead. But you don’t have to throw away the Bible to confront those guys. Instead, you can study it. Find out what it really says. But as you do that, call upon the name of the Lord. In Spirit and Truth, -James

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Stanley, thanks for the correction.  I apologize for getting the name wrong. I’m a bit of a secular humanist these days, but I wish you well.  I hope that your voting for Kerry and Edwards will help. A question for you, though:  You’re evidently a Christian, and pretty serious about it.  Do you think that Kerry and Edwards will be enough – assuming that they win, that is? It seems to me that all too many Americans, including many professed Christians, have somehow sold ourselves on the notion that we alone, of all the peoples of the world, are not really "sinners" in the religious sense.  We alone do not have to heed the warnings of Jesus about looking to correct our own failings before rushing to correct those of our neighbors; we alone are "God’s people" and therefore automatically in the right, in every war we fight. As I said, I’m more of a secular humanist than a Christian these days, although I certainly have been influenced by the Gospels. But to me, it isn’t Christianity that most Americans follow – it’s the Manichaean heresy.  I think we follow the comfortable if implacable notion that the world is a battle ground between the Forces of Light and the Forces of Darkness, and that we, of course, are always among the Forces of Light. From a truly Christian view, I suspect, this is just typical human self-righteousness at work, just the normal operations of human sin, hypocrisy and pride.  All human societies are susceptible to this sort of self-delusion and self-righteousness, of course; we Americans are not unique.  But of course, we THINK we’re unique – uniquely righteous and peaceful. I also fear that many Americans will continue to be driven by sin, hypocrisy and pride, no matter whether the Republicans or the Democrats are in office. But what do you think about this, as a Christian? The correct title of the writing to which you refer is The Revelation (not Revelations) of St. John the Divine. Regarding the meaning of most of Revelation, it should be admitted that we simply do not know.  All the speculation about Revelation is just that, no matter how intricate. But thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ! Stanley F. Nelson Dallas. As soon as I get my early voting ballot in the mail, I will vote for John Kerry and John Edwards.

well – I think your right – but I’m not Nelson nor am I a Christian of course. endless wars for oil and empire over dead bodies ain’t really my thing. peace. — http://baltimorechronicle.com/041704reTreason.shtml http://www.truthinaction.net/iraq/illegaljayne.htm As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air — however slight -lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness. Justice William O. Douglas, US Supreme Court (1939-75) "It shows us that there were senior people in the Bush administration who were seriously contemplating the use of torture, and trying to figure out whether there were any legal loopholes that might allow them to commit criminal acts, They seem to be putting forward a theory that the president in wartime can essentially do what he wants regardless of what the law may say," Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch – commenting upon Defense Department Lawyer Will Dunham’s 56-page legalization of torture memo. If you add all of those up, you should have a conservative rebellion against the giant corporation in the White House masquerading as a human being named George W. Bush. Just as progressives have been abandoned by the corporate Democrats and told, "You got nowhere to go other than to stay home or vote for the Democrats", this is the fate of the authentic conservatives in the Republican Party. Ralph Nader – June 2004 – The American Conservative Magazine "But I believe in torture and I will torture you." -An American soldier shares the joys of Democracy with an Iraqi prisoner. "My mother praises me for fighting the Americans. If we are killed, our wives and mothers will rejoice that we died defending the freedom of our country. -Iraqi Mahdi fighter "We were bleeding from 3 a.m. until sunrise, soon American soldiers came. One of them kicked me to see if I was alive. I pretended I was dead so he wouldn’t kill me. The soldier was laughing, when Yousef cried, the soldier said: "’No, stop," -Shihab, survivor of USSA bombing of Iraqi wedding. "the absolute convergence of the neoconservatives with the Christian Zionists and the pro-Israel lobby, driving U.S. Mideast policy." -Don Wagner, an evangelical South Carolina minister "Bush, in Austin, criticized President Clinton’s administration for the Kosovo military action.’Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is,’ Bush said." Houston Chronicle 4/9/99 "Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilize their country." Washington, D.C., May 5, 2004 "The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem of terrorism. What they will do is stagger along until there’s a major incident and then suddenly say, ‘Oh my God, shouldn’t we be organized to deal with this?’" – Paul Bremer, speaking to a McCormick Tribune Foundation conference on terrorism in Wheaton, Ill. on Feb. 26, 2001. "On Jan. 26, 1998, President Clinton received a letter imploring him to use his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime the "aim of American foreign policy" and to use military action because "diplomacy is failing." Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged, they would "offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor." Signing the pledge were Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Richard L. Armitage, Jeffrey Bergner, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, Peter W. Rodman, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, R. James Woolsey and Robert B. Zoellick, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Four years before 9/11, the neocons had Baghdad on their minds." -philip (usenet) "I had better things to do in the 60s than fight in Vietnam," -Richard Cheney, Kerry critic. "I hope they will understand that in order for this government to get up and running   – to be effective – some of its sovereignty will have to be given back, if I can put it that way, or limited by them, It’s sovereignty but [some] of that sovereignty they are going to allow us to exercise on their behalf and with their permission." – Powell 4/27/04 "We’re trying to explain how things are going, and they are going as they are going," he said, adding: "Some things are going well and some things obviously are not going well. You’re going to have good days and bad days." On the road to democracy, this "is one moment, and there will be other moments. And there will be good moments and there will be less good moments." – Rumsfeld 4/6/04 "I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country’s gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom." ~ Bush the Crusader RUSSERT: Are you prepared to lose? BUSH: No, I’m not going to lose. RUSSERT: If you did, what would you do? BUSH: Well, I don’t plan on losing. I’ve got a vision for what I want to do for the country. changing times here in America, too., 2/8/04 "And that’s very important for, I think, the people to understand where I’m coming from, to know that this is a dangerous world. I wish it wasn’t. I’m a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind. – pResident of the United State of America, 2/8/04 "Let’s talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that based on intelligence, that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." – Vice President Dick Cheney, on "Meet the Press", 3/16/03 "I don’t know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons." – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, 6/24/03 "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing (invading Iraq)." – Richard Perle "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours." – Colin Powell February 24 2001 "We have been successful for the last ten years in keeping him from developing those weapons and we will continue to be successful." "He threatens not the United States." "But I also thought that we had pretty much removed his stings and frankly for ten years we really have." ‘But what is interesting is that with the regime that has been in place for the past ten years, I think a pretty good job has been done of keeping him from breaking out and suddenly showing up one day and saying "look what I got." He hasn’t been able to do that.’   – Colin Powell February 26 2001

Response:

I like the idea of Bush as the Antichrist, but the interpretation of Revelations as a metaphorical book referring to "Roman times" is one that’s not hard to support from the text. In the Revelations of St. John, the "number of the Beast," the Antichrist, is either 616 or 666.  Some Bible commentators note that if you use the Roman letters as numbers, "Neronius Caesar" adds up to 666, while "Nero Caesar" adds up to 616. "With patience and ingenuity it is not difficult to extract 666 from almost any person’s name." – Martin Gardner

Mr.Pepper – Good point.  And earnest Christians, anxiously seeking clarity over the obscure and enormously frightening prophecies of the Book of Revelation, have extracted 666 from a variety of different names over the centuries. When I was studying "the Bible as English literature" in college about 40 years ago, though, the Oxford Annotated Version of the Bible recommended by my liberal professor suggested that to many scholars, "Nero Caesar" or "Neronius Caesar" was the mostly likely name of the Antichrist.  Obviously, some other Biblical scholars disagree. As a current-day agnostic today, as someone who prays and cherishes Christian notions about mercy and justice, but adopts a basically atheist interpretation of current events, I wonder how much the identity of "the Beast" really matters.   Ditto the exact date of the end of the world, which according to some of the statements of Jesus in the Gospels, is supposedly unknown to everyone but God. I mean, suppose the orthodox Christians are right, and the Antichrist and the Rapture and the end of the world really are coming.  What should you do to live your life differently because of this? One obvious thing is that you testify about Jesus/and/or "Christ" to sinners like yours truly, of course.  I guess another think you do, along with early Christian practice as recommended by St. Paul, etc., is that you pray for God’s guidance for all secular political leaders – including the Roman emperors who may be persecuting Christians at the moment. But what beyond that?  My limited understanding is that the early Christians refused to serve in the Roman armies, on the grounds that Jesus had urged his followers to turn the other cheek, etc.  And that St. Paul urged people to be celibate if they could, partly so they wouldn’t have children to care for when the Times of Tribulation arrived – at that time, they were expected any minute, I think. The early Christians of Jerusalem, in "The Acts of the Apostles," also are described as essentially practicing a primitive, voluntary communism, with the richer ones selling off property and using the money to support the community, while the poorer believers were supported in this fashion – rather like Marx’s comment about communism eventually distributing goods "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."  One idea here being that since the world was shortly coming to an end, it was stupid to "lay up for yourself treasures upon earth," when the real point was to accumulate good deeds that would help you in the world to come. (See Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 5, Sermon on the Mount, for details) But what does the example set by the earliest Christians mean for believers today, I wonder?   Some Christian groups, including the Mennonites and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, still refuse to serve in purely human armies.  A lot of the more conservative Protestant and Catholics in the US pray for God to guide the presidents, just as St. Paul urged his followers to pray for God’s guidance to the Roman emperors. Voluntary Christian communism, on the other hand, mostly seems to have fallen out of favor, despite being practiced in some Catholic religious orders, and despite its former popularity with American sects like the Amana colonies, the Shakers, the Mormons, etc. Among the mainstream Protestant groups belong to the National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches, there used to be a lot of emphasis – not on primitive Christian communism, but on working for greater economic and social justice for the world’s poor, which is somewhat in line with ancient Judaeo/Christian practices. But does any of this help the average Christian believer worried about the "end times" in preparing for those end times? As an agnostic who sometimes prays, I don’t know. My personal feeling is that the prophecies of Revelation mostly reflect the agony and hopefulness of people who were undergoing harsh persecution at the time of the Nero, and who were trusting in God to remove the cause of their persecution – he Roman Empire and its leaders – relatively quickly.  And I don’t think the book offers much guidance to these people besides urging them to keep faith, despite the horrors that were raining down on their heads.   Sometimes I like to think of that advice in a metaphorical sense — although not a literal one — when I think of how people who care about global peace and justice can endure the reign of George Bush, as well as the terrorist violence being unleashed by radical "Islamist" groups who hate Bush.   If we keep faith in such culturally and morally "Christian" values as peace, justice, mutual forgiveness and concern for God’s poor, I like to think, people of goodwill today may somehow survive the apocalyptic wars being waged by the likes of Bush and Bin Laden.  But I don’t think the Revelation to St. John literally promises us that; I think its offer of hope is mostly poetic and metaphorical.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (MontanaSkies)) said, directing the reply to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic Pope fears Bush is Antichrist [snip] Just as a matter of interest, why would any Christian fear the end times? Presumably these would be the final and absolute confirmation of their beliefs and while there may be some unpleasantness here on earth for a while, on presumes that they believe they know it’ll all turn out alright in the end. At least for some people. Umm, the problem is that the return of Christ is, according to the Bible, preceeded by the greatest period of suffering mankind has ever known. This is a period during which 2/3 of the world dies, and virtually everyone is either deceived or forced to serve the devil.

You forgot to mention that the wackos interpret the Bible to say they must bring all the above about THEMSELVES. They vote in accordance with this belief – "what will destroy the earth?". Note that you responded to someone that refers to all this as "some unpleasantness". Definitely one of those satanic, zionist anti-christ, "credit card gets me to Heaven and the 700 Club" (to say murderous would be redundant) wacko Bush supporters. AG – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – IOW, not fun times.

Response:

alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Achan Back alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (MontanaSkies)) said, directing the reply to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic Pope fears Bush is Antichrist [snip] Just as a matter of interest, why would any Christian fear the end times? Presumably these would be the final and absolute confirmation of their beliefs and while there may be some unpleasantness here on earth for a while, on presumes that they believe they know it’ll all turn out alright in the end. At least for some people. Umm, the problem is that the return of Christ is, according to the Bible, preceeded by the greatest period of suffering mankind has ever known. This is a period during which 2/3 of the world dies, and virtually everyone is either deceived or forced to serve the devil. You forgot to mention that the wackos interpret the Bible to say they must bring all the above about THEMSELVES. They vote in accordance with this belief – "what will destroy the earth?". Note that you responded to someone that refers to all this as "some unpleasantness". Definitely one of those satanic, zionist anti-christ, "credit card gets me to Heaven and the 700 Club" (to say murderous would be redundant) wacko Bush supporters.

Really? And there was me thinking I was being a little ironic. — "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You." – Attrib: Pauline Reage. Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion? See: <http://www.Video2CD.com. 35.00 gets your video on DVD. all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read. ** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Achan Back alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic (MontanaSkies)) said, directing the reply to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic Pope fears Bush is Antichrist [snip] Just as a matter of interest, why would any Christian fear the end times? Presumably these would be the final and absolute confirmation of their beliefs and while there may be some unpleasantness here on earth for a while, on presumes that they believe they know it’ll all turn out alright in the end. At least for some people. Umm, the problem is that the return of Christ is, according to the Bible, preceeded by the greatest period of suffering mankind has ever known. This is a period during which 2/3 of the world dies, and virtually everyone is either deceived or forced to serve the devil. You forgot to mention that the wackos interpret the Bible to say they must bring all the above about THEMSELVES. They vote in accordance with this belief – "what will destroy the earth?". Note that you responded to someone that refers to all this as "some unpleasantness". Definitely one of those satanic, zionist anti-christ, "credit card gets me to Heaven and the 700 Club" (to say murderous would be redundant) wacko Bush supporters. Really? And there was me thinking I was being a little ironic.

Irony. There needs to be a symbol [  :(  :*  ;)  ] to indicate irony. Irony can be a tricky thing. But I am glad to hear you don’t want to blow up the world. How people can vote for Bush knowing he is allied with the End-Timers, no, in fact IS one of the End-Timers, is beyond me. Unless, of course, they themselves are an End-Timer. But what of the "undecided" voters? The polls seem to indicate they sway this way or that depending upon very recent events. Perhaps one day they feel like blowing up the world and then the next they don’t. Eh? Lets hear it "Undecided"s. What is your mood today? So excuse me for carrying on about you being satanic and all, but when I think about people that want to intentionally blow up the world it gets my dander up. So back again to irony. Ultimately it was my fault for not interpreting your sense better. I was lazy not to research who I was referring to. AG

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (MontanaSkies)) said, directing the reply to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic Pope fears Bush is Antichrist [snip] Just as a matter of interest, why would any Christian fear the end times? Presumably these would be the final and absolute confirmation of their beliefs and while there may be some unpleasantness here on earth for a while, on presumes that they believe they know it’ll all turn out alright in the end. At least for some people.

Umm, the problem is that the return of Christ is, according to the Bible, preceeded by the greatest period of suffering mankind has ever known. This is a period during which 2/3 of the world dies, and virtually everyone is either deceived or forced to serve the devil. IOW, not fun times. — "Iraq is free of rape rooms and torture chambers."   -President Bush, October 8, 2003,   The Republican National Committee Presidential Gala.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well Brian.  Sounds like you’ve come to the conclusion that you know far more about this than people who have actually studied the Bible.  I’m not a Bible beater and I’m tempted to let your remarks slide.  But I haven’t that option -and there’s always a chance some good can be done with a bit of work.  So here’s a part of the way these things really work out.  First, you’re confusing prophesy of the coming of the Kingdom (33AD)  with the end of the world (???)  and the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (70 AD). But specifically: Mat 16:28 Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." 2 Peter 1:16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." Acts 2:1 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs–we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, "What does this mean?" Colossians 1:13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple. "Miseo" (greek) : "to love less" — sometimes translated "hate" Now that folks is the GOSPEL TRUTH. Well it seems to me that REASON must be… John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. " Forgive me for not responding to your other "points".  I just want to try to keep this short.  I don’t care to continue an endless argument over the Bible.  That ain’t what it’s about.  Check out these things and come to whatever conclusion you like.   I suggest you try a "Study Bible". Ok? -James

Sorry it is pure rationalization. The Bible says what it says what it says. I will face my existential anxiety. I will not be a "Liar for Jesus"! BTW Dr. Bart D. Ehrman has written extensively on this. Jesus did NOT forfill what the Hebrew scriptures gave as the sign of the Messiah. He did not bring justice to the world. So they had to "invent" this silly doctrine of vicarious attonement. Christianity was ALWAYS HETERODOX. Just look at the issue of salvation! Salvation – Have it your way! ***Nice and simple formula. Romans 10:13 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Proverbs 30:5-6 5 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar. ***  Lets add something and risk being liars – "doing". Matthew 7:21 21"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. *** Are you ritualistically inclined? No problem? We can add some water. Mark 16:16 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. *** Ok we had simple calling on the name of the Lord, then added works then had ritual. Make it simple again but different. Eliminate doctrine and belief and make it JUST ACTS. (see below). No belief needed in  this formula. Implies non Christian salvation to good folks and damnation to Christians who are hurtful. My favorite, Matthew 25:34-46 34"Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37"Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40"The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’ 41"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44"They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45"He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." ***** Maybe all this is too hard for you to figure out. 1.Simple faith vs 2.faith plus works vs 3.faith and ritual vs 4. simple works. No problem we have a formula for you! Matthew 18:3 3And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. TEA LEAVES anyone! Brian J Dawson

Response:

the Catholic Church.  I’m not catholic but many Christians far better than me, are.  Calvin, Luther, Mather etc made mistakes.  The Catholic Church has too. So? Luke 9:49  "Master," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us." "Do not stop him," Jesus said, "for whoever is not against you is for you." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Check out these quotes: The following quotes show just how far the churches of today have strayed from the wisdom of their founding fathers. Martin Luther (1483-1546) (Lutheran) "We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist…personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist." (Aug. 18, 1520) Taken from "The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers," Vol. 2, pg. 121 by Froom. John Calvin (1509-1564) (Presbyterian) "Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt…I shall briefly show that (Paul’s words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy." Taken from "Institutes" by John Calvin. Cotton Mather (1663-1728) (Congregational Theologian) "The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church; and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them." Taken from "The Fall of Babylon" by Cotton Mather in Froom’s book "The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers," Vol. 3, pg. 113. John Knox (1505-1572) (Scotch Presbyterian) Knox wrote to abolish "that tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church" and that the pope should be recognized as "the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks." Taken from "The Zurich Letters" pg. 199 by John Knox. Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) (Anglican) "Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons." (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.) Taken from "Works" by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7. John Wesley (1703-1791) (Methodist) Speaking of the Papacy he said, "He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers…He it is…that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped…claiming the highest power, and highest honor…claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone." Taken from "Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms" by John Wesley, pg. 110. Roger William (1603-1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America) He spoke of the Pope as "the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vessals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself…speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to changed times and laws: but he is the son of perdition (II Thess. 2)." Taken from "The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers" by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52. Quoted from GREAT PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE by Woodrow.

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   The Gospels never show him doing a lick o’ work – in fact Luke (8:2-3) claims that various women "ministered to him out of their substance".  Presumably the help of wealthy disciples plus itinerant begging kept Jesus and company fed.  Morton Smith cynically suggested that Jesus, as a magician, had an "act".  His act consisted of his miracles.  If these were successful, Jesus and crew received hospitality as "payment".     It’s probably worth mentioning that Jesus teaches strongly against working for a living in Matthew 6:24-34, where he classifies sowing, reaping, gathering, and so on as services to mammon rather than God immediately after insisting it’s impossible to have two masters.  One of my favorite passages in the Gospels.

  Ebry deh be a hollydeh wid our Man Jezuz!   – sl –

Response:

The Shekinah in Judaism (The Holy Spirit in Christianity) was always a "feminine" attribute of he Almighty…

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Because SHE is The Comforter.  SHE does His Will too! God is beyond gender, just as He is beyond space and time. (We refer to Him as a "Him" just for convenience’s sake.) It’s not a matter of convenience.  The use of "Him" denotes the spiritual and personal relationship of God with man.   Which could just as easily be termed maternal, and God called a "Mother".  Calling God "Father" in the modern world is more than convenience, it’s a gender-based power ploy and perpetuation of male supremacy.  Although Jesus was burdened with the Father-terminology of his tradition, he also employed feminine examples in describing God – he did not think of God as exclusively "Father".  To cling to "Father" as God’s normative appellation is to reject Jesus’ own view. There’s plenty of Patristics written on this.   Hardly surprising, since the Church  _Fathers_  were patriarchal radicals, many of whom denied full humanity to females.  Naturally they would insist on God’s "maleness", from which they derived their own (inauthentic) authority. The Christ is a notional concept, quite distinct from the historical Jesus. A Christ was needed, philosophically, to place the Creator within His creation. What a burden to place on the poor mortal, Jesus! But was it a case of self-delusion, magnified by the wishful thinking of the disciples? Sez you.   Inappropriate response.  The other poster asked a question, he didn’t make a statement. A "Sez you" reply implies that the question was really a statement.  Moreover, you did not answer his question.   – sl –

Response:

  The Gospels never show him doing a lick o’ work – in fact Luke (8:2-3) claims that various women "ministered to him out of their substance".  Presumably the help of wealthy disciples plus itinerant begging kept Jesus and company fed.  Morton Smith cynically suggested that Jesus, as a magician, had an "act".  His act consisted of his miracles.  If these were successful, Jesus and crew received hospitality as "payment".

     It’s probably worth mentioning that Jesus teaches strongly against working for a living in Matthew 6:24-34, where he classifies sowing, reaping, gathering, and so on as services to mammon rather than God immediately after insisting it’s impossible to have two masters.  One of my favorite passages in the Gospels. — Moggin

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve always wondered at the markedly feminine aspects of the contemporary paintings of JC, with his long robes and hair.  Real carpenters don’t look like that, they’d get injured or killed on the job in such apparel.     Jesus may not have been a carpenter at all.  That story is based entirely — far as I know — on Mark 6:3, where the unidentified members of a crowd, offended by Jesus’ preaching, ask, "Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?"  That verse has a variant which says "Is not this the son of the carpenter and Mary…?"  There Joseph is the carpenter rather than Jesus, matching up with the parallel in Matthew 13:55:  "Is this not the carpenter’s son?"  In other words, Jesus is _not_ said to be a carpenter in either the variant or the parallel.

  The Gospels never show him doing a lick o’ work – in fact Luke (8:2-3) claims that various women "ministered to him out of their substance".  Presumably the help of wealthy disciples plus itinerant begging kept Jesus and company fed.  Morton Smith cynically suggested that Jesus, as a magician, had an "act".  His act consisted of his miracles.  If these were successful, Jesus and crew received hospitality as "payment".   – sl –

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  Exactly.  Christianity is a creation of the Fourth Century, the result of a political process in which warring bishops hammered out a final creed to the utter devastation of the truth.  Its critical mass was solely a creation of an unholy alliance between the winning party and the Roman administration.  It allowed a formerly persecuted cult to become a persecuting arm of the state – oppressing not only non-Christian religions, but also Christian sects which deviated from doctrinal correctness. I think the tipping point came in the last half of the third century, when a growing segment of the "opinion leaders" began to embrace Christianity. The organized, local churches were providing social services that had been neglected by the Roman State, and thereby drawing hordes of new adherents. The persecutions under Diocletian were an ineffective last gasp; by then, even the Roman army had been thoroughly infiltrated by the Christians. When Constantine had his men paint crosses on their shields before the battle at the Milvian Bridge, it was a brilliant psychological-warfare ploy, since the opposing troops were also mostly Christians.

  Yeah… then paganism had a final gasp when Julian "the apostate" tried to make pagan religion competitive.  Wonder what Western civilization would look like now if Julian hadn’t been killed in battle at a young age…   – sl –

Response:

 Exactly.  Christianity is a creation of the Fourth Century, the result of a political process in which warring bishops hammered out a final creed to the utter devastation of the truth.  Its critical mass was solely a creation of an unholy alliance between the winning party and the Roman administration.  It allowed a formerly persecuted cult to become a persecuting arm of the state – oppressing not only non-Christian religions, but also Christian sects which deviated from doctrinal correctness.

I think the tipping point came in the last half of the third century, when a growing segment of the "opinion leaders" began to embrace Christianity. The organized, local churches were providing social services that had been neglected by the Roman State, and thereby drawing hordes of new adherents. The persecutions under Diocletian were an ineffective last gasp; by then, even the Roman army had been thoroughly infiltrated by the Christians. When Constantine had his men paint crosses on their shields before the battle at the Milvian Bridge, it was a brilliant psychological-warfare ploy, since the opposing troops were also mostly Christians. http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0223b-almanac.htm

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Because SHE is The Comforter.  SHE does His Will too! God is beyond gender, just as He is beyond space and time. (We refer to Him as a "Him" just for convenience’s sake.) It’s not a matter of convenience.  The use of "Him" denotes the spiritual and personal relationship of God with man.   Which could just as easily be termed maternal, and God called a "Mother". Such impulses still reside in the human collective unconscious, despite all the attempts to deny it.  No doubt the appearance and importance of Mary in Roman Catholicism is a step in that direction.

  Nice observation – C G Jung celebrated the new doctrine of Mary’s Assumption into heaven as the Church’s belated recognition of the female element in the godhead, as well as her enthronement moving the Trinity to a Quaternity. Calling God "Father" in the modern world is more than convenience, it’s a gender-based power ploy and perpetuation of male supremacy. Yup.  In the "civilized" ancient world, the generative force was thought to reside in semen, the human race was completely unaware of the human female egg.  So the males thought they were depositing human "seeds" in the female who was just a sperm receptacle and a place for the "seed" to grow into a baby.  Just as the farmer plants seeds in the ground, the patriarch planted his seeds in the woman.  She was considered to be a sort of sub-human. Just think, it’s only been around a century since females were considered to be human enough to vote in the USA!

  Yep, JC’s own Mom would have been denied the right to vote in those (only recently) bygone days. Although Jesus was burdened with the Father-terminology of his tradition, he also employed feminine examples in describing God – he did not think of God as exclusively "Father".  To cling to "Father" as God’s normative appellation is to reject Jesus’ own view. I’ve always wondered at the markedly feminine aspects of the contemporary paintings of JC, with his long robes and hair.  Real carpenters don’t look like that, they’d get injured or killed on the job in such apparel.

  Don’t let Malicious Mel Gibson hear you say that.  His cinematic Jesus is All Man, A Real Man, a Virile And Manly Man, a Man Who Loves His Mother, and A Man Who Is A Glutton For Manly Physical Abuse.   – sl –

Response:

I’ve always wondered at the markedly feminine aspects of the contemporary paintings of JC, with his long robes and hair.  Real carpenters don’t look like that, they’d get injured or killed on the job in such apparel.

     Jesus may not have been a carpenter at all.  That story is based entirely — far as I know — on Mark 6:3, where the unidentified members of a crowd, offended by Jesus’ preaching, ask, "Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?"  That verse has a variant which says "Is not this the son of the carpenter and Mary…?"  There Joseph is the carpenter rather than Jesus, matching up with the parallel in Matthew 13:55:  "Is this not the carpenter’s son?"  In other words, Jesus is _not_ said to be a carpenter in either the variant or the parallel. — Moggin

Response:

Exactly.  Christianity is a creation of the Fourth Century, the result of a political process in which warring bishops hammered out a final creed to the utter devastation of the truth.  Its critical mass was solely a creation of an unholy alliance between the winning party and the Roman administration.  It allowed a formerly persecuted cult to become a persecuting arm of the state – oppressing not only non-Christian religions, but also Christian sects which deviated from doctrinal correctness. How dare you delve into the historical records of the Church in the 4th century!  Had the Roman Church managed to destroy all that information, such insolence wouldn’t be able to rear its ugly head in these newsgroups!

  Sorry.  At least I am a "shriven" leper.    - sl –

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Because SHE is The Comforter.  SHE does His Will too! God is beyond gender, just as He is beyond space and time. (We refer to Him as a "Him" just for convenience’s sake.) It’s not a matter of convenience.  The use of "Him" denotes the spiritual and personal relationship of God with man.   Which could just as easily be termed maternal, and God called a "Mother".

Such impulses still reside in the human collective unconscious, despite all the attempts to deny it.  No doubt the appearance and importance of Mary in Roman Catholicism is a step in that direction. Calling God "Father" in the modern world is more than convenience, it’s a gender-based power ploy and perpetuation of male supremacy.

Yup.  In the "civilized" ancient world, the generative force was thought to reside in semen, the human race was completely unaware of the human female egg.  So the males thought they were depositing human "seeds" in the female who was just a sperm receptacle and a place for the "seed" to grow into a baby.  Just as the farmer plants seeds in the ground, the patriarch planted his seeds in the woman.  She was considered to be a sort of sub-human. Just think, it’s only been around a century since females were considered to be human enough to vote in the USA! Although Jesus was burdened with the Father-terminology of his tradition, he also employed feminine examples in describing God – he did not think of God as exclusively "Father".  To cling to "Father" as God’s normative appellation is to reject Jesus’ own view.

I’ve always wondered at the markedly feminine aspects of the contemporary paintings of JC, with his long robes and hair.  Real carpenters don’t look like that, they’d get injured or killed on the job in such apparel.

Response:

Exactly.  Christianity is a creation of the Fourth Century, the result of a political process in which warring bishops hammered out a final creed to the utter devastation of the truth.  Its critical mass was solely a creation of an unholy alliance between the winning party and the Roman administration.  It allowed a formerly persecuted cult to become a persecuting arm of the state – oppressing not only non-Christian religions, but also Christian sects which deviated from doctrinal correctness.

How dare you delve into the historical records of the Church in the 4th century!  Had the Roman Church managed to destroy all that information, such insolence wouldn’t be able to rear its ugly head in these newsgroups!

Response:

Bullshit.  If you just wanted to be convenient, you’d refer to God as an "it"  -  that at least would be honest.

In the English language, the neuter "it" conveys an inferior status, and certainly doesn’t imply personhood. Since God is something like an intellectual force, we have to use a personal pronoun to convey the full meaning. More than likely it was a case of mythology.

That too. But since this "myth" allegedly took place in historical times, there must have been some concrete facts on which it was based. We can’t just dismiss the Christian story as being made up of whole cloth. But, to me, the interesting part is not what happened in the 1st century A.D. but what happened 200 years later — when Christianity was achieving the "critical mass" that turned it from a small cult to the state religion, so strong that it could exclude all other religions.

Response:

Bullshit.  If you just wanted to be convenient, you’d refer to God as an "it"  -  that at least would be honest. In the English language, the neuter "it" conveys an inferior status,

  Not always and not necessarily.  Cosmologists, for instance, sometimes speak very reverently of the universe, and they call it, "It".  We speak of love as "it" without implying an inferior status and without personalizing it. and certainly doesn’t imply personhood. Since God is something like an intellectual force, we have to use a personal pronoun to convey the full meaning.

  God is not really anything like an intellectual force, nor is God anything like a human being or anything in the universe.  Therefore using "It" for God is appropriate.  Using personal pronouns for the Ineffable/The Wholly Other anthropomorphises It.  Even if we were to view God as a "thinker", all religious traditions remind us that God’s "thoughts" are not our thoughts, God’s ways are not our ways. More than likely it was a case of mythology. That too. But since this "myth" allegedly took place in historical times, there must have been some concrete facts on which it was based.

  Right – much of the "myth" is based on extremely historically likely features of Jesus and his ministry, e.g., that he was a charismatic mediator, transformative sage, revitalization movement founder, divine union mystic, healer, exorcist, and social prophet.  None of these categories demands a mythic explanation, because each of these categories is well known and globally attested to through the cross-cultural religio-anthropological studies of the last fifty years. We can’t just dismiss the Christian story as being made up of whole cloth. But, to me, the interesting part is not what happened in the 1st century A.D. but what happened 200 years later — when Christianity was achieving the "critical mass" that turned it from a small cult to the state religion, so strong that it could exclude all other religions.

  Exactly.  Christianity is a creation of the Fourth Century, the result of a political process in which warring bishops hammered out a final creed to the utter devastation of the truth.  Its critical mass was solely a creation of an unholy alliance between the winning party and the Roman administration.  It allowed a formerly persecuted cult to become a persecuting arm of the state – oppressing not only non-Christian religions, but also Christian sects which deviated from doctrinal correctness.   – sl –

Response:

Because SHE is The Comforter.  SHE does His Will too! God is beyond gender, just as He is beyond space and time. (We refer to Him as a "Him" just for convenience’s sake.) It’s not a matter of convenience.  The use of "Him" denotes the spiritual and personal relationship of God with man.

  Which could just as easily be termed maternal, and God called a "Mother".  Calling God "Father" in the modern world is more than convenience, it’s a gender-based power ploy and perpetuation of male supremacy.  Although Jesus was burdened with the Father-terminology of his tradition, he also employed feminine examples in describing God – he did not think of God as exclusively "Father".  To cling to "Father" as God’s normative appellation is to reject Jesus’ own view. There’s plenty of Patristics written on this.

  Hardly surprising, since the Church  _Fathers_  were patriarchal radicals, many of whom denied full humanity to females.  Naturally they would insist on God’s "maleness", from which they derived their own (inauthentic) authority. The Christ is a notional concept, quite distinct from the historical Jesus. A Christ was needed, philosophically, to place the Creator within His creation. What a burden to place on the poor mortal, Jesus! But was it a case of self-delusion, magnified by the wishful thinking of the disciples? Sez you.

  Inappropriate response.  The other poster asked a question, he didn’t make a statement. A "Sez you" reply implies that the question was really a statement.  Moreover, you did not answer his question.   – sl –

Response:

Because SHE is The Comforter.  SHE does His Will too! God is beyond gender, just as He is beyond space and time. (We refer to Him as a "Him" just for convenience’s sake.)

It’s not a matter of convenience.  The use of "Him" denotes the spiritual and personal relationship of God with man.  There’s plenty of Patristics written on this. The Christ is a notional concept, quite distinct from the historical Jesus. A Christ was needed, philosophically, to place the Creator within His creation. What a burden to place on the poor mortal, Jesus! But was it a case of self-delusion, magnified by the wishful thinking of the disciples?

Sez you.

Response:

Of couse AA, but we can and do attribute gender attributes to the many eminations of God that have been revealed…

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Because SHE is The Comforter.  SHE does His Will too! God is beyond gender, just as He is beyond space and time. (We refer to Him as a "Him" just for convenience’s sake.) The Christ is a notional concept, quite distinct from the historical Jesus. A Christ was needed, philosophically, to place the Creator within His creation. What a burden to place on the poor mortal, Jesus! But was it a case of self-delusion, magnified by the wishful thinking of the disciples?

Response:

Do HIS Will!

Why not do HER Will? — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

Because SHE is The Comforter.  SHE does His Will too!

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Do HIS Will! Why not do HER Will? — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

Because SHE is The Comforter.  SHE does His Will too!

God is beyond gender, just as He is beyond space and time. (We refer to Him as a "Him" just for convenience’s sake.) The Christ is a notional concept, quite distinct from the historical Jesus. A Christ was needed, philosophically, to place the Creator within His creation. What a burden to place on the poor mortal, Jesus! But was it a case of self-delusion, magnified by the wishful thinking of the disciples?

Response:

Because SHE is The Comforter.  SHE does His Will too! God is beyond gender, just as He is beyond space and time. (We refer to Him as a "Him" just for convenience’s sake.)

Bullshit.  If you just wanted to be convenient, you’d refer to God as an "it"  -  that at least would be honest. The Christ is a notional concept, quite distinct from the historical Jesus. A Christ was needed, philosophically, to place the Creator within His creation. What a burden to place on the poor mortal, Jesus! But was it a case of self-delusion, magnified by the wishful thinking of the disciples?

More than likely it was a case of mythology.

Response:

Do HIS Will!

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Planter plants the seed in the Springtime. He then lets it grow over summer and comes back in the Fall to harvest what He planted.  What produces good fruit He keeps, the rest is burned or left to rot…

Response:

The Planter plants the seed in the Springtime. He then lets it grow over summer and comes back in the Fall to harvest what He planted.  What produces good fruit He keeps, the rest is burned or left to rot… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you expect a Messiah, do you expect him or her to be the return of Jesus or to be another figure similar to him? If you expect a Messiah, do you expect no new messages from him or her, and no corrections to old material?    If so, what need is there for such a figure?   If such a figure has a message you do not like, even if you cannot rationally argue against the message, would you reject such a figure?    If so I might label you a hypocrite not expecting messages of change. Do you expect your Messiah to be a Christian, and only come to Christians, given that Jesus started as a Jew and went broader in his direction of his messages, and Jesus was not a Christian, he did not worship himself, and much of Christianity developed after him, even if such a figure is the return of Jesus. David  http://www.nfld.com/~dalton

Response:

The Planter plants the seed in the Springtime. He then lets it grow over summer and comes back in the Fall to harvest what He planted.  What produces good fruit He keeps, the rest is burned or left to rot…

Response:

The Messiah has already been here. We’re supposed to be preparing for His return. Geesh! Al

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you expect a Messiah, do you expect him or her to be the return of Jesus or to be another figure similar to him? If you expect a Messiah, do you expect no new messages from him or her, and no corrections to old material?    If so, what need is there for such a figure?   If such a figure has a message you do not like, even if you cannot rationally argue against the message, would you reject such a figure?    If so I might label you a hypocrite not expecting messages of change. Do you expect your Messiah to be a Christian, and only come to Christians, given that Jesus started as a Jew and went broader in his direction of his messages, and Jesus was not a Christian, he did not worship himself, and much of Christianity developed after him, even if such a figure is the return of Jesus. Do you think your way is the only way or that there are many valid loving paths to the divine, as Pope John Paul II indicated in his comments in Eastern Europe in I think late spring 1997 on Commonality and Togetherness (or something like that) not long after my similar comments on Commonality and Diversity on soc.religion.paganism ?    In my messages the fundamental is love and all messages that conflict with that must be modified to no longer conflict, or be discarded.    Of course in my other messages I say strive to love, but that means strive for the fundamental.    If you disagree that the fundamental is love, what fundamental(s) of yours do you think overrride(s) it? I started as Roman Catholic, then scientific atheist, now am in no religion but have an individual belief system that is polytheistic with a probably all-powerful top-ranked deity and a fundamental of love and a belief that I am part of nature and not above nature whether nature is defined as the biosphere, the earth, space and its contents, or all/everything.   For more detail see my web page. Full moon blessings on you all (the exact time of full moon is 0222 Aug. 30 so  11:52 p.m. Newfoundland Daylight Savings Time Aug. 29).    Oh, and I will not start a religion unless there is otherwise no movement, and note that similarly there were many Hindu sects before Krishna and most survived after Krishna.     See my recent posts to alt.feminism for the eight women who have most influenced me. David  http://www.nfld.com/~dalton

Response:

If you expect a Messiah, do you expect him or her to be the return of Jesus or to be another figure similar to him? If you expect a Messiah, do you expect no new messages from him or her, and no corrections to old material?    If so, what need is there for such a figure?   If such a figure has a message you do not like, even if you cannot rationally argue against the message, would you reject such a figure?    If so I might label you a hypocrite not expecting messages of change. Do you expect your Messiah to be a Christian, and only come to Christians, given that Jesus started as a Jew and went broader in his direction of his messages, and Jesus was not a Christian, he did not worship himself, and much of Christianity developed after him, even if such a figure is the return of Jesus. Do you think your way is the only way or that there are many valid loving paths to the divine, as Pope John Paul II indicated in his comments in Eastern Europe in I think late spring 1997 on Commonality and Togetherness (or something like that) not long after my similar comments on Commonality and Diversity on soc.religion.paganism ?    In my messages the fundamental is love and all messages that conflict with that must be modified to no longer conflict, or be discarded.    Of course in my other messages I say strive to love, but that means strive for the fundamental.    If you disagree that the fundamental is love, what fundamental(s) of yours do you think overrride(s) it? I started as Roman Catholic, then scientific atheist, now am in no religion but have an individual belief system that is polytheistic with a probably all-powerful top-ranked deity and a fundamental of love and a belief that I am part of nature and not above nature whether nature is defined as the biosphere, the earth, space and its contents, or all/everything.   For more detail see my web page. Full moon blessings on you all (the exact time of full moon is 0222 Aug. 30 so  11:52 p.m. Newfoundland Daylight Savings Time Aug. 29).    Oh, and I will not start a religion unless there is otherwise no movement, and note that similarly there were many Hindu sects before Krishna and most survived after Krishna.     See my recent posts to alt.feminism for the eight women who have most influenced me. David  http://www.nfld.com/~dalton

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have yet to see this mentioned in the Bible. If water is blessed by a "Father," why does that make it holy? What if that "Father" blessed some water while in prison for molesting children, and he’s still considered an ordained RC priest… Is that water still really holy? Answers: It doesn’t, and NO! There’s no such thing as "holy water." Hello, Yes also, sometimes holy water isn’t so ‘holy’. Notice this account taken from this newspaper report: "Unholy Water A surgeon in Ireland was puzzled when a 72-year-old woman twice developed serious eye infections just prior to having cataract surgery. What caused the infections? "Holy" water from Lourdes that she had put on her face. "The problem," says The Irish Times, "is that holy water is often contaminated by dangerous bacteria." The woman might easily have been blinded by the infection if the surgery had been performed as scheduled. The Irish Times continues: "Blessing simply doesn’t kill germs. And the sprinkling of holy water that is meant to cure, may actually cause life-threatening infection in certain circumstances." According to the report, well-meaning friends or relatives who sprinkle you with "holy" water when you are in the hospital may be "the greatest risk to your survival."" (Awake!, 1997, 3/22, p.28.)

When I was an alter boy the Pastor once joked that the way to make holy water was to put it on the stove and boil the hell out of it . Might be a good idea for such occasions. — Bill

Response:

Yo, Vinnie….. I didn’t bring this subject up. I am being forged in this NG, among others. This forgery was amazing, which is why I was wondering if anybody knew of a program that did this. Congrats to whomever! At any rate, I have not been able to defend myself, or post hardly anything, for the past 10 days, as my ISP has decided to fix their news servers if and when they feel like it. (They must be RC! I -know- that holy water is mentioned in the Bible, namely in the Old Testament book of Numbers – Chapter 5. To the best of my memory, that’s it……

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I guess. I’d sure like to know how it’s done. — Learn the Five Pillars of Islam: Lies, Deceit, Murder, Rape and Greed. http://www.prophetofdoom.net/prologue.html I have yet to see this mentioned in the Bible. If water is blessed by a "Father," why does that make it holy? What if that "Father" blessed some water while in prison for molesting children, and he’s still considered an ordained RC priest… Is that water still really holy? Answers: It doesn’t, and NO! There’s no such thing as "holy water." Sir–how about a direct response to the very issue you brought up, that holy water is not in the Bible? Or did you think you’d be let off the hook? You came here to denounce a Christian belief going back not just to the first century, but back to even Moses, relying on your supposed superior knowledge of Scripture to back up your contention that the notion of holy water is unbiblical. It was shown to you by more than one person you obviously don’t even know scripture, and a direct quote from scripture was used to refute you. Are you prepared to admit you didn’t know what you were talking about, and that the SCRIPTURE refutes the claim you made? "I have yet to see this mentioned in the Bible" Do you now acknowedge it IS in the Bible, or do you question the legitimacy of the Old Testament?

Response:

Yo, Vinnie….. I didn’t bring this subject up. I am being forged in this NG, among others. This forgery was amazing, which is why I was wondering if anybody knew of a program that did this. Congrats to whomever! At any rate, I have not been able to defend myself, or post hardly anything, for the past 10 days, as my ISP has decided to fix their news servers if and when they feel like it. (They must be RC! I -know- that holy water is mentioned in the Bible, namely in the Old Testament book of Numbers – Chapter 5. To the best of my memory, that’s it……

you’re right. Thanx for the explanation.

Response:

That said, be aware that more verbiage will be taking place in this forum. I do believe that the RC religion is a cult, and it my solemn duty as a person who believes in God the Father and God the Son, who prays to the Lord only through the His Son, who does not pray to "Saints;" who does not put his faith in the false idol known as the pope; who does not exalt mere humans, past, present, or future; who doesn’t turn a blind eye to the atrocities being committed to children; who knows He comes again, and soon, to expose all false prophets such as Muhammad and the pope. Thanks! Dave

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yo, Vinnie….. I didn’t bring this subject up. I am being forged in this NG, among others. This forgery was amazing, which is why I was wondering if anybody knew of a program that did this. Congrats to whomever! At any rate, I have not been able to defend myself, or post hardly anything, for the past 10 days, as my ISP has decided to fix their news servers if and when they feel like it. (They must be RC! I -know- that holy water is mentioned in the Bible, namely in the Old Testament book of Numbers – Chapter 5. To the best of my memory, that’s it…… you’re right. Thanx for the explanation.

Response:

That said, be aware that more verbiage will be taking place in this forum. I do believe that the RC religion is a cult,

Your belief, your opinion. May God grant you some sort of peace. Tom A. "To a Roman Catholic the Roman Catholic Church is simply the Christian religion; the gift of Christ to St. Peter and his successors of a right to answer at all times all questions about what it really is; a thing surrounded at the edge of its own wide domain by various severed fragments of its own substance; consisting of people who for different reasons deny that right to affirm what it really is, and who therefore differ among themselves, indefinitely and increasingly, about what it really is. It may be added that they differ not only about the nature of the ideal Christianity that ought to be substituted, but even about the nature of the Roman Catholicism that is to be defied." – G.K. Chesterton

Response:

That said, be aware that more verbiage will be taking place in this forum. I do believe that the RC religion is a cult, Your belief, your opinion.

The RCC fulfills all the classic requirements of typical cult behavior. Common sense will tell you it’s a cult, down to the bizarre beliefs, punishment mechanisms, inquisitions, and funny hats. May God grant you some sort of peace.

So persons disagreeing with your cult have no peace?  How do you know this?

Response:

I have yet to see this mentioned in the Bible. If water is blessed by a "Father," why does that make it holy? What if that "Father" blessed some water while in prison for molesting children, and he’s still considered an ordained RC priest… Is that water still really holy? Answers: It doesn’t, and NO! There’s no such thing as "holy water."

Hello, Yes also, sometimes holy water isn’t so ‘holy’. Notice this account taken from this newspaper report: "Unholy Water A surgeon in Ireland was puzzled when a 72-year-old woman twice developed serious eye infections just prior to having cataract surgery. What caused the infections? "Holy" water from Lourdes that she had put on her face. "The problem," says The Irish Times, "is that holy water is often contaminated by dangerous bacteria." The woman might easily have been blinded by the infection if the surgery had been performed as scheduled. The Irish Times continues: "Blessing simply doesn’t kill germs. And the sprinkling of holy water that is meant to cure, may actually cause life-threatening infection in certain circumstances." According to the report, well-meaning friends or relatives who sprinkle you with "holy" water when you are in the hospital may be "the greatest risk to your survival."" (Awake!, 1997, 3/22, p.28.) Sincerely,  James Want a FREE home Bible study? Have Jehovah’s Witnesses questions? Go to the only authorized source: http://www.watchtower.org

Response:

I have yet to see this mentioned in the Bible. If water is blessed by a "Father," why does that make it holy? What if that "Father" blessed some water while in prison for molesting children, and he’s still considered an ordained RC priest… Is that water still really holy? Answers: It doesn’t, and NO! There’s no such thing as "holy water."

Response:

I have yet to see this mentioned in the Bible. If water is blessed by a "Father," why does that make it holy? What if that "Father" blessed some water while in prison for molesting children, and he’s still considered an ordained RC priest… Is that water still really holy? Answers: It doesn’t, and NO! There’s no such thing as "holy water."

Agreed it’s hocus-pocus, much like the doctrinal snake oil you peddle. PeterT

Response:

I have yet to see this mentioned in the Bible. If water is blessed by a "Father," why does that make it holy? What if that "Father" blessed some water while in prison for molesting children, and he’s still considered an ordained RC priest… Is that water still really holy? Answers: It doesn’t, and NO! There’s no such thing as "holy water."

so saith d a v e

Response:

I have yet to see this mentioned in the Bible. If water is blessed by a "Father," why does that make it holy? What if that "Father" blessed some water while in prison for molesting children, and he’s still considered an ordained RC priest… Is that water still really holy? Answers: It doesn’t, and NO! There’s no such thing as "holy water."

As Jesus said "By their fruits you shall know them". Those who do loving acts of kindness to others are the holy ones. Those who molest children against their will, well…. they’re certainly not capable of making *anything* holy. They pollute everything they touch.

Response:

I have yet to see this mentioned in the Bible.

that’s because you’re the type of person who walks around bragging that he knows the Bible when his actual knowledge of it is juvenile and superficial. "And the priest shall take HOLY WATER in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water." You certainly aren’t qualified to comment on Scripture, that’s for sure!

Response:

Answers: It doesn’t, and NO! There’s no such thing as "holy water."

The use of holy water is as old as the Church. Why do you disparage a 2000 year old Christian tradition?

Response:

  "And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water…" Numbers 5:17 Hahahahahaha "Bible Christians" indeed… jg – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have yet to see this mentioned in the Bible. If water is blessed by a "Father," why does that make it holy? What if that "Father" blessed some water while in prison for molesting children, and he’s still considered an ordained RC priest… Is that water still really holy? Answers: It doesn’t, and NO! There’s no such thing as "holy water."

Response:

Answers: It doesn’t, and NO! There’s no such thing as "holy water." The use of holy water is as old as the Church. Why do you disparage a 2000 year old Christian tradition?

Because they’re jealous.

Response:

I have yet to see this mentioned in the Bible. If water is blessed by a "Father," why does that make it holy?

Obviously, you don’t know what "holy" means.  It means being dedicated to God.  Anything can be holy, if it is dedicated and used for God. We are called to live holy lives.  With His help, we will eventually reach that point. Tom A.

Response:

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I guess. I’d sure like to know how it’s done. — Learn the Five Pillars of Islam: Lies, Deceit, Murder, Rape and Greed. http://www.prophetofdoom.net/prologue.html – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have yet to see this mentioned in the Bible. If water is blessed by a "Father," why does that make it holy? What if that "Father" blessed some water while in prison for molesting children, and he’s still considered an ordained RC priest… Is that water still really holy? Answers: It doesn’t, and NO! There’s no such thing as "holy water."

Response:

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I guess. I’d sure like to know how it’s done.

Question:

The Myth of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity Apart from a belief in the virgin birth some Christian churches, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, hold that Mary remained a virgin for life. (Note that this belief does not simply say Mary never had sex throughout her whole life. It also maintains that Mary’s hymen remained intact even after her birth!) Apart from this obvious impossibility, a natural reading of the gospel itself will show that none of its authors ascribed to Mary a perpetual virginity. For instance, it was Matthew’s gospel that wrote explicitly about the virgin birth, yet even here it is implied that Mary had normal conjugal relations with her husband after the birth of Jesus:      Matthew 1:24-25       When Joseph woke up, he…took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. A non Catholic reading the passage above will have no difficulty concluding that it obviously means that Joseph had sex with Mary after she gave birth to Jesus. For don’t we always say things like "I did not go to college until I was nineteen.". This obviously means that I did go to college when I was nineteen. Someone who had not gone to college at all would not use "until" in the above sentence. He would probably have phrased it such: "I was already nineteen and still haven’t gone to college" or "I never went to college." If Matthew wanted to make the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity good examples of how theologian had no qualms twisting the normal linguistic meaning out of context is given by the passage below taken from the footnote in Catholic edition of the Revised Standard Version Bible:      This [Matthew 1:25] means only that Joseph have nothing to do with the conception of Jesus. It implies nothing as to what happened afterwards. [1] The pigheadedness (what else can I say?) of such an explanation simply astounds me. As I have shown above, the use of until does imply subsequent events. It only implies nothing because of theological preconditioning. All the gospels, written long before the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity began to take hold of the popular imagination, had no qualms about Jesus having brothers and sisters. Luke, for instance say that Mary had more than one child:      Luke 2:6-7       While they [i.e. Joseph and Mary] were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. It should be remembered that Luke was writing long after both Mary and Joseph were dead. If Jesus was Mary’s only child, with hindsight, he would not have used the word firstborn. In the context above, firstborn, obviously implies that Mary had other children. All the gospels said that Jesus had brothers and sisters:      Mark 3:31-32 (Matthew 12:46-50)       Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they get someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you." The passage below from Mark tells us that Jesus had a large family, at least 4 brothers and two sisters, when he makes the people of Nazareth ask of Jesus:      Mark 6:3 (Matthew 13:55)       "Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and his brother James, Joses, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?" Even John, the most mystical of all the gospels, does not deny the fact that Jesus was not the only child:      John 2:12       After this they went down to Capernaum with his {i.e. Jesus’} mother and brothers and his disciples.      John 7:3       Jesus’ brother said to him, "You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples can see the miracles you do." Many explanations were tried by Catholic theologians to reconcile this passages with their own theology. In one, the "brothers and sisters" mentioned were supposedly half-brothers and half-sisters of Jesus. They were Joseph’s children from an earlier marriage. This stepbrothers and stepsisters explanation was first put forward by Origen (c185-254). This hypothesis is totally unsupported by any evidence and was put forward solely for reconciling the popular imagination with the gospels. In the first place, nowhere was it mentioned that Joseph was ever married previously. And the explanation still doesn’t quite solve the passage in Luke 2:6-7 which says that Jesus was Mary’s firstborn, implying later siblings. The second explanation, still very popularly used by Catholic theologians and parish priests, is that these brothers and sisters were not brothers and sisters at all but were his cousins. This "cousin hypothesis" was first put forward by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (c260-c340). The main thrust of the argument is that the Hebrew language lacks specific nouns for kinfolk. The Hebrew word ah (Aramaic: aha) can mean brother, stepbrother, cousin, nephew; in general it can mean any blood relative. This is true, but there is one small problem; all the four gospels were written in Greek not Hebrew. In that language there are separate nouns for brothers and cousins. The Greek word for brother is adelphoi and for cousin is anepsioi. All the evangelists used adelphoi to describe his brothers. Had they been convinced that James, Joses, Judas and Simon were not Jesus’ brothers, they would have used the word anepsioi to avoid any confusion. Moreover we see that in Paul’s letters to the Galatians he too referred to James as Jesus’ brother (Remember that Paul wrote in Greek):      Galatians 1:18-19       Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles-only James, the Lord’s brother. Paul again referred to Jesus’ brothers in his first letter to the Corinthians:      I Corinthians 9:4       Do we not have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles, and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? In conclusion, there is absolutely nothing to suggests that Mary remained a virgin perpetually. [2] The fact that Catholic theologians still insists on this doctrine should convince all that reason has very little to do with theology. References       1. Revised Standard Version Bible, Catholic Edition, Catholic Truth Society, London 1965: New Testament p239       2. Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p66-67       Fenton, Saint Matthew: p206       Guignebert, Jesus: p129-130 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." – Ben Franklin http://www.geocities.com/rogue_2k/CHeston.html

Response:

     Matthew 1:24-25       When Joseph woke up, he…took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. A non Catholic reading the passage above will have no difficulty concluding that it obviously means that Joseph had sex with Mary after she gave birth

An Orthodox will understand it the same way a Catholic would.  A Copt, an Assyrian, an Ethiopian or a Jacobite would understand it the same way a Catholic would. They don’t have the complex you Protestant heretics have. You are all AFRAID of MARY.

Response:

"D a v e"  wrote some stuff. The Myth of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

Some points: The bible clearly points out that Jesus was the heir to the throne of David. Both Matthew and Luke go to great pains to point out the genealogy from David to Joseph. If, as some catholics say, Joseph was married before and the brothers in the NT were stepbrothers, the oldest son of Joseph would have the claim to the throne of David. But clearly, Jesus has that claim. Ooops, no older brothers!! Then the fun one. Matthew 13: 55 – Again, the bible clearly mentions his father, then his mother Mary, and then mentions his brothers. Yes, some bibles say brethern. Look up brethern in the dictionary. Mine gives the first definition as brothers. Now, I know catholics will say the meaning could have changed. Dave has already covered the greek word. But forget verse 55, look at verse 56. What was the word for sister. Go to Bible gateway. There are 18 different bibles on there. Matthew 13: 55 – 12 say brothers, six say brethern Matthew 13: 56 – all 18 say sisters. Look at the Gospel of Philip. He says that there were three who were always with the Lord, and names one of them as Mary, his sister. So, while Catholics will argue that brother could mean anything, how about sister???? What is the Greek word for sister?? What is the hebrew word?? Is there a hebrew version of  Mark?? Luke?? John?? Then I guess we use the Greek word. I think Chubby Checker has a song about Catholic thinking. "THE TWIST"

Response:

My news reader is messing up, big time. It’s telling me that nobody has responded to this thread, but I know somebody has to have responded by now. Maybe I should look into going to download.com and finding a better news reader. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Myth of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity Apart from a belief in the virgin birth some Christian churches, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, hold that Mary remained a virgin for life. (Note that this belief does not simply say Mary never had sex throughout her whole life. It also maintains that Mary’s hymen remained intact even after her birth!) Apart from this obvious impossibility, a natural reading of the gospel itself will show that none of its authors ascribed to Mary a perpetual virginity. For instance, it was Matthew’s gospel that wrote explicitly about the virgin birth, yet even here it is implied that Mary had normal conjugal relations with her husband after the birth of Jesus:      Matthew 1:24-25       When Joseph woke up, he…took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. A non Catholic reading the passage above will have no difficulty concluding that it obviously means that Joseph had sex with Mary after she gave birth to Jesus. For don’t we always say things like "I did not go to college until I was nineteen.". This obviously means that I did go to college when I was nineteen. Someone who had not gone to college at all would not use "until" in the above sentence. He would probably have phrased it such: "I was already nineteen and still haven’t gone to college" or "I never went to college." If Matthew wanted to make the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity A good examples of how theologian had no qualms twisting the normal linguistic meaning out of context is given by the passage below taken from the footnote in Catholic edition of the Revised Standard Version Bible:      This [Matthew 1:25] means only that Joseph have nothing to do with the conception of Jesus. It implies nothing as to what happened afterwards. [1] The pigheadedness (what else can I say?) of such an explanation simply astounds me. As I have shown above, the use of until does imply subsequent events. It only implies nothing because of theological preconditioning. All the gospels, written long before the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity began to take hold of the popular imagination, had no qualms about Jesus having brothers and sisters. Luke, for instance say that Mary had more than one child:      Luke 2:6-7       While they [i.e. Joseph and Mary] were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. It should be remembered that Luke was writing long after both Mary and Joseph were dead. If Jesus was Mary’s only child, with hindsight, he would not have used the word firstborn. In the context above, firstborn, obviously implies that Mary had other children. All the gospels said that Jesus had brothers and sisters:      Mark 3:31-32 (Matthew 12:46-50)       Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they get someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you." The passage below from Mark tells us that Jesus had a large family, at least 4 brothers and two sisters, when he makes the people of Nazareth ask of Jesus:      Mark 6:3 (Matthew 13:55)       "Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and his brother James, Joses, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?" Even John, the most mystical of all the gospels, does not deny the fact that Jesus was not the only child:      John 2:12       After this they went down to Capernaum with his {i.e. Jesus’} mother and brothers and his disciples.      John 7:3       Jesus’ brother said to him, "You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples can see the miracles you do." Many explanations were tried by Catholic theologians to reconcile this passages with their own theology. In one, the "brothers and sisters" mentioned were supposedly half-brothers and half-sisters of Jesus. They were Joseph’s children from an earlier marriage. This stepbrothers and stepsisters explanation was first put forward by Origen (c185-254). This hypothesis is totally unsupported by any evidence and was put forward solely for reconciling the popular imagination with the gospels. In the first place, nowhere was it mentioned that Joseph was ever married previously. And the explanation still doesn’t quite solve the passage in Luke 2:6-7 which says that Jesus was Mary’s firstborn, implying later siblings. The second explanation, still very popularly used by Catholic theologians and parish priests, is that these brothers and sisters were not brothers and sisters at all but were his cousins. This "cousin hypothesis" was first put forward by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (c260-c340). The main thrust of the argument is that the Hebrew language lacks specific nouns for kinfolk. The Hebrew word ah (Aramaic: aha) can mean brother, stepbrother, cousin, nephew; in general it can mean any blood relative. This is true, but there is one small problem; all the four gospels were written in Greek not Hebrew. In that language there are separate nouns for brothers and cousins. The Greek word for brother is adelphoi and for cousin is anepsioi. All the evangelists used adelphoi to describe his brothers. Had they been convinced that James, Joses, Judas and Simon were not Jesus’ brothers, they would have used the word anepsioi to avoid any confusion. Moreover we see that in Paul’s letters to the Galatians he too referred to James as Jesus’ brother (Remember that Paul wrote in Greek):      Galatians 1:18-19       Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles-only James, the Lord’s brother. Paul again referred to Jesus’ brothers in his first letter to the Corinthians:      I Corinthians 9:4       Do we not have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles, and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? In conclusion, there is absolutely nothing to suggests that Mary remained a virgin perpetually. [2] The fact that Catholic theologians still insists on this doctrine should convince all that reason has very little to do with theology. References       1. Revised Standard Version Bible, Catholic Edition, Catholic Truth Society, London 1965: New Testament p239       2. Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p66-67       Fenton, Saint Matthew: p206       Guignebert, Jesus: p129-130 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." – Ben Franklin http://www.geocities.com/rogue_2k/CHeston.html

Response:

  The pigheadedness (what else can I say?) of such an explanation simply   astounds me. As I have shown above, the use of until does imply subsequent   events. It only implies nothing because of theological preconditioning IT doesn’t imply future events, any more than saying "my mother never touched a drop of alcohol until the day she died."  Does that mean that after she died, she went on a binge?  Come on, be realistic and admit that you are foisting your own eisegesis on the text here, and not reading it from the same perspective the writer intended, nor do you have the same mindset of the original recipients.  Mary’s perpetual virginity is attested from the earliest Church Fathers.  Its accepted doctrine.  Live it.   It should be remembered that Luke was writing long after both Mary and   Joseph were dead. If Jesus was Mary’s only child, with hindsight, he would   not have used the word firstborn. In the context above, firstborn, obviously   implies that Mary had other children. All the gospels said that Jesus had   brothers and sisters: Haven’t you heard all this before?  The word firstborn is used because it denotes certain privileges and blessings, regardless of whether or not there was to be a "second born" or "subsequently born." Had they been convinced that James,   Joses, Judas and Simon were not Jesus’ brothers, they would have used the   word anepsioi to avoid any confusion. You’re new to this, hmm?  You bungled it.  Hebrew had no word for "cousins" not greek.  The Jews avoided the word for cousins in greek in favor of adelphoi and adelphe, which was closer to the thought of their own language.  Brothers could mean blood relations, cousins, kinsmen, or even a close family friend, and they used it as such. BTW, the "brothers" of Jesus are conveniently, in the NT, identified as the children of the "other" Mary, whose husband was known as Clopas. According to the early Church, he was Joseph’s brother.  That would make these men the "cousins" of Jesus.  Do you believe in the inspiration of the NT?  Then get on the bandwagon and admit that they weren’t Jesus blood brothers. Careful reading of scripture and the early Church Fathers will help to dispel the fabrications and faulty theology of the truncated version of Christianity which you subscribe to. A man gains nothing by leaving the true Church, and becomes culpable if he by sloth refuses to study the matter, and he would certainly lose substantial blessings and perhaps lose his own soul. Keep studying… jg – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Myth of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity Apart from a belief in the virgin birth some Christian churches, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, hold that Mary remained a virgin for life. (Note that this belief does not simply say Mary never had sex throughout her whole life. It also maintains that Mary’s hymen remained intact even after her birth!) Apart from this obvious impossibility, a natural reading of the gospel itself will show that none of its authors ascribed to Mary a perpetual virginity. For instance, it was Matthew’s gospel that wrote explicitly about the virgin birth, yet even here it is implied that Mary had normal conjugal relations with her husband after the birth of Jesus:      Matthew 1:24-25       When Joseph woke up, he…took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. A non Catholic reading the passage above will have no difficulty concluding that it obviously means that Joseph had sex with Mary after she gave birth to Jesus. For don’t we always say things like "I did not go to college until I was nineteen.". This obviously means that I did go to college when I was nineteen. Someone who had not gone to college at all would not use "until" in the above sentence. He would probably have phrased it such: "I was already nineteen and still haven’t gone to college" or "I never went to college." If Matthew wanted to make the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity good examples of how theologian had no qualms twisting the normal linguistic meaning out of context is given by the passage below taken from the footnote in Catholic edition of the Revised Standard Version Bible:      This [Matthew 1:25] means only that Joseph have nothing to do with the conception of Jesus. It implies nothing as to what happened afterwards. [1] The pigheadedness (what else can I say?) of such an explanation simply astounds me. As I have shown above, the use of until does imply subsequent events. It only implies nothing because of theological preconditioning. All the gospels, written long before the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity began to take hold of the popular imagination, had no qualms about Jesus having brothers and sisters. Luke, for instance say that Mary had more than one child:      Luke 2:6-7       While they [i.e. Joseph and Mary] were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. It should be remembered that Luke was writing long after both Mary and Joseph were dead. If Jesus was Mary’s only child, with hindsight, he would not have used the word firstborn. In the context above, firstborn, obviously implies that Mary had other children. All the gospels said that Jesus had brothers and sisters:      Mark 3:31-32 (Matthew 12:46-50)       Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they get someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you." The passage below from Mark tells us that Jesus had a large family, at least 4 brothers and two sisters, when he makes the people of Nazareth ask of Jesus:      Mark 6:3 (Matthew 13:55)       "Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and his brother James, Joses, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?" Even John, the most mystical of all the gospels, does not deny the fact that Jesus was not the only child:      John 2:12       After this they went down to Capernaum with his {i.e. Jesus’} mother and brothers and his disciples.      John 7:3       Jesus’ brother said to him, "You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples can see the miracles you do." Many explanations were tried by Catholic theologians to reconcile this passages with their own theology. In one, the "brothers and sisters" mentioned were supposedly half-brothers and half-sisters of Jesus. They were Joseph’s children from an earlier marriage. This stepbrothers and stepsisters explanation was first put forward by Origen (c185-254). This hypothesis is totally unsupported by any evidence and was put forward solely for reconciling the popular imagination with the gospels. In the first place, nowhere was it mentioned that Joseph was ever married previously. And the explanation still doesn’t quite solve the passage in Luke 2:6-7 which says that Jesus was Mary’s firstborn, implying later siblings. The second explanation, still very popularly used by Catholic theologians and parish priests, is that these brothers and sisters were not brothers and sisters at all but were his cousins. This "cousin hypothesis" was first put forward by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (c260-c340). The main thrust of the argument is that the Hebrew language lacks specific nouns for kinfolk. The Hebrew word ah (Aramaic: aha) can mean brother, stepbrother, cousin, nephew; in general it can mean any blood relative. This is true, but there is one small problem; all the four gospels were written in Greek not Hebrew. In that language there are separate nouns for brothers and cousins. The Greek word for brother is adelphoi and for cousin is anepsioi. All the evangelists used adelphoi to describe his brothers. Had they been convinced that James, Joses, Judas and Simon were not Jesus’ brothers, they would have used the word anepsioi to avoid any confusion. Moreover we see that in Paul’s letters to the Galatians he too referred to James as Jesus’ brother (Remember that Paul wrote in Greek):      Galatians 1:18-19       Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles-only James, the Lord’s brother. Paul again referred to Jesus’ brothers in his first letter to the Corinthians:      I Corinthians 9:4       Do we not have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles, and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? In conclusion, there is absolutely nothing to suggests that Mary remained a virgin perpetually. [2] The fact that Catholic theologians still insists on this doctrine should convince all that reason has very little to do with theology. References       1. Revised Standard Version Bible, Catholic Edition, Catholic Truth Society, London 1965: New Testament p239       2. Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p66-67       Fenton, Saint Matthew: p206       Guignebert, Jesus: p129-130 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." – Ben Franklin http://www.geocities.com/rogue_2k/CHeston.html

Response:

Dave, finally you get a reply. And it’s as foolish as most of them are. Jim Garlits writes:

IT doesn’t imply future events, any more than saying "my mother never touched a drop of alcohol until the day she died."  Does that mean that after she died, she went on a binge?  Come on, be realistic and admit that you are foisting your own eisegesis on the text here, and not reading it from the same perspective the writer intended, nor do you have the same mindset of the original recipients.  Mary’s perpetual virginity is attested from the earliest Church Fathers.  Its accepted doctrine.  Live it. Notice how they always come up with a comparison that is not even a comparison. Your mother simply could not have gone on a binge after she died, because it was impossible. In describing your mother, you would simply say, Mother never took a drink. Why would you even use the terminolgy, until the day she died. You wouldn’t. No Comparison. It turns out that it is Jim is the one reading in his own meaning. Jim, when you say that Mary’s perpetual virginity is attested to by the early church fathers, unless you actually quote some sources, then it is only your opinion. Give us some sources!!! Then he adds: You’re new to this, hmm?  You bungled it.  Hebrew had no word for "cousins" not greek.  The Jews avoided the word for cousins in greek in favor of adelphoi and adelphe, which was closer to the thought of their own language.  Brothers could mean blood relations, cousins, kinsmen, or even a close family friend, and they used it as such. Jim that makes no sense whatsoever. The New Testament is in Greek!!! The word for brother is Adelphoi, and that is what is used. Look at all the translations. It is translated brother.Why would Jews avoid the word for cousins in greek?? Just a catholic red herring. Make it seem like it was something else. The writers used the greek word for brother, because they knew they were brothers. But you now say that it is not brother. Oh and BTW: BTW, the "brothers" of Jesus are conveniently, in the NT, identified as  the children of the "other" Mary, whose husband was known as Clopas. According to the early Church, he was Joseph’s brother.  That would make these men the "cousins" of Jesus.  Do you believe in the inspiration of  the NT?  Then get on the bandwagon and admit that they weren’t Jesus blood brothers. BTW Jim, give us chapter and verse. Show us a verse to back up your claim. Otherwise you are blowing in the wind. I’ll give you a hint. Better people than you have tried and failed. You are quite right, Brothers is used again in the NT. Try Galations 1: 19. Paul saw James the Lord’s brother. You think maybe that Paul knew James was the brother of Jesus. Try Eusebius, Josephus, Hegesippus, they all mention that the first bishop of Jerusalem, was James the brother of Jesus. Eusebius even tells us that after James died, he was succeeded by Symeon a cousin of Jesus. Seems Eusebius knew the difference between a brother and a cousin. Paul also tells us in 2 Timothy 3: 16 that we should use the bible for correction. Jim that is what we are doing. The bible says in Matthew 13: 55 and 56 that Jesus had brothers and sisters. For Catholic tradition to over ride the bible, hey Brother has to mean something else than Brother. Well hey, the greek word is brother. Jim, go with your tradition. Just don’t try and make it biblical.

Response:

Thanks for the reply.  I’d be more than happy to cite the sources I alluded to. Notice how they always come up with a comparison that is not even a comparison. Your mother simply could not have gone on a binge after she died, because it was impossible. In describing your mother, you would simply say, Mother never took a drink. Why would you even use the terminolgy, until the day she died. You wouldn’t. No Comparison.

I would because the Bible does.  Okay, here’s a better comparison, since its straight from the Bible, showing that the word "until" can be used in the sense of "up until this time…" without referring to any future action: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23) Should we assume she had twins on her deathbed? Jim, when you say that Mary’s perpetual virginity is attested to by the early church fathers, unless you actually quote some sources, then it is only your opinion. Give us some sources!!!

Certainly, I’m more than happy to. Lets start with Origen, from his commentary on Matthew 2:17, in the year 248.  Origen draws upon the well known Protoevangelium of James: "Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word…might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in perpetual chastity, and Mary was among women. The following quotations are from "The Faith of the Early Fathers," by W. A. Jurgens (The Liturgical Press, Collegeville: Minn, c. 1979), III Vols. St. Athanasius (358-362) in his Discourse Against the Arians called the Mother of Jesus, "the ever-virgin Mary" #767a, I, p. 330. Didymus the Blind (381-392 – He was head of the catechetical school at Alexandria) "for neither did Mary. . . marry anyone, nor did she ever become the mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin." #1073, II, p. 62. St. Epiphanius of Salamis (374) "the holy ever-virgin Mary" and "to Holy Mary is invariably added, for that Holy Woman remains undefiled." #1111, II, p.76. St. Jerome (383) wrote a whole treatise called: Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, II, pp. 190-192. St. Augustine (391-430) "a virgin conceiving, a virgin bearing, a virgin pregnant, a virgin bringing forth, a virgin perpetual." #1518, III, p.30; also: #1642, III, p. 71; #1974d, p. 166. Leoporius (426) "the ever-virgin Mary" Document of Amendment, #2048, III, p. 197. St. Cyril of Alexandria (542) "Therefore he kept His Mother a Virgin even after her childbearing." #2133, III, p. 232. St. Peter Chrysologus (405-450) "and a virgin she remained." # 2177, III, p. 267. Leo I (c. 461) "a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained" III, p. 275, #2194. Gregory of Tours (575-593) "A virgin both before and after she bore Him" III, p. 306 # 2288 b. Sophronius of Jerusalem c. 638 "the immaculate virginity which was unblemished before the birth, during the birth, and after the birth" III, p. 307 #2289. John Damascene c. 743 "The Ever-Virgin remains after birth a Virgin still." III, p. 340 #2372. Notice that these quotes come both from before the supposed "politicization of the Roman Catholic Church in 313," that the belief of the Church has been constant from the beginning. Jim that makes no sense whatsoever. The New Testament is in Greek!!! The word for brother is Adelphoi, and that is what is used. Look at all the translations. It is translated brother.Why would Jews avoid the word for cousins in greek?? Just a catholic red herring. Make it seem like it was something else. The writers used the greek word for brother, because they knew they were brothers.

Adelphos (brother) and adelphe (sister) in Greek are the words the Jews used to address relationships of brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, cousins, even close friends.  They avoided the Greek words for these relationships because they were foreign to the Jewish mindset.  That they adapted "adelphos" to their needs to encompass these other relations is not disputed by Luther, Calvin or Zwingli, nor any other honest theologian either Protestant or Catholic.  Want a for’xample? CALVIN in his Commentary on Matthew called those who interpret the gospel (Mt 1:25) to imply that Mary had other children as "pig-headed said in another place that according to the custom of the Hebrews all relatives were called "brethren." You may avoid this as a "red herring" but if you are honestly seeking the Truth, you might have to consider the possibility that the origin of these beliefs is from Truth Himself, not the Adversary. But you now say that it is not brother. Oh and BTW: BTW, the "brothers" of Jesus are conveniently, in the NT, identified as  the children of the "other" Mary, whose husband was known as Clopas. According to the early Church, he was Joseph’s brother.  That would make these men the "cousins" of Jesus.  Do you believe in the inspiration of  the NT?  Then get on the bandwagon and admit that they weren’t Jesus blood brothers. BTW Jim, give us chapter and verse. Show us a verse to back up your claim. Otherwise you are blowing in the wind.

Certainly.  It isn’t difficult.  All you have to do is put yourself in sight of the Cross and look at who is standing there. "among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee" (Matt. 27:56) "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome" (Mark 15:40) "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – done went and wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet News’FROUPS: Evident by the vatican’s vast wealth. Yep. A troll claimed: Johnny you are wrong again! And you’re still a punk! you betcha, CB. Actually, you and John are correct. History has proven long ago that the roman catholic religion got some of its welath by legacies left to it…. but it ALSO got much of its wealth by stealing lands and personal properties from those who rejected it. After being tortured, then murdered, their personal possessions and properties were ‘confiscated’ as they put it…… "for the good of the Church"…. You are right. I had forgotten about that.    It was also considered wise to leave substantial amounts of money to the church in your will so they would bail you out of "purgatory" a million years early.    Bob<< It would take at least that long to pray someone out of purgatory.    Or for the RCC to admit they are completely screwed up.    Yes, I find the Roman Catholic Church highly amusing. Christ returns and the end of the world comes and goes, Judgement Day and all that, and then millions of years go by and suddenly folks start popping out of "purgatory". LOL!!    I mean, REALLY!!!!    It’s like God has gone out for the evening and left something in the oven!    The RCC’s idea of what God is like is so ridiculous as to be blasphemous. It’s like Satan is egging them on and they are powerless to stop themselves from being totally screwed up forever. I mean DUH!!!! How thick-headed can they be??? I forgot who at the moment but I was posting to a catholic and he said that at judgment day everyone gets out of purgatory. Kinda like if someone is sentenced to a million years in purgatory and Christ comes the next day, he only has to stay in purgatory one day. Interesting how the rcc continues to make things up as they go.

            How do Protestants kill time in Heaven, when it’s not their turn to kiss Jesus’ backside? Paul

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – done went and wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet News’FROUPS: Evident by the vatican’s vast wealth. Yep. A troll claimed: Johnny you are wrong again! And you’re still a punk! you betcha, CB. Actually, you and John are correct. History has proven long ago that the roman catholic religion got some of its welath by legacies left to it…. but it ALSO got much of its wealth by stealing lands and personal properties from those who rejected it. After being tortured, then murdered, their personal possessions and properties were ‘confiscated’ as they put it…… "for the good of the Church"…. You are right. I had forgotten about that.   It was also considered wise to leave substantial amounts of money to the church in your will so they would bail you out of "purgatory" a million years early.   Bob<< It would take at least that long to pray someone out of purgatory.   Or for the RCC to admit they are completely screwed up.   Yes, I find the Roman Catholic Church highly amusing. Christ returns and the end of the world comes and goes, Judgement Day and all that, and then millions of years go by and suddenly folks start popping out of "purgatory". LOL!!     I mean, REALLY!!!!     It’s like God has gone out for the evening and left something in the oven!     The RCC’s idea of what God is like is so ridiculous as to be blasphemous.

Well, perhaps things wouldn’t look so rediculous if you understood what Catholics really believed rather than your perception of what they believe. The two are quite different.  If you were honest, you might care. Tom A.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    Or for the RCC to admit they are completely screwed up.    Yes, I find the Roman Catholic Church highly amusing. Christ returns and the end of the world comes and goes, Judgement Day and all that, and then millions of years go by and suddenly folks start popping out of "purgatory". The Bible specifically states that =everyone= is present at Judgement Day and it is all over and done, finished, caput, on the spot. Except for the people in "purgatory". The RCC has painted itself into a corner; heck, they’ve painted themselves into the closet at the end of the hall!!!    Bob<< Perhaps you could educate yourself on Catholic beliefs before you post, and make yourself look silly by claiming Catholics believe things that they don’t. But, for your edification (yet will it help?), the Church teaches that purgatory is a temporary state, and is done away with at the General Judgement at the End of Time.  All souls will be in attendance at that event. Oh! So all those people that are spending a few million years in purgatory are going to be pardoned and their sentence is reduced ti time served, maybe only a few hundred years. So any catholic can do anything he wants (wow, look at that babe!) and if he dies the day before judgment, he wil only have to spend one day in purgatory. Wow!!, Thanks for clearing that up!!     The logical consistency of sentencing to someone to millions of years of torture and then having the Judgement the next morning is too wonderful for my mind to comprehend.     Are we sure that the RCC wasn’t invented by, like, Monty Python?????

Hey, why not set up a strawman and knock it down? Show me where the Church teaches "millions of years of purgatory". Since she doesn’t, it’s your attributed beliefs that are silly. As are CB’s belief that "any catholic can do anything he wants" and somehow get away with it. Once again, for your edification, though you seem impervious to it, the Church teaches that any sin damages the relationship between the sinner and God, and some can even destroy this relationship.  This latter is called mortal sin, and unless the relationship is repaired through contrition, and the saving grace won by the death and ressurrection of Christ, the sinner, whether Catholic or otherwise, goes to hell.  No way around it. Tom A.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The reformation is one of the greatest things that has ever happened to Christianity. It allowed the lies of the rcc to be exposed, even to this day.    Anybody care to guess what church the queer governor of New Jersey belongs to????  Why is it that out of soooooo many churches in the world perverts could pick from, they seem to pretty much all pick the same one????? It seems the rcc attracts pedophiles because of access to children.    Christians have lots of kids too; I have four. The RCC shelters the perverts because they want followers at any cost; there is nothing too sacred for them to compromise on to get members. I agree but let me clarify my statement. Anyone wanting to molest children can become a catholic priest. They know they can molest the little kiddies and be protected by the rcc.    Slow down, Sparky! I doubt they join intending to commit crimes; I don’t.

    No one loves the RCC less than I do, but they are not =all= monsters. And my name is not sparky.

    Term of endearment! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – they are already perverts and probably think becoming a priest will drive the evil from them. The RCC is built on works; if they do enough good they’ll be OK.    Problema Numero Uno: These people do not have the Holy Spirit in them (or else they wouldn’t be RC) and human beings can’t just quit sinning because they want to; God has to change them, they must be born again. It’s amazing to me that anyone would trust their children to spend the night with a catholic priest.    Some folks just aren’t real bright. I’m sure most priests are really nice guys, but I have yet to meet one. I’ve known two, and they both made repeated passes at me when I was a grown man. If there’s a priest out there that would like a bullet in the head rather than a lawsuit, just mess with my family! BTW, the only reason Rudy Kos is still alive is because he didn’t mess with my family.    Not sure what this is all about, but if you gotta problem, the cops are yer friend. They have guns too!    Blobert<<    Bob<< — Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tried: He is a shield unto them that take refuge in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. — Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tried: He is a shield unto them that take refuge in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – done went and wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet News’FROUPS: Evident by the vatican’s vast wealth. Yep. A troll claimed: Johnny you are wrong again! And you’re still a punk! you betcha, CB. Actually, you and John are correct. History has proven long ago that the roman catholic religion got some of its welath by legacies left to it…. but it ALSO got much of its wealth by stealing lands and personal properties from those who rejected it. After being tortured, then murdered, their personal possessions and properties were ‘confiscated’ as they put it…… "for the good of the Church"…. You are right. I had forgotten about that.    It was also considered wise to leave substantial amounts of money to the church in your will so they would bail you out of "purgatory" a million years early.    Bob<< It would take at least that long to pray someone out of purgatory.    Or for the RCC to admit they are completely screwed up.    Yes, I find the Roman Catholic Church highly amusing. Christ returns and the end of the world comes and goes, Judgement Day and all that, and then millions of years go by and suddenly folks start popping out of "purgatory". LOL!!    I mean, REALLY!!!!    It’s like God has gone out for the evening and left something in the oven!    The RCC’s idea of what God is like is so ridiculous as to be blasphemous. It’s like Satan is egging them on and they are powerless to stop themselves from being totally screwed up forever. I mean DUH!!!! How thick-headed can they be??? I forgot who at the moment but I was posting to a catholic and he said that at judgment day everyone gets out of purgatory. So what does happen pre and post judgement day CB. I’m all ears. PeterT pre judgment: all God haters and murderers are having a good time. post judgment: all God haters and murderers burn in hell. Easy, huh?

Gees… that’s convincing  enough for even an atheist or a Muslim to throw in the towel and start bowing to an effigy of JC. How on earth do you anticipate this theory happening in real terms given that you say you don’t buy the Rapture fantasy? PeterT – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tried: He is a shield unto them that take refuge in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – went and wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet News’FROUPS: went and wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet News’FROUPS:    It was also considered wise to leave substantial amounts of money to the church in your will so they would bail you out of "purgatory" a million years early.    Bob<< Even in all the studies I have made reference the false teachings of roman catholicism, I never heard that one— the million years part, I mean!!!!!    Oh heck yeah. They have the most outlandish figures for how long you have to spend time in purgatory to be cleansed of each sin. Thousands and even millions of years are nothing. And each method of getting you out early carries a specific amount of time. What a racket!    Bob<< Thsat’s ALL it is. A moneymaking racket, unfortunately, and it is continuing to this very day to lead souls into Hell by its lies. One of the sad things about it also is the fact that some people in it really DO try to serve the Lord, but by their acceptance of false teachings, it turns out opposite. :O(    As soon as you start telling the truth, POW! you’re in trouble. RC’s absolutely freak out if someone gets saved and begins going to a Christian church. There was something called the Protestant Reformation and the Inquisition. Ever hear of either one? The reformation is one of the greatest things that has ever happened to Christianity. It allowed the lies of the rcc to be exposed, even to this day.

Yes…and it gave Luther the chance to persecute Jews and anabaptists and others who disagreed with HIS theology.  He was as dogmatic as the Catholics and as mean as the inquisitionists! D* "Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived." — Oscar Wilde

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The reformation is one of the greatest things that has ever happened to Christianity. It allowed the lies of the rcc to be exposed, even to this day.    Anybody care to guess what church the queer governor of New Jersey belongs to????  Why is it that out of soooooo many churches in the world perverts could pick from, they seem to pretty much all pick the same one????? It seems the rcc attracts pedophiles because of access to children.

    Christians have lots of kids too; I have four. The RCC shelters the perverts because they want followers at any cost; there is nothing too sacred for them to compromise on to get members.     Bob<< – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tried: He is a shield unto them that take refuge in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The reformation is one of the greatest things that has ever happened to Christianity. It allowed the lies of the rcc to be exposed, even to this day.    It is #3?;    The Crucifixion    The Resurrection    The Reformation. "One" of the greates things, not the gretaest thing. Of course the greatest thing is the death burial & resurrection of Christ.

        Oh, I don’t know…it still means your life and mine will be pretty crappy in the next life. Paul

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – went and wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet News’FROUPS: went and wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet News’FROUPS:    It was also considered wise to leave substantial amounts of money to the church in your will so they would bail you out of "purgatory" a million years early.    Bob<< Even in all the studies I have made reference the false teachings of roman catholicism, I never heard that one— the million years part, I mean!!!!!    Oh heck yeah. They have the most outlandish figures for how long you have to spend time in purgatory to be cleansed of each sin. Thousands and even millions of years are nothing. And each method of getting you out early carries a specific amount of time. What a racket!    Bob<< Thsat’s ALL it is. A moneymaking racket, unfortunately, and it is continuing to this very day to lead souls into Hell by its lies. One of the sad things about it also is the fact that some people in it really DO try to serve the Lord, but by their acceptance of false teachings, it turns out opposite. :O(    As soon as you start telling the truth, POW! you’re in trouble. RC’s absolutely freak out if someone gets saved and begins going to a Christian church. There was something called the Protestant Reformation and the Inquisition. Ever hear of either one? The reformation is one of the greatest things that has ever happened to Christianity. It allowed the lies of the rcc to be exposed, even to this day. Yes…and it gave Luther the chance to persecute Jews and anabaptists and others who disagreed with HIS theology.  He was as dogmatic as the Catholics and as mean as the inquisitionists! D*

Luther was always a Catholic, just a slightly different version. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived." — Oscar Wilde

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – @something.net The reformation is one of the greatest things that has ever happened to Christianity. It allowed the lies of the rcc to be exposed, even to this day. Yes…and it gave Luther the chance to persecute Jews and anabaptists and others who disagreed with HIS theology.  He was as dogmatic as the Catholics and as mean as the inquisitionists! Gee, that’s too bad. I’m not lutheran.

    Well, you must recall that Luther was a Roman Catholic priest. It probably takes awhile to cleanse the evil out of a RC priest. Nowadays it can take a lifetime……     Bob<<

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The reformation is one of the greatest things that has ever happened to Christianity. It allowed the lies of the rcc to be exposed, even to this day.    Anybody care to guess what church the queer governor of New Jersey belongs to????  Why is it that out of soooooo many churches in the world perverts could pick from, they seem to pretty much all pick the same one????? It seems the rcc attracts pedophiles because of access to children.    Christians have lots of kids too; I have four. The RCC shelters the perverts because they want followers at any cost; there is nothing too sacred for them to compromise on to get members. I agree but let me clarify my statement. Anyone wanting to molest children can become a catholic priest. They know they can molest the little kiddies and be protected by the rcc.

    Slow down, Sparky! I doubt they join intending to commit crimes; they are already perverts and probably think becoming a priest will drive the evil from them. The RCC is built on works; if they do enough good they’ll be OK.     Problema Numero Uno: These people do not have the Holy Spirit in them (or else they wouldn’t be RC) and human beings can’t just quit sinning because they want to; God has to change them, they must be born again. It’s amazing to me that anyone would trust their children to spend the night with a catholic priest.

    Some folks just aren’t real bright. I’m sure most priests are really nice guys, but I have yet to meet one. I’ve known two, and they both made repeated passes at me when I was a grown man. If there’s a priest out there that would like a bullet in the head rather than a lawsuit, just mess with my family! BTW, the only reason Rudy Kos is still alive is because he didn’t mess with my family.

    Not sure what this is all about, but if you gotta problem, the cops are yer friend. They have guns too!     Blobert<< – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    Bob<< — Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tried: He is a shield unto them that take refuge in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – @something.net The reformation is one of the greatest things that has ever happened to Christianity. It allowed the lies of the rcc to be exposed, even to this day. Yes…and it gave Luther the chance to persecute Jews and anabaptists and others who disagreed with HIS theology.  He was as dogmatic as the Catholics and as mean as the inquisitionists! Gee, that’s too bad. I’m not lutheran.    Well, you must recall that Luther was a Roman Catholic priest. It probably takes awhile to cleanse the evil out of a RC priest. Nowadays it can take a lifetime…… I agree. Luther was raised a catholic so I understand. He certainly was brainwashed to an extent. I think he could have done much more good if he could have erased his catholic roots.

    Catholic apologists want to demonize Luther, but he was what THEY made him. He =never= intended to set up a separate religion, he only wanted to clean up the RCC. As the years went by he saw that this was not going to happen and slowly began to do things about carrying on Christian life without/in spite of the RCC. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    Bob<< — Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tried: He is a shield unto them that take refuge in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – went and wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet News’FROUPS: went and wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet News’FROUPS: I wonder if it would still be good if you had stolen it?  :) probably as valuable to a thief as it would be to the original recipient– worthless! )    YEAH!!! If the indulgence is so valuable, why wasn’t it in his bank’s vault? Why was it kept under the front seat of his pickup truck????? Exactly. And anyone who places any trust in any ‘indulgence’ is obviously NOT trusting God for anything.

    No, Rome is only interested in the Almighty Dollar/Pound/Euro/Mark/Shekel etc etc

Response:

went and wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet News’FROUPS: Except for the people in "purgatory". The RCC has painted itself into a corner; heck, they’ve painted themselves into the closet at the end of the hall!!!    Bob<< and the next shound they will hear is "FLUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHsssssssssssss!"  :O)

    No.     Actually, they take the shelves out and invite Rosemary to bring in her newborn baby……

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     Or for the RCC to admit they are completely screwed up.     Yes, I find the Roman Catholic Church highly amusing. Christ returns and the end of the world comes and goes, Judgement Day and all that, and then millions of years go by and suddenly folks start popping out of "purgatory". The Bible specifically states that =everyone= is present at Judgement Day and it is all over and done, finished, caput, on the spot. Except for the people in "purgatory". The RCC has painted itself into a corner; heck, they’ve painted themselves into the closet at the end of the hall!!!     Bob<< Perhaps you could educate yourself on Catholic beliefs before you post, and make yourself look silly by claiming Catholics believe things that they don’t. But, for your edification (yet will it help?), the Church teaches that purgatory is a temporary state, and is done away with at the General Judgement at the End of Time.  All souls will be in attendance at that event. Oh! So all those people that are spending a few million years in purgatory are going to be pardoned and their sentence is reduced ti time served, maybe only a few hundred years. So any catholic can do anything he wants (wow, look at that babe!) and if he dies the day before judgment, he wil only have to spend one day in purgatory. Wow!!, Thanks for clearing that up!!

    The logical consistency of sentencing to someone to millions of years of torture and then having the Judgement the next morning is too wonderful for my mind to comprehend.     Are we sure that the RCC wasn’t invented by, like, Monty Python????? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Tom A. — Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tried: He is a shield unto them that take refuge in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     Or for the RCC to admit they are completely screwed up.     Yes, I find the Roman Catholic Church highly amusing. Christ returns and the end of the world comes and goes, Judgement Day and all that, and then millions of years go by and suddenly folks start popping out of "purgatory". The Bible specifically states that =everyone= is present at Judgement Day and it is all over and done, finished, caput, on the spot. Except for the people in "purgatory". The RCC has painted itself into a corner; heck, they’ve painted themselves into the closet at the end of the hall!!!     Bob<< Perhaps you could educate yourself on Catholic beliefs before you post, and make yourself look silly by claiming Catholics believe things that they don’t. But, for your edification (yet will it help?), the Church teaches that purgatory is a temporary state, and is done away with at the General Judgement at the End of Time.  All souls will be in attendance at that event. Oh! So all those people that are spending a few million years in purgatory are going to be pardoned and their sentence is reduced ti time served, maybe only a few hundred years. So any catholic can do anything he wants (wow, look at that babe!) and if he dies the day before judgment, he wil only have to spend one day in purgatory. Wow!!, Thanks for clearing that up!!     The logical consistency of sentencing to someone to millions of years of torture and then having the Judgement the next morning is too wonderful for my mind to comprehend.     Are we sure that the RCC wasn’t invented by, like, Monty Python?????

So what is this event which happens at judgement day? Now I want a scholarly response without the mumbo-jumbo, right? PeterT

Response:

The reformation is one of the greatest things that has ever happened to Christianity. It allowed the lies of the rcc to be exposed, even to this day.

    Anybody care to guess what church the queer governor of New Jersey belongs to????  Why is it that out of soooooo many churches in the world perverts could pick from, they seem to pretty much all pick the same one?????

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – done went and wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet News’FROUPS: Evident by the vatican’s vast wealth. Yep. A troll claimed: Johnny you are wrong again! And you’re still a punk! you betcha, CB. Actually, you and John are correct. History has proven long ago that the roman catholic religion got some of its welath by legacies left to it…. but it ALSO got much of its wealth by stealing lands and personal properties from those who rejected it. After being tortured, then murdered, their personal possessions and properties were ‘confiscated’ as they put it…… "for the good of the Church"…. You are right. I had forgotten about that.    It was also considered wise to leave substantial amounts of money to the church in your will so they would bail you out of "purgatory" a million years early.    Bob<< It would take at least that long to pray someone out of purgatory.    Or for the RCC to admit they are completely screwed up.    Yes, I find the Roman Catholic Church highly amusing. Christ returns and the end of the world comes and goes, Judgement Day and all that, and then millions of years go by and suddenly folks start popping out of "purgatory". LOL!!    I mean, REALLY!!!!    It’s like God has gone out for the evening and left something in the oven!    The RCC’s idea of what God is like is so ridiculous as to be blasphemous. It’s like Satan is egging them on and they are powerless to stop themselves from being totally screwed up forever. I mean DUH!!!! How thick-headed can they be??? I forgot who at the moment but I was posting to a catholic and he said that at judgment day everyone gets out of purgatory.

So what does happen pre and post judgement day CB. I’m all ears. PeterT

Response:

The reformation is one of the greatest things that has ever happened to Christianity. It allowed the lies of the rcc to be exposed, even to this

day.     It is #3?;     The Crucifixion     The Resurrection     The Reformation.     Blobert<<

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – done went and wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet News’FROUPS: Evident by the vatican’s vast wealth. Yep. A troll claimed: Johnny you are wrong again! And you’re still a punk! you betcha, CB. Actually, you and John are correct. History has proven long ago that the roman catholic religion got some of its welath by legacies left to it…. but it ALSO got much of its wealth by stealing lands and personal properties from those who rejected it. After being tortured, then murdered, their personal possessions and properties were ‘confiscated’ as they put it…… "for the good of the Church"…. You are right. I had forgotten about that.    It was also considered wise to leave substantial amounts of money to the church in your will so they would bail you out of "purgatory" a million years early.    Bob<< It would take at least that long to pray someone out of purgatory.    Or for the RCC to admit they are completely screwed up.    Yes, I find the Roman Catholic Church highly amusing. Christ returns and the end of the world comes and goes, Judgement Day and all that, and then millions of years go by and suddenly folks start popping out of "purgatory". LOL!!

    I mean, REALLY!!!!     It’s like God has gone out for the evening and left something in the oven!     The RCC’s idea of what God is like is so ridiculous as to be blasphemous. It’s like Satan is egging them on and they are powerless to stop themselves from being totally screwed up forever. I mean DUH!!!! How thick-headed can they be???     Bob<< – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Bible specifically states that =everyone= is present at Judgement Day and it is all over and done, finished, caput, on the spot. Except for the people in "purgatory". The RCC has painted itself into a corner; heck, they’ve painted themselves into the closet at the end of the hall!!!    Bob<<    Bob<< — Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tried: He is a shield unto them that take refuge in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. — Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tried: He is a shield unto them that take refuge in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Response:

    Or for the RCC to admit they are completely screwed up.     Yes, I find the Roman Catholic Church highly amusing. Christ returns and the end of the world comes and goes, Judgement Day and all that, and then millions of years go by and suddenly folks start popping out of "purgatory". The Bible specifically states that =everyone= is present at Judgement Day and it is all over and done, finished, caput, on the spot. Except for the people in "purgatory". The RCC has painted itself into a corner; heck, they’ve painted themselves into the closet at the end of the hall!!!     Bob<<

Perhaps you could educate yourself on Catholic beliefs before you post, and make yourself look silly by claiming Catholics believe things that they don’t. But, for your edification (yet will it help?), the Church teaches that purgatory is a temporary state, and is done away with at the General Judgement at the End of Time.  All souls will be in attendance at that event. Tom A.

Response:

went and wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet News’FROUPS: I wonder if it would still be good if you had stolen it?  :) probably as valuable to a thief as it would be to the original recipient– worthless! )

    YEAH!!! If the indulgence is so valuable, why wasn’t it in his bank’s vault? Why was it kept under the front seat of his pickup truck?????

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – went and wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet News’FROUPS: went and wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet News’FROUPS:    It was also considered wise to leave substantial amounts of money to the church in your will so they would bail you out of "purgatory" a million years early.    Bob<< Even in all the studies I have made reference the false teachings of roman catholicism, I never heard that one— the million years part, I mean!!!!!    Oh heck yeah. They have the most outlandish figures for how long you have to spend time in purgatory to be cleansed of each sin. Thousands and even millions of years are nothing. And each method of getting you out early carries a specific amount of time. What a racket!    Bob<< Thsat’s ALL it is. A moneymaking racket, unfortunately, and it is continuing to this very day to lead souls into Hell by its lies. One of the sad things about it also is the fact that some people in it really DO try to serve the Lord, but by their acceptance of false teachings, it turns out opposite. :O(

    As soon as you start telling the truth, POW! you’re in trouble. RC’s absolutely freak out if someone gets saved and begins going to a Christian church. There was something called the Protestant Reformation and the Inquisition. Ever hear of either one?     Bob<<

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – went and wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet News’FROUPS: I posted: sorry to disapoint you, duke, but yes I DO know what an ‘indulgence’ is, and regardless of your false accusation, I am not lying.    I have actually held one in my hand. I was driving my boss’s personal vehicle and stomped the brakes hard; it slid out from under the seat. Looked just like an extremely fancy and expensive Christmas card in a folder like a college diploma.    Bob<< Well, that doesn’t surprise me, Bob. Indulgences have no value whatsoever, but the attempt to make the m appear to is so obvious. I have an olf missal as well, which claims that when the congregation chants a certain few words or specific phrase, that they ‘are granted an indulgence’ of specified periods of time.

    I vigourously kick myself in the kiester over my decision to throw out an old one I had; I get these urges to get evil blasphemous things out of my house…. It was called "The Keys to Heaven".     Anyway; it had the Imprimatur and all that and had a list of things that would incontrovertibly send you to hell on the express train, and then Vatican II said all of that was wrong.     Boy, that infallibility thing is great; it enables you to infallibly state that the other infallible stuff is a pack of lies!     Bob<<

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – went and wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet News’FROUPS: Evident by the vatican’s vast wealth. Yep. A troll claimed: Johnny you are wrong again! And you’re still a punk! you betcha, CB. Actually, you and John are correct. History has proven long ago that the roman catholic religion got some of its welath by legacies left to it…. but it ALSO got much of its wealth by stealing lands and personal properties from those who rejected it. After being tortured, then murdered, their personal possessions and properties were ‘confiscated’ as they put it…… "for the good of the Church"…. You are right. I had forgotten about that.    It was also considered wise to leave substantial amounts of money to the church in your will so they would bail you out of "purgatory" a million years early.    Bob<< It would take at least that long to pray someone out of purgatory.

    Or for the RCC to admit they are completely screwed up.     Yes, I find the Roman Catholic Church highly amusing. Christ returns and the end of the world comes and goes, Judgement Day and all that, and then millions of years go by and suddenly folks start popping out of "purgatory". The Bible specifically states that =everyone= is present at Judgement Day and it is all over and done, finished, caput, on the spot. Except for the people in "purgatory". The RCC has painted itself into a corner; heck, they’ve painted themselves into the closet at the end of the hall!!!     Bob<<     Bob<< – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tried: He is a shield unto them that take refuge in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Response:

Question:

Amazingly, my synopsis of this argument "The Evil Bible argument. The Bible contains some wicked injunctions, so it can’t be the word of God." was rejected by Editor as a strawman. So I’ll use Editor’s own words as the definition of the "Evil Bible" argument. "What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?" The place to start is the common ground. Why did Editor reject my synopsis as a "strawman"? Because it proposes a view of God as kind and loving, as most Christians today see him, and not as terrible and wrathful, as some Christians have seen him. So the "Evil Bible" argument is really an argument for atheism at all, just an argument against a certain type of Christianity. The first obvious point is that the "Evil Bible" argument is only very powerful if used against biblically-based Christian groups. For it to be really convincing to a Roman Catholic, you would also have to show that the church’s interpretation is evil. Most of the quotes are from the Old Testament. It is a Catholic commonplace that the rigour of the old covenant was replaced with the mildness of the new. So producing an evil injunction from the Old Testament is only rather weak evidence that Catholicism is evil. So did God reform? The other obvious point is that Catholics are not biblical literalists. I had an argument about this on the "Darwin argument" thread. Though there was a tendency at certain points in church history to see the bible as factually correct, literalism was never a dogma of the church, and certain important figures were not literalists. Origen, for instance, regarded much of the Old Testament as mythical; Jerome agreed to some extent; Augustine warns against the biblical literalists of the day bringing Christianity into disrepute; Bede used the terms "allegoria in factis" (allegory in facts) and "allegoria in verbis" (allegory in words); Aquinas believed that interplanetary space was filled with air, and thus that descriptions of the earth hanging in void were just to pander to the ignorant. Modern thinking of course is that the Old Testament was assembled from several documents in about 700BC, and contains myths of uncertain provenance. So the answer is that the Biblical writers had ideas about God which were partly correct and partly erroneous, and that only Jesus brought completely accurate ideas about what God is like. God Himself doesn’t need to reform. Secondly, are all the allegedly evil injunctions genuinely evil? This is brought up on the "liberalism" argument thread. Many of the claimed evil quotes would not be regarded as "evil" by anyone except a Western liberal, St Paul’s views on the status of women, on homosexuality, and on slavery would be regarded as pretty much commonsense by the majority of people in the majority of known cultures. What about the bloodthirsty evil quotes from the Old Testament? It is very easy to regard these as "evil" if you have never lived in the Middle East, where, as in Old Testament times, a desperate military struggle is being fought for the independence and even survival of the Jewish people. In a political war it is often posisble to distinguish between combabtants and non-combatants. In a racial struggle a civilian settlement is also a provocation, and liable to military attack. So we’re pretty quickly back to Old Testament morality. On this issue, Editor is right. We do have to abandon the contented Western notion of God, and acknowledge that He is relevant in wartime as well as in times of peace and plenty, and that values which may seem barbaric to the affluent make perfect sense when your country is in danger of extermination. Now that the Middle Eastern war is beginning to touch us too, maybe we will change our opinion on some of those "Evil Bible" quotes.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Amazingly, my synopsis of this argument "The Evil Bible argument. The Bible contains some wicked injunctions, so it can’t be the word of God." was rejected by Editor as a strawman. So I’ll use Editor’s own words as the definition of the "Evil Bible" argument. "What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?" The place to start is the common ground. Why did Editor reject my synopsis as a "strawman"? Because it proposes a view of God as kind and loving, as most Christians today see him, and not as terrible and wrathful, as some Christians have seen him. So the "Evil Bible" argument is really an argument for atheism at all, just an argument against a certain type of Christianity. The first obvious point is that the "Evil Bible" argument is only very powerful if used against biblically-based Christian groups.

Well no shit Sherlock!  I pointed this out to you before when I told you your summary was a strawman.  Now you have come out to knock it down.  This is exactly what a strawman argument is.  Unfortunately, you can’t seem to comprehend this and insist that a strawman argument is a weak argument. What a moron! Let me repeat my exact words that I posted earlier:     "…the ‘evil Bible’ argument is not an all inclusive argument against Christianity.  It can be used to argue against the existence of a loving, benevolent God as some Christians perceive God, but it can’t be used to disprove the existence of a fire and brimstone type of God, as other Christians perceive God.  *This argument also fails when theists believe in God but don’t accept the Bible.*" http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=7b45… %26ie%3DUTF-8%26as_uauthors%3DEditor%2520of%2520EvilBible.com%26lr%3D%26hl% 3 Den For it to be really convincing to a Roman Catholic, you would also have to show that the church’s interpretation is evil. Most of the quotes are from the Old Testament. It is a Catholic commonplace that the rigour of the old covenant was replaced with the mildness of the new. So producing an evil injunction from the Old Testament is only rather weak evidence that Catholicism is evil.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (the moral code for Catholics http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm) has about one thousand references to Old Testament passages.  Clearly the Catholic Church gets a good portion of it’s moral teachings from the Old Testament. In fact, the Catechism specifically says that the Old Testament covenant with Moses was from God:     "After the patriarchs, God formed Israel as his people by freeing them from slavery in Egypt. He established with them the covenant of Mount Sinai and, through Moses, gave them his law so that they would recognize him and serve him as the one living and true God, the provident Father and just judge, and so that they would look for the promised Savior." http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a1.htm#II Some of the most evil quotes in the Old Testament are from this covenant with Moses.  This is where God tells Moses to commit genocide on seven nations, approves of sex slaves, and says he will kill completely innocent children. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So did God reform? The other obvious point is that Catholics are not biblical literalists. I had an argument about this on the "Darwin argument" thread. Though there was a tendency at certain points in church history to see the bible as factually correct, literalism was never a dogma of the church, and certain important figures were not literalists. Origen, for instance, regarded much of the Old Testament as mythical; Jerome agreed to some extent; Augustine warns against the biblical literalists of the day bringing Christianity into disrepute; Bede used the terms "allegoria in factis" (allegory in facts) and "allegoria in verbis" (allegory in words); Aquinas believed that interplanetary space was filled with air, and thus that descriptions of the earth hanging in void were just to pander to the ignorant. Modern thinking of course is that the Old Testament was assembled from several documents in about 700BC, and contains myths of uncertain provenance. So the answer is that the Biblical writers had ideas about God which were partly correct and partly erroneous, and that only Jesus brought completely accurate ideas about what God is like. God Himself doesn’t need to reform.

The problem with this bullshit is that most of the evil quotes in the Old Testament are claimed to be direct quotes from God.  There is very little room for the alleged wrong ideas about God to creep in. Secondly, are all the allegedly evil injunctions genuinely evil? This is brought up on the "liberalism" argument thread. Many of the claimed evil quotes would not be regarded as "evil" by anyone except a Western liberal,

What a bunch of bullshit!  Why do you have to lie so much to support your mythology?  Murder and genocide are regarded as evil by just about everyone. St Paul’s views on the status of women, on homosexuality, and on slavery would be regarded as pretty much commonsense by the majority of people in the majority of known cultures.

More lies. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What about the bloodthirsty evil quotes from the Old Testament? It is very easy to regard these as "evil" if you have never lived in the Middle East, where, as in Old Testament times, a desperate military struggle is being fought for the independence and even survival of the Jewish people. In a political war it is often posisble to distinguish between combabtants and non-combatants. In a racial struggle a civilian settlement is also a provocation, and liable to military attack. So we’re pretty quickly back to Old Testament morality. On this issue, Editor is right. We do have to abandon the contented Western notion of God, and acknowledge that He is relevant in wartime as well as in times of peace and plenty, and that values which may seem barbaric to the affluent make perfect sense when your country is in danger of extermination. Now that the Middle Eastern war is beginning to touch us too, maybe we will change our opinion on some of those "Evil Bible" quotes.

Oh, the "danger of extermination" lie!  It’s totally with any basis in reality.  Many of the passages in the Bible are quite explicit in admitting that the Israelites exterminated totally peaceful towns, like the town of Dan.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Amazingly, my synopsis of this argument "The Evil Bible argument. The Bible contains some wicked injunctions, so it can’t be the word of God." was rejected by Editor as a strawman. So I’ll use Editor’s own words as the definition of the "Evil Bible" argument. "What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?" The place to start is the common ground. Why did Editor reject my synopsis as a "strawman"? Because it proposes a view of God as kind and loving, as most Christians today see him, and not as terrible and wrathful, as some Christians have seen him. So the "Evil Bible" argument is really an argument for atheism at all, just an argument against a certain type of Christianity. The first obvious point is that the "Evil Bible" argument is only very powerful if used against biblically-based Christian groups. Well no shit Sherlock!  I pointed this out to you before when I told you your summary was a strawman.  Now you have come out to knock it down. This is exactly what a strawman argument is.  Unfortunately, you can’t seem to comprehend this and insist that a strawman argument is a weak argument. What a moron! Let me repeat my exact words that I posted earlier:     "…the ‘evil Bible’ argument is not an all inclusive argument against Christianity.  It can be used to argue against the existence of a loving, benevolent God as some Christians perceive God, but it can’t be used to disprove the existence of a fire and brimstone type of God, as other Christians perceive God.  *This argument also fails when theists believe in God but don’t accept the Bible.*"

http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=7b45… %26ie%3DUTF-8%26as_uauthors%3DEditor%2520of%2520EvilBible.com%26lr%3D%26hl% 3 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Den For it to be really convincing to a Roman Catholic, you would also have to show that the church’s interpretation is evil. Most of the quotes are from the Old Testament. It is a Catholic commonplace that the rigour of the old covenant was replaced with the mildness of the new. So producing an evil injunction from the Old Testament is only rather weak evidence that Catholicism is evil. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (the moral code for Catholics http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm) has about one thousand references to Old Testament passages.  Clearly the Catholic Church gets a good portion of it’s moral teachings from the Old Testament. In fact, the Catechism specifically says that the Old Testament covenant with Moses was from God:     "After the patriarchs, God formed Israel as his people by freeing them from slavery in Egypt. He established with them the covenant of Mount Sinai and, through Moses, gave them his law so that they would recognize him and serve him as the one living and true God, the provident Father and just judge, and so that they would look for the promised Savior." http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a1.htm#II Some of the most evil quotes in the Old Testament are from this covenant with Moses.  This is where God tells Moses to commit genocide on seven nations, approves of sex slaves, and says he will kill completely innocent children.

Since you know the future, if you could go back in time and kill Hitler would that be an evil act?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Amazingly, my synopsis of this argument "The Evil Bible argument. The Bible contains some wicked injunctions, so it can’t be the word of God." was rejected by Editor as a strawman. So I’ll use Editor’s own words as the definition of the "Evil Bible" argument. "What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?" The place to start is the common ground. Why did Editor reject my synopsis as a "strawman"? Because it proposes a view of God as kind and loving, as most Christians today see him, and not as terrible and wrathful, as some Christians have seen him. So the "Evil Bible" argument is really an argument for atheism at all, just an argument against a certain type of Christianity. The first obvious point is that the "Evil Bible" argument is only very powerful if used against biblically-based Christian groups. Well no shit Sherlock!  I pointed this out to you before when I told you your summary was a strawman.  Now you have come out to knock it down. This is exactly what a strawman argument is.  Unfortunately, you can’t seem to comprehend this and insist that a strawman argument is a weak argument. What a moron! Let me repeat my exact words that I posted earlier:     "…the ‘evil Bible’ argument is not an all inclusive argument against Christianity.  It can be used to argue against the existence of a loving, benevolent God as some Christians perceive God, but it can’t be used to disprove the existence of a fire and brimstone type of God, as other Christians perceive God.  *This argument also fails when theists believe in God but don’t accept the Bible.*"

http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=7b45… %26ie%3DUTF-8%26as_uauthors%3DEditor%2520of%2520EvilBible.com%26lr%3D%26hl% 3 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Den For it to be really convincing to a Roman Catholic, you would also have to show that the church’s interpretation is evil. Most of the quotes are from the Old Testament. It is a Catholic commonplace that the rigour of the old covenant was replaced with the mildness of the new. So producing an evil injunction from the Old Testament is only rather weak evidence that Catholicism is evil. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (the moral code for Catholics http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm) has about one thousand references to Old Testament passages.  Clearly the Catholic Church gets a good portion of it’s moral teachings from the Old Testament. In fact, the Catechism specifically says that the Old Testament covenant with Moses was from God:     "After the patriarchs, God formed Israel as his people by freeing them from slavery in Egypt. He established with them the covenant of Mount Sinai and, through Moses, gave them his law so that they would recognize him and serve him as the one living and true God, the provident Father and just judge, and so that they would look for the promised Savior." http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a1.htm#II Some of the most evil quotes in the Old Testament are from this covenant with Moses.  This is where God tells Moses to commit genocide on seven nations, approves of sex slaves, and says he will kill completely innocent children. Since you know the future, if you could go back in time and kill Hitler would that be an evil act?

Are you brain damaged Scott?  I’m pretty damn sure I told you several times that killing Hitler would not be immoral.  I even told you how to figure this out objectively (by counting up the bodies).

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Amazingly, my synopsis of this argument "The Evil Bible argument. The Bible contains some wicked injunctions, so it can’t be the word of God." was rejected by Editor as a strawman. So I’ll use Editor’s own words as the definition of the "Evil Bible" argument. "What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?" The place to start is the common ground. Why did Editor reject my synopsis as a "strawman"? Because it proposes a view of God as kind and loving, as most Christians today see him, and not as terrible and wrathful, as some Christians have seen him. So the "Evil Bible" argument is really an argument for atheism at all, just an argument against a certain type of Christianity. The first obvious point is that the "Evil Bible" argument is only very powerful if used against biblically-based Christian groups. Well no shit Sherlock!  I pointed this out to you before when I told you your summary was a strawman.  Now you have come out to knock it down. This is exactly what a strawman argument is.  Unfortunately, you can’t seem to comprehend this and insist that a strawman argument is a weak argument. What a moron! Let me repeat my exact words that I posted earlier:     "…the ‘evil Bible’ argument is not an all inclusive argument against Christianity.  It can be used to argue against the existence of a loving, benevolent God as some Christians perceive God, but it can’t be used to disprove the existence of a fire and brimstone type of God, as other Christians perceive God.  *This argument also fails when theists believe in God but don’t accept the Bible.*"

http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=7b45… %26ie%3DUTF-8%26as_uauthors%3DEditor%2520of%2520EvilBible.com%26lr%3D%26hl% 3 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Den For it to be really convincing to a Roman Catholic, you would also have to show that the church’s interpretation is evil. Most of the quotes are from the Old Testament. It is a Catholic commonplace that the rigour of the old covenant was replaced with the mildness of the new. So producing an evil injunction from the Old Testament is only rather weak evidence that Catholicism is evil. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (the moral code for Catholics http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm) has about one thousand references to Old Testament passages.  Clearly the Catholic Church gets a good portion of it’s moral teachings from the Old Testament. In fact, the Catechism specifically says that the Old Testament covenant with Moses was from God:     "After the patriarchs, God formed Israel as his people by freeing them from slavery in Egypt. He established with them the covenant of Mount Sinai and, through Moses, gave them his law so that they would recognize him and serve him as the one living and true God, the provident Father and just judge, and so that they would look for the promised Savior."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a1.htm#II Some of the most evil quotes in the Old Testament are from this covenant with Moses.  This is where God tells Moses to commit genocide on seven nations, approves of sex slaves, and says he will kill completely innocent children. Since you know the future, if you could go back in time and kill Hitler would that be an evil act? Are you brain damaged Scott?  I’m pretty damn sure I told you several times that killing Hitler would not be immoral.  I even told you how to figure this out objectively (by counting up the bodies).

I talking about before Hitler came to power. I’ll reword it for you: since you know the future, if you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he came to power and thereby preventing his holocaust, would you be committing an evil act in doing so? Scott

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Amazingly, my synopsis of this argument "The Evil Bible argument. The Bible contains some wicked injunctions, so it can’t be the word of God." was rejected by Editor as a strawman. So I’ll use Editor’s own words as the definition of the "Evil Bible" argument. "What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?" The place to start is the common ground. Why did Editor reject my synopsis as a "strawman"? Because it proposes a view of God as kind and loving, as most Christians today see him, and not as terrible and wrathful, as some Christians have seen him. So the "Evil Bible" argument is really an argument for atheism at all, just an argument against a certain type of Christianity. The first obvious point is that the "Evil Bible" argument is only very powerful if used against biblically-based Christian groups. Well no shit Sherlock!  I pointed this out to you before when I told you your summary was a strawman.  Now you have come out to knock it down. This is exactly what a strawman argument is.  Unfortunately, you can’t seem to comprehend this and insist that a strawman argument is a weak argument. What a moron! Let me repeat my exact words that I posted earlier:     "…the ‘evil Bible’ argument is not an all inclusive argument against Christianity.  It can be used to argue against the existence of a loving, benevolent God as some Christians perceive God, but it can’t be used to disprove the existence of a fire and brimstone type of God, as other Christians perceive God.  *This argument also fails when theists believe in God but don’t accept the Bible.*"

http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=7b45… %26ie%3DUTF-8%26as_uauthors%3DEditor%2520of%2520EvilBible.com%26lr%3D%26hl% 3 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Den For it to be really convincing to a Roman Catholic, you would also have to show that the church’s interpretation is evil. Most of the quotes are from the Old Testament. It is a Catholic commonplace that the rigour of the old covenant was replaced with the mildness of the new. So producing an evil injunction from the Old Testament is only rather weak evidence that Catholicism is evil. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (the moral code for Catholics http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm) has about one thousand references to Old Testament passages.  Clearly the Catholic Church gets a good portion of it’s moral teachings from the Old Testament. In fact, the Catechism specifically says that the Old Testament covenant with Moses was from God:     "After the patriarchs, God formed Israel as his people by freeing them from slavery in Egypt. He established with them the covenant of Mount Sinai and, through Moses, gave them his law so that they would recognize him and serve him as the one living and true God, the provident Father and just judge, and so that they would look for the promised Savior." http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a1.htm#II Some of the most evil quotes in the Old Testament are from this covenant with Moses.  This is where God tells Moses to commit genocide on seven nations, approves of sex slaves, and says he will kill completely innocent children. Since you know the future, if you could go back in time and kill Hitler would that be an evil act? Are you brain damaged Scott?  I’m pretty damn sure I told you several times that killing Hitler would not be immoral.  I even told you how to figure this out objectively (by counting up the bodies). I talking about before Hitler came to power. I’ll reword it for you: since you know the future, if you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he came to power and thereby preventing his holocaust, would you be committing an evil act in doing so?

No.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Amazingly, my synopsis of this argument "The Evil Bible argument. The Bible contains some wicked injunctions, so it can’t be the word of God." was rejected by Editor as a strawman. So I’ll use Editor’s own words as the definition of the "Evil Bible" argument. "What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?" The place to start is the common ground. Why did Editor reject my synopsis as a "strawman"? Because it proposes a view of God as kind and loving, as most Christians today see him, and not as terrible and wrathful, as some Christians have seen him. So the "Evil Bible" argument is really an argument for atheism at all, just an argument against a certain type of Christianity. The first obvious point is that the "Evil Bible" argument is only very powerful if used against biblically-based Christian groups. Well no shit Sherlock!  I pointed this out to you before when I told you your summary was a strawman.  Now you have come out to knock it down. This is exactly what a strawman argument is.  Unfortunately, you can’t seem to comprehend this and insist that a strawman argument is a weak argument. What a moron! Let me repeat my exact words that I posted earlier:     "…the ‘evil Bible’ argument is not an all inclusive argument against Christianity.  It can be used to argue against the existence of a loving, benevolent God as some Christians perceive God, but it can’t be used to disprove the existence of a fire and brimstone type of God, as other Christians perceive God.  *This argument also fails when theists believe in God but don’t accept the Bible.*"

http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=7b45… %26ie%3DUTF-8%26as_uauthors%3DEditor%2520of%2520EvilBible.com%26lr%3D%26hl% 3 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Den For it to be really convincing to a Roman Catholic, you would also have to show that the church’s interpretation is evil. Most of the quotes are from the Old Testament. It is a Catholic commonplace that the rigour of the old covenant was replaced with the mildness of the new. So producing an evil injunction from the Old Testament is only rather weak evidence that Catholicism is evil. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (the moral code for Catholics

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – has about one thousand references to Old Testament passages.  Clearly the Catholic Church gets a good portion of it’s moral teachings from the Old Testament. In fact, the Catechism specifically says that the Old Testament covenant with Moses was from God:     "After the patriarchs, God formed Israel as his people by freeing them from slavery in Egypt. He established with them the covenant of Mount Sinai and, through Moses, gave them his law so that they would recognize him and serve him as the one living and true God, the provident Father and just judge, and so that they would look for the promised Savior." http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a1.htm#II Some of the most evil quotes in the Old Testament are from this covenant with Moses.  This is where God tells Moses to commit genocide on seven nations, approves of sex slaves, and says he will kill completely innocent children. Since you know the future, if you could go back in time and kill Hitler would that be an evil act? Are you brain damaged Scott?  I’m pretty damn sure I told you several times that killing Hitler would not be immoral.  I even told you how to figure this out objectively (by counting up the bodies). I talking about before Hitler came to power. I’ll reword it for you: since you know the future, if you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he came to power and thereby preventing his holocaust, would you be committing an evil act in doing so? No.

Really? Man, are you dumb to step into this. If you went back and were living in that past, only you would know the consequences of letting Hitler live. As a being, no one else would have your unique, call it who.  So if we can’t fault you for evil giving a belief in your unique knowledge about things to come, how can you fault the god of the bible. Maybe he knows something you don’t. Scott

Response:

The place to start is the common ground. Why did Editor reject my synopsis as a "strawman"? Because it proposes a view of God as kind and loving, as most Christians today see him, and not as terrible and wrathful, as some Christians have seen him. So the "Evil Bible" argument is really an argument for atheism at all, just an argument against a certain type of Christianity. The first obvious point is that the "Evil Bible" argument is only very powerful if used against biblically-based Christian groups. Well no shit Sherlock!  I pointed this out to you before when I told you your summary was a strawman.  Now you have come out to knock it down.  

This is exactly what a strawman argument is.  Unfortunately, you can’t seem to comprehend this and insist that a strawman argument is a weak argument. What a moron! Let me repeat my exact words that I posted earlier:     "…the ‘evil Bible’ argument is not an all inclusive argument against Christianity.  It can be used to argue against the existence of a loving, benevolent God as some Christians perceive God, but it can’t be used to disprove the existence of a fire and brimstone type of God, as other Christians perceive God.  *This argument also fails when theists believe in God but don’t accept the Bible.*"

OK, so I mentioned your main point, but not the sentence about theists who believe in God but don’t accept the Bible. However this is a Christian ng. You’ve slipped into using "theist" for "Christian", understandable since, as I’ve argued elsewhere, Christianity has a special status for atheists. There are theists who don’t accept the Bible, but if any of them describe themselves as "Christian" they are tiny and completely marginal groups. However there are many Christians who don’t accept Biblical literalism, as well as many who do, and the "Evil Bible" quotes are often crossposted to ngs dealing with both types. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (the moral code for Catholics http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm) has about one thousand references to Old Testament passages.  Clearly the Catholic Church gets a good portion of it’s moral teachings from the Old Testament.

Of course. If would be surprising if the Church declared scriptures to be canonical, and them completely ignored them. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In fact, the Catechism specifically says that the Old Testament covenant with Moses was from God:     "After the patriarchs, God formed Israel as his people by freeing them from slavery in Egypt. He established with them the covenant of Mount Sinai and, through Moses, gave them his law so that they would recognize him and serve him as the one living and true God, the provident Father and just judge, and so that they would look for the promised Savior." http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a1.htm#II Some of the most evil quotes in the Old Testament are from this covenant with Moses.  This is where God tells Moses to commit genocide on seven nations, approves of sex slaves, and says he will kill completely innocent children.

But the church says that it alone has the authority to interpret scripture, and which parts of the Law of Moses are binding on Christians, partly for this reason. The Old English bishop Aelfric, translating Genesis, complains that Jacob had four wives and that his readers may take this as an example. The concept of "the old law" and "the new law" is not modern. The problem with this bullshit is that most of the evil quotes in the Old Testament are claimed to be direct quotes from God.  There is very little room for the alleged wrong ideas about God to creep in.

And most modern Catholic scholars would say that they are not quotations from God, but the sacred writer giving his understanding of what God would say. True that is not the traditional understanding, which is that these statements represent the rigour of the Old Law, before the new covenant was sealed. You need to specify which strand of Christianity you are trying to attack. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Secondly, are all the allegedly evil injunctions genuinely evil? This is brought up on the "liberalism" argument thread. Many of the claimed evil quotes would not be regarded as "evil" by anyone except a Western liberal, What a bunch of bullshit!  Why do you have to lie so much to support your mythology?  Murder and genocide are regarded as evil by just about everyone. St Paul’s views on the status of women, on homosexuality, and on slavery would be regarded as pretty much commonsense by the majority of people in the majority of known cultures. More lies.

The "Evil Bible" quotes include quotations about subjects such as women’s subordinate place. Everyone except a few Western liberals and maybe upper class first century Romans would have recognised this as plain commonsense. Now sure you can argue that Western liberals are right and everyone else wrong, but be clear what you are doing. I deal with the "murder and genocide" quotes below. The "bullshit" refers only to the women, homosexuals and slaves type quotes. Oh, the "danger of extermination" lie!  It’s totally with any basis in reality.  Many of the passages in the Bible are quite explicit in admitting that the Israelites exterminated totally peaceful towns, like the town of Dan.

The "danger of extermination" is very real and dominates Israeli security policy, as anyone who has lived in the Middle East knows. The situation in Old Testament times was similar. There might be a few cases where actions are carried out without this backdrop, but not too many.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The place to start is the common ground. Why did Editor reject my synopsis as a "strawman"? Because it proposes a view of God as kind and loving, as most Christians today see him, and not as terrible and wrathful, as some Christians have seen him. So the "Evil Bible" argument is really an argument for atheism at all, just an argument against a certain type of Christianity. The first obvious point is that the "Evil Bible" argument is only very powerful if used against biblically-based Christian groups. Well no shit Sherlock!  I pointed this out to you before when I told you your summary was a strawman.  Now you have come out to knock it down.   This is exactly what a strawman argument is.  Unfortunately, you can’t seem to comprehend this and insist that a strawman argument is a weak argument. What a moron! Let me repeat my exact words that I posted earlier:     "…the ‘evil Bible’ argument is not an all inclusive argument against Christianity.  It can be used to argue against the existence of a loving, benevolent God as some Christians perceive God, but it can’t be used to disprove the existence of a fire and brimstone type of God, as other Christians perceive God.  *This argument also fails when theists believe in God but don’t accept the Bible.*" OK, so I mentioned your main point, but not the sentence about theists who believe in God but don’t accept the Bible. However this is a Christian ng. You’ve slipped into using "theist" for "Christian", understandable since, as I’ve argued elsewhere, Christianity has a special status for atheists.

I haven’t read where you claimed that "Christianity has a special status for atheists", but it is clearly nonsense. There are theists who don’t accept the Bible, but if any of them describe themselves as "Christian" they are tiny and completely marginal groups. However there are many Christians who don’t accept Biblical literalism, as well as many who do, and the "Evil Bible" quotes are often crossposted to ngs dealing with both types.

*You* don’t accept the Bible!  Simply saying that you accept the Bible but ignoring most of it and changing the meaning of the rest of it doesn’t mean that you actually accept the Bible. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (the moral code for Catholics http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm) has about one thousand references to Old Testament passages.  Clearly the Catholic Church gets a good portion of it’s moral teachings from the Old Testament. Of course. If would be surprising if the Church declared scriptures to be canonical, and them completely ignored them.

The Catholic Church, like every other Christian group, declares the Bible to be scripture *and* ignores or "reinterprets" most of it.  Why do you find this surprising?  I find this to be *extremely common*. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In fact, the Catechism specifically says that the Old Testament covenant with Moses was from God:     "After the patriarchs, God formed Israel as his people by freeing them from slavery in Egypt. He established with them the covenant of Mount Sinai and, through Moses, gave them his law so that they would recognize him and serve him as the one living and true God, the provident Father and just judge, and so that they would look for the promised Savior." http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a1.htm#II Some of the most evil quotes in the Old Testament are from this covenant with Moses.  This is where God tells Moses to commit genocide on seven nations, approves of sex slaves, and says he will kill completely innocent children. But the church says that it alone has the authority to interpret scripture, and which parts of the Law of Moses are binding on Christians, partly for this reason. The Old English bishop Aelfric, translating Genesis, complains that Jacob had four wives and that his readers may take this as an example. The concept of "the old law" and "the new law" is not modern.

Exactly!  The Catholic Church "interprets" the Bible to completely change the meaning of what is actually written in the Bible. The problem with this bullshit is that most of the evil quotes in the Old Testament are claimed to be direct quotes from God.  There is very little room for the alleged wrong ideas about God to creep in. And most modern Catholic scholars would say that they are not quotations from God, but the sacred writer giving his understanding of what God would say.

These people can say whatever they want, but the Bible very clearly says that these are *direct quotes* from God.  If they are not direct quotes from God, then people like Moses lied.  Did the Catholic Church ever admit that Moses was a liar? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – True that is not the traditional understanding, which is that these statements represent the rigour of the Old Law, before the new covenant was sealed. You need to specify which strand of Christianity you are trying to attack. Secondly, are all the allegedly evil injunctions genuinely evil? This is brought up on the "liberalism" argument thread. Many of the claimed evil quotes would not be regarded as "evil" by anyone except a Western liberal, What a bunch of bullshit!  Why do you have to lie so much to support your mythology?  Murder and genocide are regarded as evil by just about everyone. St Paul’s views on the status of women, on homosexuality, and on slavery would be regarded as pretty much commonsense by the majority of people in the majority of known cultures. More lies. The "Evil Bible" quotes include quotations about subjects such as women’s subordinate place. Everyone except a few Western liberals and maybe upper class first century Romans would have recognised this as plain

commonsense. Do you really believe that most women think that it is common sense for them to be subordinate to men???  You live in a fantasy world. Now sure you can argue that Western liberals are right and everyone else wrong, but be clear what you are doing. I deal with the "murder and genocide" quotes below. The "bullshit" refers only to the women, homosexuals and slaves type quotes. Oh, the "danger of extermination" lie!  It’s totally with any basis in reality.  Many of the passages in the Bible are quite explicit in admitting that the Israelites exterminated totally peaceful towns, like the town of Dan. The "danger of extermination" is very real and dominates Israeli security policy, as anyone who has lived in the Middle East knows.

The current security situation in Israel today is completely irrelevant to the situation there 2,000 years ago. The situation in Old Testament times was similar.

It’s not even close.  Stop lying. There might be a few cases where actions are carried out without this backdrop, but not too many.

What backdrop?  You are using the current situation in the Middle East to justify things that happened thousands of years ago.  That is EXTREMELY ABSURD, but not unexpected coming from you.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Are you brain damaged Scott?  I’m pretty damn sure I told you several times that killing Hitler would not be immoral.  I even told you how to figure this out objectively (by counting up the bodies). I talking about before Hitler came to power. I’ll reword it for you: since you know the future, if you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he came to power and thereby preventing his holocaust, would you be committing an evil act in doing so? No. Really? Man, are you dumb to step into this. If you went back and were living in that past, only you would know the consequences of letting Hitler live. As a being, no one else would have your unique, call it who.  So if we can’t fault you for evil giving a belief in your unique knowledge about things to come, how can you fault the god of the bible. Maybe he knows something you don’t.

This was a hypothetical situation without any basis in reality as we all know that we can’t go back in time.  If you want to claim that God actually exists, and is omniscient, then please go ahead and prove it.  If you can prove it then I will concede this argument.  Since you can’t (you have admitted this before) you have no argument here.

Response:

Editor

[ why the argument is a strawman ]  *This argument also fails when theists believe in God but don’t accept the Bible.*" I haven’t read where you claimed that "Christianity has a special status for atheists", but it is clearly nonsense.

Well it is common ground, and trivial, that there are "theists" who don’t accept the Bible. It is also trivial that most of the "common atheist arguments", like the "Jesus Myth" argument or the "Mithras" argument are specific to Christianity.  So why did you slip into using "theist" as a synonym for "Christian" unless Christianity has some special status? In fact the idea that Christianity is just one religion amongst many for an atheist is just atheist propaganda and based on ignorance. The very concept of a "theist" doesn’t make much sense in many non-Christian cultures. However that’s a separate thread. *You* don’t accept the Bible!  Simply saying that you accept the Bible but ignoring most of it and changing the meaning of the rest of it doesn’t mean that you actually accept the Bible.

Firstly there is the question of someone who claims to "accept" something, but in fact behaves in a way that indicates the opposite. It is not clear how to categorise such a person. Then there is the question of a group who "accept" something in a fanatical or extreme sense, and claim that no one who does not do likewise is really a member of the true cause. Here it is usually clear that the extremists are insisting on an unreasonably narrow definition. Catholics claim to accept the Old Testament, but we are not literalists. This is one of the weaknesses at the heart of the "Evil Bible" argument. Of course. If would be surprising if the Church declared scriptures to be canonical, and them completely ignored them. The Catholic Church, like every other Christian group, declares the Bible to be scripture *and* ignores or "reinterprets" most of it.  Why do you find this surprising?  I find this to be *extremely common*.

The Catholic church doesn’t accept that a naive literal interpretation, made with no regard original context nor textual scholarship, is binding on Christians. It also doesn’t accept that the Old Testament is simply obsolete, and therefore of no value. Exactly!  The Catholic Church "interprets" the Bible to completely change the meaning of what is actually written in the Bible.

Arguably. It maybe changes the interpretation so far that a naive literalist wouldn’t recognise it. These people can say whatever they want, but the Bible very clearly says that these are *direct quotes* from God.  If they are not direct quotes from God, then people like Moses lied.  Did the Catholic Church ever admit that Moses was a liar?

It is not accepted today that Moses was the author of the first five books of the Bible. So we don’t know exactly where the quotes attributed to the deity come from. Other hypotheses than "Moses lied" or "everything reported as the word of God is the direct word of God" are possible. Do you really believe that most women think that it is common sense for them to be subordinate to men???  You live in a fantasy world.

Yes. If you take Western women then you get a very skewed sample, which gives you the illusion that your particular culture is the norm. It isn’t. The current security situation in Israel today is completely irrelevant to the situation there 2,000 years ago. The situation in Old Testament times was similar. It’s not even close.  Stop lying.

There are some differences. The situation that you have a numerically small population isolated on account of their religion, and very hard-pressed militarily, is the same. What backdrop?  You are using the current situation in the Middle East to justify things that happened thousands of years ago.  That is EXTREMELY ABSURD, but not unexpected coming from you.

I’m using my experience of living in the Middle East to assert that the built in moral assumptions of the "Evil Bible" series are grossly inadequate. If you are engaged in a racial, rather than a political war, then the distinction between soldiers and civilians becomes erased. I am not saying this as a pro-Israeli point, in fact it could be used to justify terrorism against Jewish civilian targets. It is just one of those features of modern warfare. It is easy for someone who didn’t live in Old Testament times, and has no experience of having to defend a farmstead against the Philistines, to criciticise the morality of the Bible.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Editor [ why the argument is a strawman ]  *This argument also fails when theists believe in God but don’t accept the Bible.*" I haven’t read where you claimed that "Christianity has a special status for atheists", but it is clearly nonsense. Well it is common ground, and trivial, that there are "theists" who don’t accept the Bible. It is also trivial that most of the "common atheist arguments", like the "Jesus Myth" argument or the "Mithras" argument are specific to Christianity.  So why did you slip into using "theist" as a synonym for "Christian" unless Christianity has some special status?

I didn’t ’slip’ into using the word "theist" as a synonym for "Christian". I intentionally and correctly used these words as they are defined.  Perhaps you should look them up in a reputable dictionary.  Only you could come up with the absurd idea that my correct usage of words implies a "special status" for Christianity. In fact the idea that Christianity is just one religion amongst many for an atheist is just atheist propaganda and based on ignorance.

What a bunch of crap!  Do you really enjoy being so ignorant in public? Just because you are so damn ignorant to think that you brand of mythology has some "special status" that makes it true doesn’t mean that anyone else is that stupid. The very concept of a "theist" doesn’t make much sense in many non-Christian cultures. However that’s a separate thread.

How did you get to be so ignorant, Malcolm? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – *You* don’t accept the Bible!  Simply saying that you accept the Bible but ignoring most of it and changing the meaning of the rest of it doesn’t mean that you actually accept the Bible. Firstly there is the question of someone who claims to "accept" something, but in fact behaves in a way that indicates the opposite. It is not clear how to categorise such a person. Then there is the question of a group who "accept" something in a fanatical or extreme sense, and claim that no one who does not do likewise is really a member of the true cause. Here it is usually clear that the extremists are insisting on an unreasonably narrow definition. Catholics claim to accept the Old Testament, but we are not literalists. This is one of the weaknesses at the heart of the "Evil Bible" argument.

It should be obvious that I was using the word "accept" to mean "to regard as true".  Since you have told me many times that Catholics believe that major portions of the Bible are not true then it is correct to say that they don’t accept the Bible. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Of course. If would be surprising if the Church declared scriptures to be canonical, and them completely ignored them. The Catholic Church, like every other Christian group, declares the Bible to be scripture *and* ignores or "reinterprets" most of it.  Why do you find this surprising?  I find this to be *extremely common*. The Catholic church doesn’t accept that a naive literal interpretation, made with no regard original context nor textual scholarship, is binding on Christians. It also doesn’t accept that the Old Testament is simply obsolete, and therefore of no value. Exactly!  The Catholic Church "interprets" the Bible to completely change the meaning of what is actually written in the Bible. Arguably. It maybe changes the interpretation so far that a naive literalist wouldn’t recognise it.

I think we agree on this, except that Catholics (and every other Christian sect) call all other interpretations, even a literal interpretation, "naive".  Every Christian sect thinks they are the only ones who properly understand the Bible.  They can’t all be right. These people can say whatever they want, but the Bible very clearly says that these are *direct quotes* from God.  If they are not direct quotes from God, then people like Moses lied.  Did the Catholic Church ever admit that Moses was a liar? It is not accepted today that Moses was the author of the first five books of the Bible. So we don’t know exactly where the quotes attributed to the deity come from. Other hypotheses than "Moses lied" or "everything reported as the word of God is the direct word of God" are possible.

If you don’t accept these direct quotes from God as true, then it is obvious that either Moses lied or the people who wrote these passages lied.  Someone obviously lied.  You can’t deny that these passages are true without also claiming that someone lied. Do you really believe that most women think that it is common sense for them to be subordinate to men???  You live in a fantasy world. Yes. If you take Western women then you get a very skewed sample, which gives you the illusion that your particular culture is the norm. It isn’t.

I used to work at a medical school where we had a lot of Ph.D. students and post-docs from all over the world.  Many of these were women.  I don’t think that any of them thought that it was common sense for them to be subordinate to men.  In fact, I worked with a women from India who claimed that women really ran things over in India. The current security situation in Israel today is completely irrelevant to the situation there 2,000 years ago. The situation in Old Testament times was similar. It’s not even close.  Stop lying. There are some differences. The situation that you have a numerically small population isolated on account of their religion, and very hard-pressed militarily, is the same.

Your interpretation about the Israelites being "very hard-pressed militarily" is largely fiction.  Most of the Old Testament stories about war have the Israelites kicking butt. What backdrop?  You are using the current situation in the Middle East to justify things that happened thousands of years ago.  That is EXTREMELY ABSURD, but not unexpected coming from you. I’m using my experience of living in the Middle East to assert that the built in moral assumptions of the "Evil Bible" series are grossly inadequate. If you are engaged in a racial, rather than a political war, then the distinction between soldiers and civilians becomes erased.

I can’t help but think of an analogy to Hitler.  Hitler was engaged in a racial and religious war.  Do you think that we should erase the immoral acts that Hitler did? I am not saying this as a pro-Israeli point, in fact it could be used to justify terrorism against Jewish civilian targets.

Yes, your insane justification could be used to morally justify terrorism against innocent civilians.  That’s why I called it insane and absurd. It is just one of those features of modern warfare.

And terrorism against civilians is one of the features of modern warfare. That doesn’t make it right. It is easy for someone who didn’t live in Old Testament times, and has no experience of having to defend a farmstead against the Philistines, to criciticise the morality of the Bible.

There you go again with you absurd claim that the Israelite’s were defending themselves.  Most of the time they weren’t defending themselves, they were attacking innocent and peaceful people.

Response:

[ why the argument is a strawman ]  *This argument also fails when theists believe in God but don’t accept the Bible.*" I didn’t ’slip’ into using the word "theist" as a synonym for "Christian". I intentionally and correctly used these words as they are defined. Perhaps you should look them up in a reputable dictionary.  Only you could come up with the absurd idea that my correct usage of words implies a "special status" for Christianity.

In that case your emphasis of the above sentence is a nonsense. It is obvious that Wiccans are theists and don’t accept the Bible. No one was ever claiming that the "Evil Bible" argument was an argument against all forms of religion. However since you post to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic you must think that it is a valid argument against Catholicism. If you were using "theist" as a synonym for "Christian" the emphasis becomes sensible. In fact the idea that Christianity is just one religion amongst many for an atheist is just atheist propaganda and based on ignorance. What a bunch of crap!  Do you really enjoy being so ignorant in public? Just because you are so damn ignorant to think that you brand of mythology has some "special status" that makes it true doesn’t mean that anyone else is that stupid. The very concept of a "theist" doesn’t make much sense in many non-Christian cultures. However that’s a separate thread. How did you get to be so ignorant, Malcolm?

I’m responding to atheist propaganda. In a narrow, formal sense I can accept that "atheist" means "without God" and so an "atheist" doesn’t have to be aware of Christianity, just of some religion that has gods. However don’t you see that the very concept of God as an hypothesis that can be rejected is deeply tied to your Christian cultural world view? What about the Hindu who says "the Hindu gods are just metaphors for the inexpressible absolute. However our Hindu ritual still have value which is why I will participate in them." Is he an atheist? What about the man in a Buddhist country who rejects all the teachings of the Buddah. Does it matter that Buddah never taught that there was a God, or is he an atheist? Just because it’s become the current fashion on alt.atheism to say "Christianity has nothing to do with atheism" doesn’t make it true. This isn’t true historically, it isn’t true in a practical sense, and it isn’t even true when you try to define the word. It should be obvious that I was using the word "accept" to mean "to regard as true".  Since you have told me many times that Catholics believe that major portions of the Bible are not true then it is correct to say that they don’t accept the Bible.

Catholics would say that they accept the Bible. However I think your view has some legitimacy, in which case alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic is irrelevant to your "evil bible" argument. I think we agree on this, except that Catholics (and every other Christian sect) call all other interpretations, even a literal interpretation, "naive".  Every Christian sect thinks they are the only ones who properly understand the Bible.  They can’t all be right.

Of course. it doesn’t follow that they are all wrong, or all equally wrong. If you don’t accept these direct quotes from God as true, then it is obvious that either Moses lied or the people who wrote these passages lied. Someone obviously lied.  You can’t deny that these passages are true without also claiming that someone lied.

Not necessarily. Is Milton lying when he places words in the mouth of God in Paradise Lost? If someone misinterpreted this as a direct communication, perhaps in a dream, would they be lying? Yes. If you take Western women then you get a very skewed sample, which gives you the illusion that your particular culture is the norm. It isn’t. I used to work at a medical school where we had a lot of Ph.D. students and post-docs from all over the world.  Many of these were women.  I don’t think that any of them thought that it was common sense for them to be subordinate to men.  In fact, I worked with a women from India who claimed that women really ran things over in India.

That’s another skewed sample. Educated third world women who come to medical school in the West generally know enough not to outrage the values of their hosts. I can’t help but think of an analogy to Hitler.  Hitler was engaged in a racial and religious war.  Do you think that we should erase the immoral acts that Hitler did?

No, no one is claiming that all acts of war are inherently justifiable. In particular the Germans instigated a racial war, when the pressures on them were wholly political. Yes, your insane justification could be used to morally justify terrorism against innocent civilians.  That’s why I called it insane and absurd.

Some Palestinians target kindergartens in Israeli kibbutzim. I don’t think it is "insane and absurd" to justify this type of activity. In fact trying to hold Palestinians to the Geneva convention is just as likely to intensify the conflict, because it gives Israelis the idea that they are fighting an enemy beyond the moral pale. It is just one of those features of modern warfare. And terrorism against civilians is one of the features of modern warfare. That doesn’t make it right.

But an American would say that, because Americans have carrier battle groups whilst the people committing terrorism haven’t. There you go again with you absurd claim that the Israelite’s were defending themselves.  Most of the time they weren’t defending themselves, they were attacking innocent and peaceful people.

Our only real source for virtually all of Israelite history is the Old Testament. So unless you are a biblical literalist you cannot claim to have a very good reconstruction of events. In particular it is very difficult to talk about the balance of right and wrong, because that sort of thing is always the first to be distorted.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [ why the argument is a strawman ]  *This argument also fails when theists believe in God but don’t accept the Bible.*" I didn’t ’slip’ into using the word "theist" as a synonym for "Christian". I intentionally and correctly used these words as they are defined. Perhaps you should look them up in a reputable dictionary.  Only you could come up with the absurd idea that my correct usage of words implies a "special status" for Christianity. In that case your emphasis of the above sentence is a nonsense. It is obvious that Wiccans are theists and don’t accept the Bible. No one was ever claiming that the "Evil Bible" argument was an argument against all forms of religion. However since you post to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic you must think that it is a valid argument against Catholicism. If you were using "theist" as a synonym for "Christian" the emphasis becomes sensible.

The above paragraph makes no sense.  Could you try to rephrase this so it’s makes sense? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In fact the idea that Christianity is just one religion amongst many for an atheist is just atheist propaganda and based on ignorance. What a bunch of crap!  Do you really enjoy being so ignorant in public? Just because you are so damn ignorant to think that you brand of mythology has some "special status" that makes it true doesn’t mean that anyone else is that stupid. The very concept of a "theist" doesn’t make much sense in many non-Christian cultures. However that’s a separate thread. How did you get to be so ignorant, Malcolm? I’m responding to atheist propaganda. In a narrow, formal sense I can accept that "atheist" means "without God" and so an "atheist" doesn’t have to be aware of Christianity, just of some religion that has gods. However don’t you see that the very concept of God as an hypothesis that can be rejected is deeply tied to your Christian cultural world view? What about the Hindu who says "the Hindu gods are just metaphors for the inexpressible absolute. However our Hindu ritual still have value which is why I will participate in them." Is he an atheist? What about the man in a Buddhist country who rejects all the teachings of the Buddah. Does it matter that Buddah never taught that there was a God, or is he an atheist? Just because it’s become the current fashion on alt.atheism to say "Christianity has nothing to do with atheism" doesn’t make it true. This isn’t true historically, it isn’t true in a practical sense, and it isn’t even true when you try to define the word.

Once again you are not making any sense.  Try to write coherently. It should be obvious that I was using the word "accept" to mean "to regard as true".  Since you have told me many times that Catholics believe that major portions of the Bible are not true then it is correct to say that they don’t accept the Bible. Catholics would say that they accept the Bible. However I think your view has some legitimacy, in which case alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic is irrelevant to your "evil bible" argument.

Catholics who say they accept the Bible are either liars or they don’t understand what the words mean. I think we agree on this, except that Catholics (and every other Christian sect) call all other interpretations, even a literal interpretation, "naive".  Every Christian sect thinks they are the only ones who properly understand the Bible.  They can’t all be right. Of course. it doesn’t follow that they are all wrong, or all equally

wrong. But they are all wrong because they ignore what is literally written in the Bible and claim it says something else. If you don’t accept these direct quotes from God as true, then it is obvious that either Moses lied or the people who wrote these passages lied. Someone obviously lied.  You can’t deny that these passages are true without also claiming that someone lied. Not necessarily. Is Milton lying when he places words in the mouth of God in Paradise Lost? If someone misinterpreted this as a direct communication, perhaps in a dream, would they be lying?

I never read Paradise Lost so I can’t comment on that.  However, if someone claims that God talked to him and "forgets" to mention that this happened in a dream, then he is a liar. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes. If you take Western women then you get a very skewed sample, which gives you the illusion that your particular culture is the norm. It isn’t. I used to work at a medical school where we had a lot of Ph.D. students and post-docs from all over the world.  Many of these were women.  I don’t think that any of them thought that it was common sense for them to be subordinate to men.  In fact, I worked with a women from India who claimed that women really ran things over in India. That’s another skewed sample. Educated third world women who come to medical school in the West generally know enough not to outrage the values of their hosts.

What a bunch of crap.  Why do you simply make things up that don’t have anything to do with reality?  Is it because of your religious background? I can’t help but think of an analogy to Hitler.  Hitler was engaged in a racial and religious war.  Do you think that we should erase the immoral acts that Hitler did? No, no one is claiming that all acts of war are inherently justifiable. In particular the Germans instigated a racial war, when the pressures on them were wholly political.

Is any form of "racial war" justifiable?  Isn’t this just another phrase for genocide? Yes, your insane justification could be used to morally justify terrorism against innocent civilians.  That’s why I called it insane and absurd. Some Palestinians target kindergartens in Israeli kibbutzim. I don’t think it is "insane and absurd" to justify this type of activity.

And this is why most people think you are insane and absurd. In fact trying to hold Palestinians to the Geneva convention is just as likely to intensify the conflict, because it gives Israelis the idea that they are fighting an enemy beyond the moral pale.

You are completely insane. It is just one of those features of modern warfare. And terrorism against civilians is one of the features of modern warfare. That doesn’t make it right. But an American would say that, because Americans have carrier battle groups whilst the people committing terrorism haven’t.

No.  Most Americans think that intentionally killing children is immoral that is why they call it immoral.  Even most Catholics think this way too. There you go again with you absurd claim that the Israelite’s were defending themselves.  Most of the time they weren’t defending themselves, they were attacking innocent and peaceful people. Our only real source for virtually all of Israelite history is the Old Testament.

And that is why it is absurd to say that the Israelites were always defending themselves.  The Old Testament clearly doesn’t say that. So unless you are a biblical literalist you cannot claim to have a very good reconstruction of events. In particular it is very difficult to talk about the balance of right and wrong, because that sort of thing is always the first to be distorted.

It’s not at all difficult to talk about the balance of right and wrong.  The Israelites wrote the Old Testament and they would have distorted it to make them look better.  However, they still look like a bunch of murdering, raping thieves and thugs.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Are you brain damaged Scott?  I’m pretty damn sure I told you several times that killing Hitler would not be immoral.  I even told you how to figure this out objectively (by counting up the bodies). I talking about before Hitler came to power. I’ll reword it for you: since you know the future, if you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he came to power and thereby preventing his holocaust, would you be committing an evil act in doing so? No. Really? Man, are you dumb to step into this. If you went back and were living in that past, only you would know the consequences of letting Hitler live. As a being, no one else would have your unique, call it **omniscient**, knowledge about this man’s future except who.  So if we can’t fault you for evil giving a belief in your unique knowledge about things to come, how can you fault the god of the bible. Maybe he knows something you don’t. This was a hypothetical situation without any basis in reality as we all know that we can’t go back in time.  If you want to claim that God actually exists, and is omniscient, then please go ahead and prove it.  If you can prove it then I will concede this argument.  Since you can’t (you have admitted this before) you have no argument here.

I’ll take that as conceding since that’s about as close as anyone will ever get from you, Chris, to concede Scott

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Are you brain damaged Scott?  I’m pretty damn sure I told you several times that killing Hitler would not be immoral.  I even told you how to figure this out objectively (by counting up the bodies). I talking about before Hitler came to power. I’ll reword it for you: since you know the future, if you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he came to power and thereby preventing his holocaust, would you be committing an evil act in doing so? No. Really? Man, are you dumb to step into this. If you went back and were living in that past, only you would know the consequences of letting Hitler live. As a being, no one else would have your unique, call it **omniscient**, knowledge about this man’s future except who.  So if we can’t fault you for evil giving a belief in your unique knowledge about things to come, how can you fault the god of the bible. Maybe he knows something you don’t. This was a hypothetical situation without any basis in reality as we all know that we can’t go back in time.  If you want to claim that God actually exists, and is omniscient, then please go ahead and prove it.  If you can prove it then I will concede this argument.  Since you can’t (you have admitted this before) you have no argument here. I’ll take that as conceding since that’s about as close as anyone will ever get from you, Chris, to concede

I see you are as mentally challenged as ever.  This is not conceding, this is a challenge for you to produce evidence to support your insane opinion. And several people have caused me to change my mind in the newsgroups.  Of course they had intelligent and well reasoned thoughts, and they backed up their opinions with facts from reputable sources.  You have done none of these things.  In fact, you are one of the few people who routinely post links that explicitly contradict what you are saying.  I guess you just like being stupid in public.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Are you brain damaged Scott?  I’m pretty damn sure I told you several times that killing Hitler would not be immoral.  I even told you how to figure this out objectively (by counting up the bodies). I talking about before Hitler came to power. I’ll reword it for you: since you know the future, if you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he came to power and thereby preventing his holocaust, would you be committing an evil act in doing so? No. Really? Man, are you dumb to step into this. If you went back and were living in that past, only you would know the consequences of letting Hitler live. As a being, no one else would have your unique, call it **omniscient**, knowledge about this man’s future except who.  So if we can’t fault you for evil giving a belief in your unique knowledge about things to come, how can you fault the god of the bible. Maybe he knows something you don’t. This was a hypothetical situation without any basis in reality as we all know that we can’t go back in time.  If you want to claim that God actually exists, and is omniscient, then please go ahead and prove it.  If you can prove it then I will concede this argument.  Since you can’t (you have admitted this before) you have no argument here. I’ll take that as conceding since that’s about as close as anyone will ever get from you, Chris, to concede I see you are as mentally challenged as ever.  This is not conceding, this is a challenge for you to produce evidence to support your insane opinion. And several people have caused me to change my mind in the newsgroups.  Of course they had intelligent and well reasoned thoughts, and they backed up their opinions with facts from reputable sources.  You have done none of these things.  In fact, you are one of the few people who routinely post links that explicitly contradict what you are saying.  I guess you just like being stupid in public.

Chris you are stupid and that’s a fact

Response:

Editor said "*This argument also fails when theists believe in God but don’t accept the Bible.*" and emphasises it to show that my "Evil Bible" argument is a strawman. In that case your emphasis of the above sentence is a nonsense. It is obvious that Wiccans are theists and don’t accept the Bible. No one was ever claiming that the "Evil Bible" argument was an argument against all forms of religion. However since you post to

alt.religion.christian.roman- catholic you must think that it is a valid argument against Catholicism. If you were using "theist" as a synonym for "Christian" the emphasis becomes sensible. The above paragraph makes no sense.  Could you try to rephrase this so it’s makes sense?

The "Evil Bible" argument is no argument at all against theists who don’t accept the Bible, eg Wiccans, Hindus, adherents of Shinto. That much is a no-brainer. The comment becomes sensible if you are misusing "theist" as a synonym for "Christian". [ Chriatianity has a special status to atheists ] Once again you are not making any sense.  Try to write coherently.

OK, an atheist is someone who rejects the hypothesis that there is a God. However this implies that God is an hypothesis which can be rejected, and this really only applies to people who live in a Christian culture. To an Hindu or a Buddhist it would make little sense (because a Hindu who rejects the existence of gods may still be a Hindu, and Buddhism doesn’t have any gods anyway). So the word "atheist" really only has meaning in a Christian context, thus Christianity is special to atheists. Catholics who say they accept the Bible are either liars or they don’t understand what the words mean.

Or use the word "accept" to mean something other than "accept is literally true". But they are all wrong because they ignore what is literally written in the Bible and claim it says something else.

A Catholic scholar won’t ignore the literal sense of the Old Testament. However he won’t say that this is necessarily the sense intended, nor that the intended sense is necessarily true. I never read Paradise Lost so I can’t comment on that.  However, if someone claims that God talked to him and "forgets" to mention that this happened in a dream, then he is a liar.

Have you read Pride and Prejudice? There is no such person as Elizabeth Bennett (the heroine), nor was there a Cathy Earnshaw (heroine of Wuthering Heights), nor a Tom Sawyer. Does this mean that all these authors were liars? That’s another skewed sample. Educated third world women who come to medical school in the West generally know enough not to outrage the values of their hosts. What a bunch of crap.  Why do you simply make things up that don’t have anything to do with reality?  Is it because of your religious background?

I also work at a university. We have several women students who are devout Muslims. Generally they don’t agitate against Western values, though one suspects that privately they disapprove. Is any form of "racial war" justifiable?  Isn’t this just another phrase for genocide?

Can be. If you are an American you are in no position to criticise genocidal policies. In fact trying to hold Palestinians to the Geneva convention is just as likely to intensify the conflict, because it gives Israelis the idea that they are fighting an enemy beyond the moral pale. You are completely insane.

So you can’t see the point. No.  Most Americans think that intentionally killing children is immoral that is why they call it immoral.  Even most Catholics think this way too.

No, most American call it immoral because it is politically convenient to do so, and because at present there is not much necessity for American forces to do the same. If circumstances change, the moral sensibilities of the American people will change with them. Our only real source for virtually all of Israelite history is the Old Testament. And that is why it is absurd to say that the Israelites were always defending themselves.  The Old Testament clearly doesn’t say that. It’s not at all difficult to talk about the balance of right and wrong. The Israelites wrote the Old Testament and they would have distorted it to make them look better.

And never distorted it to exaggerate their military power and minimse that of their enemies?  However, they still look like a bunch of murdering, raping thieves and thugs.

Sunday School morality. It’s not all wrong, but it is totally inadequate for grown-ups facing a difficult military situation.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Editor said "*This argument also fails when theists believe in God but don’t accept the Bible.*" and emphasises it to show that my "Evil Bible" argument is a strawman. In that case your emphasis of the above sentence is a nonsense. It is obvious that Wiccans are theists and don’t accept the Bible. No one was ever claiming that the "Evil Bible" argument was an argument against all forms of religion. However since you post to alt.religion.christian.roman- catholic you must think that it is a valid argument against Catholicism. If you were using "theist" as a synonym for "Christian" the emphasis becomes sensible. The above paragraph makes no sense.  Could you try to rephrase this so it’s makes sense? The "Evil Bible" argument is no argument at all against theists who don’t accept the Bible, eg Wiccans, Hindus, adherents of Shinto. That much is a no-brainer.

Well no shit Sherlock!  What do you think the following sentence means? "This argument also fails when theists believe in God but don’t accept the Bible." The comment becomes sensible if you are misusing "theist" as a synonym for "Christian".

My comments are completely correct exactly they way they are written.  I am not misusing "theist" as a synonym for "Christian". [ Chriatianity has a special status to atheists ] Once again you are not making any sense.  Try to write coherently. OK, an atheist is someone who rejects the hypothesis that there is a God. However this implies that God is an hypothesis which can be rejected, and this really only applies to people who live in a Christian culture. To an Hindu or a Buddhist it would make little sense (because a Hindu who rejects the existence of gods may still be a Hindu, and Buddhism doesn’t have any gods anyway). So the word "atheist" really only has meaning in a Christian context, thus Christianity is special to atheists.

" Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." http://www.bartleby.com/61/53/A0495300.html "Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity" http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheist These definitions refer to "deities" or "God or gods".  And there is nothing in these dictionaries where the word God has to refer to the Christian God. Your absurd claim that atheism "only has meaning in a Christian context" is completely false. Catholics who say they accept the Bible are either liars or they don’t understand what the words mean. Or use the word "accept" to mean something other than "accept is literally true".

So I’ll put you in the "don’t understand what the words mean" category. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – But they are all wrong because they ignore what is literally written in the Bible and claim it says something else. A Catholic scholar won’t ignore the literal sense of the Old Testament. However he won’t say that this is necessarily the sense intended, nor that the intended sense is necessarily true. I never read Paradise Lost so I can’t comment on that.  However, if someone claims that God talked to him and "forgets" to mention that this happened in a dream, then he is a liar. Have you read Pride and Prejudice? There is no such person as Elizabeth Bennett (the heroine), nor was there a Cathy Earnshaw (heroine of Wuthering Heights), nor a Tom Sawyer. Does this mean that all these authors were liars?

These are books of fiction.  A lie *requires* an intent to deceive. Lie: 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. http://www.bartleby.com/61/52/L0155200.html That’s another skewed sample. Educated third world women who come to medical school in the West generally know enough not to outrage the values of their hosts. What a bunch of crap.  Why do you simply make things up that don’t have anything to do with reality?  Is it because of your religious background? I also work at a university. We have several women students who are devout Muslims. Generally they don’t agitate against Western values, though one suspects that privately they disapprove.

So all you have is a suspicion that non-Western women think that it is common sense that they should be subordinate to men!  That’s not much of a case you are making. Is any form of "racial war" justifiable?  Isn’t this just another phrase for genocide? Can be.

So you are trying to justify genocide.  I’m not surprised.  Most people (including the Catholic Church) would find genocide grossly immoral. If you are an American you are in no position to criticise genocidal

policies. What a bunch of crap!  Please turn your brain on before typing this kind of nonsense. In fact trying to hold Palestinians to the Geneva convention is just as likely to intensify the conflict, because it gives Israelis the idea that they are fighting an enemy beyond the moral pale. You are completely insane. So you can’t see the point.

No I can’t see your point.  I’m not insane. No.  Most Americans think that intentionally killing children is immoral that is why they call it immoral.  Even most Catholics think this way too. No, most American call it immoral because it is politically convenient to do so, and because at present there is not much necessity for American forces to do the same. If circumstances change, the moral sensibilities of the American people will change with them.

You are obviously insane.  They have pills for that now. Our only real source for virtually all of Israelite history is the Old Testament. And that is why it is absurd to say that the Israelites were always defending themselves.  The Old Testament clearly doesn’t say that. It’s not at all difficult to talk about the balance of right and wrong. The Israelites wrote the Old Testament and they would have distorted it to make them look better. And never distorted it to exaggerate their military power and minimse that of their enemies?

Have you ever read the Old Testament?  One of the major themes is that God was on the Israelites’ side and that’s why they could totally destroy much larger enemies.  It wouldn’t make much sense to contradict that message by exaggerating your own numbers and minimizing your enemies.  However, they still look like a bunch of murdering, raping thieves and thugs. Sunday School morality. It’s not all wrong, but it is totally inadequate for grown-ups facing a difficult military situation.

Well it’s obvious that religion has turned you into an immoral asshole who approves of genocide, murder, rape, and robbery.  That’s why religion is so damn dangerous.

Response:

The "Evil Bible" argument is no argument at all against theists who don’t accept the Bible, eg Wiccans, Hindus, adherents of Shinto. That much is a no-brainer. Well no shit Sherlock!  What do you think the following sentence means? "This argument also fails when theists believe in God but don’t accept the Bible."

Well that was always common ground, so you just wasted all our time. The "common arguments" always were "common arguments against Christianity" and are posted only to arcrc. " Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." http://www.bartleby.com/61/53/A0495300.html "Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity" http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheist These definitions refer to "deities" or "God or gods".  And there is nothing in these dictionaries where the word God has to refer to the Christian God. Your absurd claim that atheism "only has meaning in a Christian context" is completely false.

A dictionary isn’t useful insettling philosphical disputes. I do admit that in the narrowest of formal senses "atheism" isn’t defined in terms of Christianity, so the atheists have a point. Historically, practically, etymologically and philosophically they are wrong, Christianity is special. These are books of fiction.  A lie *requires* an intent to deceive. Lie: 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. http://www.bartleby.com/61/52/L0155200.html

So what about Antony and Cleopatra? Is Shakespeare lying when Cleopatra goes to play billiards? You are illustrating your complete lack of any historical perspective. Well it’s obvious that religion has turned you into an immoral asshole who approves of genocide, murder, rape, and robbery.  That’s why religion is so damn dangerous.

Sunday School morality is a first approximation to Christian ethics. Genocide, murder, rape and robbery are certainly normally wrong. However grown ups know that these things happen, that situations are often not as simple as they first seem, and that it is not always as easy as blaming the perpetrator. You totally lack that insight. Are you an American? Do you own a house? The moral course of action is not so obvious now, is it?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The "Evil Bible" argument is no argument at all against theists who don’t accept the Bible, eg Wiccans, Hindus, adherents of Shinto. That much is a no-brainer. Well no shit Sherlock!  What do you think the following sentence means? "This argument also fails when theists believe in God but don’t accept the Bible." Well that was always common ground, so you just wasted all our time. The "common arguments" always were "common arguments against Christianity" and are posted only to arcrc. " Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." http://www.bartleby.com/61/53/A0495300.html "Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity" http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheist These definitions refer to "deities" or "God or gods".  And there is nothing in these dictionaries where the word God has to refer to the Christian God. Your absurd claim that atheism "only has meaning in a Christian context" is completely false. A dictionary isn’t useful insettling philosphical disputes. I do admit that in the narrowest of formal senses "atheism" isn’t defined in terms of Christianity, so the atheists have a point. Historically, practically, etymologically and philosophically they are wrong, Christianity is special. These are books of fiction.  A lie *requires* an intent to deceive. Lie: 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. http://www.bartleby.com/61/52/L0155200.html So what about Antony and Cleopatra? Is Shakespeare lying when Cleopatra goes to play billiards? You are illustrating your complete lack of any historical perspective. Well it’s obvious that religion has turned you into an immoral asshole who approves of genocide, murder, rape, and robbery.  That’s why religion is so damn dangerous. Sunday School morality is a first approximation to Christian ethics. Genocide, murder, rape and robbery are certainly normally wrong. However grown ups know that these things happen, that situations are often not as simple as they first seem, and that it is not always as easy as blaming the perpetrator. You totally lack that insight. Are you an American? Do you own a house? The moral course of action is not so obvious now, is it?

Yes, he does. I can even give you the address to the street where he lives. Scott

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – " Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." http://www.bartleby.com/61/53/A0495300.html "Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity" http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheist These definitions refer to "deities" or "God or gods".  And there is nothing in these dictionaries where the word God has to refer to the Christian God. Your absurd claim that atheism "only has meaning in a Christian context" is completely false. A dictionary isn’t useful insettling philosphical disputes. I do admit that in the narrowest of formal senses "atheism" isn’t defined in terms of Christianity, so the atheists have a point. Historically, practically, etymologically and philosophically they are wrong, Christianity is

special. Yes, Christianity is "special" in the same way that you were a special education student. Well it’s obvious that religion has turned you into an immoral asshole who approves of genocide, murder, rape, and robbery.  That’s why religion is so damn dangerous. Sunday School morality is a first approximation to Christian ethics. Genocide, murder, rape and robbery are certainly normally wrong. However grown ups know that these things happen, that situations are often not as simple as they first seem, and that it is not always as easy as blaming the perpetrator. You totally lack that insight.

No, you lack any sort of intelligence or common sense. Are you an American? Do you own a house? The moral course of action is not so obvious now, is it?

Yes I am an American and I do own a house.  What’s your point?  I worked hard and saved my wages so I could buy my house just like all my neighbors from all over the world, and my American Indian friends.  Are you one of those assholes who think that African Americans should be sent back to Africa?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – " Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." http://www.bartleby.com/61/53/A0495300.html "Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity" http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheist These definitions refer to "deities" or "God or gods".  And there is nothing in these dictionaries where the word God has to refer to the Christian God. Your absurd claim that atheism "only has meaning in a Christian context" is completely false. A dictionary isn’t useful insettling philosphical disputes. I do admit that in the narrowest of formal senses "atheism" isn’t defined in terms of Christianity, so the atheists have a point. Historically, practically, etymologically and philosophically they are wrong, Christianity is special. Yes, Christianity is "special" in the same way that you were a special education student. Well it’s obvious that religion has turned you into an immoral asshole who approves of genocide, murder, rape, and robbery.  That’s why religion is so damn dangerous. Sunday School morality is a first approximation to Christian ethics. Genocide, murder, rape and robbery are certainly normally wrong. However grown ups know that these things happen, that situations are often not as simple as they first seem, and that it is not always as easy as blaming the perpetrator. You totally lack that insight. No, you lack any sort of intelligence or common sense.

That was you looking in the mirror – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Are you an American? Do you own a house? The moral course of action is not so obvious now, is it? Yes I am an American and I do own a house.  What’s your point?  I worked hard and saved my wages so I could buy my house just like all my neighbors from all over the world, and my American Indian friends.  Are you one of those assholes who think that African Americans should be sent back to Africa?

Response:

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What a crock of shite . . . Why do think it’s a crock of shite? Because virtually everyone in every shithole country in Central and South America and the Middle East believes in Hell, and it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference economically? Maybe it only works with a "Protestant Hell" and not the Catholic or Muslim one. Protestants don’t have absolution. Perhaps that’s it.

You mean Catholocism is more universal as a religion since it incorporated all religious practices into it during the Roman Empire to create less religious unemployment when elL dutchie Christ took over from the rest a da gods? The Two Babylons or The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife By the Late Rev. Alexander Hislop / 1853 (entire book!) http://philologos.org/__eb-ttb/default.htm – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – T

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What a crock of shite . . . Why do think it’s a crock of shite? Because virtually everyone in every shithole country in Central and South America and the Middle East believes in Hell, and it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference economically? Maybe it only works with a "Protestant Hell" and not the Catholic or Muslim one. It’s hard to guess where they might have chosen to dig up their data, since generally available evidence would seem to indicate the contrary. As already mentioned, while heavily Catholic Latin America has noticeable pockets of prosperity, it is largely dominated by poverty. Same for the heavily Muslim Middle East. On the other side of the ledger, I’m not aware that Hell-belief is a major component of Shinto or Buddhism, the primary religions of prosperous Japan.  In Europe, moderately to decreasingly religious Sweden and Switzerland enjoy high standards of living