| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:07:18 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (29,767K bytes) |
| Messages: | 173,683 |
Wherever we find information and we trace it
back to its source, we always come to a mind.
https://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded
with specific information for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
GOD
Wherever we find information and we trace it back to its source, we
always come to a mind.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a https://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded with specific information for
the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a GOD
Wherever we find information and we trace it
back to its source, we always come to a mind.
https://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded
with specific information for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
GOD
"Andrew" wrote:
Wherever we find information and we trace it
back to its source, we always come to a mind.
https://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded
with specific information for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
GOD
If God is the source of all DNA
then he is the source of
smallpox DNA and polio
DNA and measles DNA.
The "awesome" God.
Andrew wrote:
Wherever we find information and we trace
it back to its source, we always come to a
mind.
https://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded
with specific information for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
GOD
Oh, so, very, very wonderful! You've
made my day, Andrew!!
It's "skirts from now on!", every single
day of the year!!!
Dawn
"Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote in news:pu5yQ.105023$8N_1.75602 @fx05.ams4:
Wherever we find information and we trace it
back to its source, we always come to a mind.
https://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded
with specific information for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
GOD
If God is the source of all
DNA then he is the source of
smallpox DNA and polio DNA and
measles DNA. The "awesome" God.
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsB35C5192EFD00629555@69.80.102.13...
"Andrew" wrote:
Wherever we find information and we trace it
back to its source, we always come to a mind.
https://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded
with specific information for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
GOD
If God is the source of all DNA
God is the original Source.
then he is the source of
smallpox DNA and polio
DNA and measles DNA.
That was - after the Fall.
The "awesome" God.
He is most awesome.
On 9/16/2025 8:09 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:pu5yQ.105023$8N_1.75602 @fx05.ams4:
Wherever we find information and we trace it
back to its source, we always come to a mind.
https://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded
with specific information for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
GOD
If God is the source of all
DNA then he is the source of
smallpox DNA and polio DNA and
measles DNA. The "awesome" God.
I have tried my best over the last year or so to explain to Andrew
that both DNA & RNA are molecules, but, apparently, to no avail.
If God is the source of
Mitchell Holman wrote:
-a-a-a-a If God is the source of
The problem with DNA is twofold, and idiots like you can't
grasp it but...
It's easy to see what DNA is, it's impossible to see how it got
there.
On the best of days it's guess work.
Secondly, DNA simply does not work the way you are ordered to
believe it works.
For example, there's this chromosome 11 insert, some mtDNA that
mutated, jumped over to chromosome 11. It's often called the LM3
insert because it groups nicely with the famous "Mungo Man"
find in Australia.
NOTE:-a It is often claimed that this Mungo Man's mtDNA isn't
real, it's contamination, but that's literally impossible. See,
there was a great deal of time between the mutation that caused
the leap over to chromosome 11 and Mungo man. The two are not an
exact match.
Okay, so this LM3 insert proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that
BILLIONS of people are walking around today and can trace their
ancestry to an Eurasian ancestor living long, Long, LONG before
any Out of Africa "Eve." It even proves that there was a migration
INTO Africa!-a But it doesn't fit the narrative of the fake science
we call paleo anthropology so it's rejected. Ignored... denounced.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, nobody would have any clue of this Eurasian
ancestry -- there'd be ZERO evidence for it what so ever -- if
it weren't for this lucky mutation stuffing some mtDNA into
Chromosome 11. THAT is the only reason we know that such an
ancestor existed.
THINK (speakng rhetorically):-a Is this the only and only such
ancestor? Could no such invisible ancestors exist without a
mutation leaving a hint inside of the nuclear DNA, or is our
DNA "Evidence" blinding us to a vast array of facts?
"Andrew" wrote:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
Wherever we find information and we trace it
back to its source, we always come to a mind.
https://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded
with specific information for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
GOD
If God is the source of all DNA
God is the original Source.
then he is the source of
smallpox DNA and polio
DNA and measles DNA.
That was - after the Fall.
The Bible doesn't say that.
The "awesome" God.
He is most awesome.
When God kills innocent people
what happens to their souls?
On 9/16/2025 1:31 PM, JTEM wrote:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
-a-a-a-a If God is the source of
The problem with DNA is twofold, and idiots like you can't
grasp it but...
It's easy to see what DNA is, it's impossible to see how it got
there.
On the best of days it's guess work.
Secondly, DNA simply does not work the way you are ordered to
believe it works.
For example, there's this chromosome 11 insert, some mtDNA that
mutated, jumped over to chromosome 11. It's often called the LM3
insert because it groups nicely with the famous "Mungo Man"
find in Australia.
NOTE:-a It is often claimed that this Mungo Man's mtDNA isn't
real, it's contamination, but that's literally impossible. See,
there was a great deal of time between the mutation that caused
the leap over to chromosome 11 and Mungo man. The two are not an
exact match.
Okay, so this LM3 insert proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that
BILLIONS of people are walking around today and can trace their
ancestry to an Eurasian ancestor living long, Long, LONG before
any Out of Africa "Eve." It even proves that there was a migration
INTO Africa!-a But it doesn't fit the narrative of the fake science
we call paleo anthropology so it's rejected. Ignored... denounced.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, nobody would have any clue of this Eurasian
ancestry -- there'd be ZERO evidence for it what so ever -- if
it weren't for this lucky mutation stuffing some mtDNA into
Chromosome 11. THAT is the only reason we know that such an
ancestor existed.
THINK (speakng rhetorically):-a Is this the only and only such
ancestor? Could no such invisible ancestors exist without a
mutation leaving a hint inside of the nuclear DNA, or is our
DNA "Evidence" blinding us to a vast array of facts?
Oh, thank you
When God kills innocent people
what happens to their souls?
On 9/16/2025 8:09 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote in news:pu5yQ.105023$8N_1.75602 @fx05.ams4:
Wherever we find information and we trace it
back to its source, we always come to a mind.
https://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded
with specific information for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
GOD
If God is the source of all
DNA then he is the source of
smallpox DNA and polio DNA and
measles DNA. The "awesome" God.
I have tried my best over the last year or so to explain to Andrew that
both DNA & RNA are molecules, but, apparently, to no avail.
Dawn
Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries
The transition from the RNA to the DNA world
was a major event in the history of life.
DNA can be considered as a modified form
of RNA, since the rCLnormalrCY ribose sugar
in RNA is reduced into deoxyribose in DNA,
whereas the rCLsimplerCY base uracil is
methylated into thymidine.
The traditional explanation is that DNA
replaced RNA as genetic material because
it is more stable and can be repaired
more faithfully.
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsB35C7FEE37C91629555@69.80.102.12...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
Wherever we find information and we trace it
back to its source, we always come to a mind.
https://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded
with specific information for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
GOD
If God is the source of all DNA
God is the original Source.
then he is the source of
smallpox DNA and polio
DNA and measles DNA.
That was - after the Fall.
The Bible doesn't say that.
Yes it does.
The "awesome" God.
He is most awesome.
When God kills innocent people
what happens to their souls?
Do you consider the destiny of your
soul?
On Sep 16, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote
(Message-ID: <XnsB35C7FEE37C91629555@69.80.102.12>):
When God kills innocent people
what happens to their souls?
Where is your proof?
Proof that you believe is a reality.
I have tried my best over the last year or so to explain to Andrew
that both DNA & RNA are molecules, but, apparently, to no avail.
Dawn
"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:10ac48p$2mvjp$1@dont-email.me...
I have tried my best over the last year or so to explain to Andrew
that both DNA & RNA are molecules, but, apparently, to no avail.
Dawn
The purpose and function of DNA is to carry information.
Wherever we find information and we trace it back to its
original source, we always come to a mind.
The intelligent "mind" that placed this "information"in the
DNA, was the "mind" of our Creator ----> the living God.
"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:10ac48p$2mvjp$1@dont-email.me...
I have tried my best over the last year or so to explain to Andrew
that both DNA & RNA are molecules, but, apparently, to no avail.
Dawn
The purpose and function of DNA is to carry information.
Wherever we find information and we trace it back to its
original source, we always come to a mind.
The intelligent "mind" that placed this "information"in the
DNA, was the "mind" of our Creator ----> the living God.
"Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote in >news:%YfyQ.2948$GzG7.313@fx13.ams4:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
news:XnsB35C5192EFD00629555@69.80.102.13...
"Andrew" wrote:
Wherever we find information and we trace it
back to its source, we always come to a mind.
https://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded
with specific information for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
GOD
If God is the source of all DNA
God is the original Source.
then he is the source of
smallpox DNA and polio
DNA and measles DNA.
That was - after the Fall.
The Bible doesn't say that.
The "awesome" God.
He is most awesome.
When God kills innocent people
what happens to their souls?
The "awesome" God.
He is most awesome.
When God kills innocent people
what happens to their souls?
Do you consider the destiny of your
soul?
On Sep 16, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote
(Message-ID: <XnsB35C7FEE37C91629555@69.80.102.12>):
When God kills innocent people
what happens to their souls?
Where is your proof?
Proof that you believe is a reality.
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 17:42:39 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
"Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote in >>news:%YfyQ.2948$GzG7.313@fx13.ams4:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
news:XnsB35C5192EFD00629555@69.80.102.13...
"Andrew" wrote:
Wherever we find information and we trace it
back to its source, we always come to a mind.
https://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded
with specific information for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
GOD
If God is the source of all DNA
God is the original Source.
then he is the source of
smallpox DNA and polio
DNA and measles DNA.
That was - after the Fall.
The Bible doesn't say that.
The "awesome" God.
He is most awesome.
When God kills innocent people
what happens to their souls?
Here's the standard Christian reply:
Due to original sin, no one is innocent.
Because of the actions of two people thousands upon thousands of
years ago, we're all screwed. And we will be sent to Hell as a result
from the very deity who made the rule, and can just forgive. But he
refuses, ensuring every human will be doomed to Hell for eternity.
But he LOVES you.
"Andrew" wrote:
I have tried my best over the last year or so to explain to Andrew
that both DNA & RNA are molecules, but, apparently, to no avail.
Dawn
The purpose and function of DNA is to carry information.
Wherever we find information and we trace it back to its
original source, we always come to a mind.
The intelligent "mind" that placed this "information"in the
DNA, was the "mind" of our Creator ----> the living God.
You can't have a mind without DNA.
That is an immutable LAW OF SCIENCE.
No DNA, no mind.
"And he needs MONEY"
Because of the actions of two people thousands upon thousands of
years ago, we're all screwed. And we will be sent to Hell as a result
from the very deity who made the rule, and can just forgive. But he
refuses, ensuring every human will be doomed to Hell for eternity.
But he LOVES you.
"Samuel Spade" wrote in message news:rpnkcktmi5qr6m3cs7qf3b9r1j2a1t770p@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
I have tried my best over the last year or so to explain to Andrew
that both DNA & RNA are molecules, but, apparently, to no avail.
Dawn
The purpose and function of DNA is to carry information.
Wherever we find information and we trace it back to its
original source, we always come to a mind.
The intelligent "mind" that placed this "information"in the
DNA, was the "mind" of our Creator ----> the living God.
You can't have a mind without DNA.
That is an immutable LAW OF SCIENCE.
No DNA, no mind.
Therefore since DNA does exist, we may know that there
had to have been a Creator that was greater than DNA to
have created it. That Creator was,
God
"Kenito Benito" wrote in message news:qaskckptij8sgsrda07qunr6954kn2mv8n@4ax.com...
Because of the actions of two people thousands upon thousands of
years ago, we're all screwed. And we will be sent to Hell as a result
from the very deity who made the rule, and can just forgive. But he refuses, ensuring every human will be doomed to Hell for eternity.
But he LOVES you.
That is a satanic deception, yet you have accepted it in
your foolish attempt to justify your personal rebellion
against the God who sent Jesus that you may have life
eternanl in the realms of glory.
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 17:29:03 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 16, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote
(Message-ID: <XnsB35C7FEE37C91629555@69.80.102.12>):
When God kills innocent people
what happens to their souls?
Where is your proof?
Exodus.
Proof that you believe is a reality.
You want Mitchell to prove a question? Wow. That is a means of
avoidance I don't recall ever seeing before. Bravo.
Your processing process has been corrupted.
In all of known history, there has never been a mind without DNA.
Therefore DNA came first.
"Kenito Benito" wrote in message news:qaskckptij8sgsrda07qunr6954kn2mv8n@4ax.com...
Because of the actions of two people thousands upon thousands of
years ago, we're all screwed. And we will be sent to Hell as a result
from the very deity who made the rule, and can just forgive. But he
refuses, ensuring every human will be doomed to Hell for eternity.
But he LOVES you.
That is a satanic deception, yet you have accepted it in
your foolish attempt to justify your personal rebellion
against the God who sent Jesus that you may have life
eternanl in the realms of glory.
Samuel Spade wrote:
In all of known history, there has never been a mind without DNA.
Therefore DNA came first.
That's a very poor "Argument." VERY poor.
There is no known example of life ever coming from non-life.
No spontaneously forming life on record anywhere.
So, by your argument, life had to come from life i.e. creationism.
"Andrew" wrote:
"Kenito Benito" wrote:
Because of the actions of two people thousands upon thousands of
years ago, we're all screwed. And we will be sent to Hell as a result
from the very deity who made the rule, and can just forgive. But he
refuses, ensuring every human will be doomed to Hell for eternity.
But he LOVES you.
That is a satanic deception, yet you have accepted it in
your foolish attempt to justify your personal rebellion
against the God who sent Jesus that you may have life
eternanl in the realms of glory.
So your position is that your god does NOT love us?
How odd.
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10ag3ns$3lhcp$1@dont-email.me...
-aSamuel Spade wrote:
In all of known history, there has never been a mind without DNA.
Therefore DNA came first.
That's a very poor "Argument." VERY poor.
There is no known example of life ever coming from non-life.
No spontaneously forming life on record anywhere.
So, by your argument, life had to come from life i.e. creationism.
Excellent argument.
Also irrefutable.
Andrew wrote:
"JTEM" wrote:
Samuel Spade wrote:
In all of known history, there has never been a mind without DNA.
Therefore DNA came first.
That's a very poor "Argument." VERY poor.
There is no known example of life ever coming from non-life.
No spontaneously forming life on record anywhere.
So, by your argument, life had to come from life i.e. creationism.
Excellent argument.
Also irrefutable.
You know what's odd?
Let's say that there's a big announcement tomorrow, that scientist
announce that they created life from non-life under laboratory
conditions.
Yup. They ensure us that they began with an absolutely sterile
environment -- completely devoid of any living thing -- and under
the strictest laboratory conditions they turned it into life...
What would this prove?
No, it wouldn't prove that aabiogenesis happened. It wouldn't prove
that life ever spontaneously formed on earth. Nope. What it would
prove is...
It would prove that CREATIONISM is possible! In fact, it would be
an example of creationism!
If scientists ever coaxed non living material into spontaneously
generating life (something that has never happened) it would be an
example of an intelligence creating life by design.
"Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote in news:PemyQ.3254$GzG7.1706@fx13.ams4:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
news:XnsB35C7FEE37C91629555@69.80.102.12...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
Wherever we find information and we trace it
back to its source, we always come to a mind.
https://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded
with specific information for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
GOD
If God is the source of all DNA
God is the original Source.
then he is the source of
smallpox DNA and polio
DNA and measles DNA.
That was - after the Fall.
The Bible doesn't say that.
Yes it does.
I would ask for a Bible passage
proving that but you will just run
away.
The "awesome" God.
He is most awesome.
When God kills innocent people
what happens to their souls?
Do you consider the destiny of your
soul?
On 9/16/25 6:03 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/16/2025 1:31 PM, JTEM wrote:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
-a-a-a-a If God is the source of
The problem with DNA is twofold, and idiots like you can't
grasp it but...
It's easy to see what DNA is, it's impossible to see how it got
there.
On the best of days it's guess work.
Secondly, DNA simply does not work the way you are ordered to
believe it works.
For example, there's this chromosome 11 insert, some mtDNA that
mutated, jumped over to chromosome 11. It's often called the LM3
insert because it groups nicely with the famous "Mungo Man"
find in Australia.
NOTE:-a It is often claimed that this Mungo Man's mtDNA isn't
real, it's contamination, but that's literally impossible. See,
there was a great deal of time between the mutation that caused
the leap over to chromosome 11 and Mungo man. The two are not an
exact match.
Okay, so this LM3 insert proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that
BILLIONS of people are walking around today and can trace their
ancestry to an Eurasian ancestor living long, Long, LONG before
any Out of Africa "Eve." It even proves that there was a migration
INTO Africa!-a But it doesn't fit the narrative of the fake science
we call paleo anthropology so it's rejected. Ignored... denounced.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, nobody would have any clue of this Eurasian
ancestry -- there'd be ZERO evidence for it what so ever -- if
it weren't for this lucky mutation stuffing some mtDNA into
Chromosome 11. THAT is the only reason we know that such an
ancestor existed.
THINK (speakng rhetorically):-a Is this the only and only such
ancestor? Could no such invisible ancestors exist without a
mutation leaving a hint inside of the nuclear DNA, or is our
DNA "Evidence" blinding us to a vast array of facts?
Oh, thank you
You are as ignorant as the day is long. Then you pull down the shade
and still ignorant all through the night...
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsB35C7FEE37C91629555@69.80.102.12...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
Wherever we find information and we trace it back to its source, we >>>>> always come to a mind.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a https://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded with specific information
for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a GOD
-a-a If God is the source of all DNA
God is the original Source.
then he is the source of smallpox DNA and polio DNA and measles DNA.
That was - after the Fall.
-a The Bible doesn't say that.
Yes it does.
The "awesome" God.
He is most awesome.
-a-a When God kills innocent people what happens to their souls?
Do you consider the destiny of your soul?
"Kenito Benito" wrote in message news:qaskckptij8sgsrda07qunr6954kn2mv8n@4ax.com...
-a-a-a Because of the actions of two people thousands upon thousands of
years ago, we're all screwed. And we will be sent to Hell as a result
from the very deity who made the rule, and can just forgive. But he
refuses, ensuring every human will be doomed to Hell for eternity.
But he LOVES you.
That is a satanic deception, yet you have accepted it in
your foolish attempt to justify your personal rebellion
against the God who sent Jesus that you may have life
eternanl in the realms of glory.
Honey
On 9/18/25 9:37 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Honey
I am sweet, but not that desperate. Sorry.
Andrew wrote:
"Kenito Benito" wrote:
Because of the actions of two people thousands upon thousands of
years ago, we're all screwed. And we will be sent to Hell as a result
from the very deity who made the rule, and can just forgive. But he
refuses, ensuring every human will be doomed to Hell for eternity.
But he LOVES you.
That is a satanic deception, yet you have accepted it in
your foolish attempt to justify your personal rebellion
against the God who sent Jesus that you may have life
eternanl in the realms of glory.
No, it's all due to alien mind control! They're all sitting
around in the 11th dimension laughing their alien asses
off!!
Andrew wrote:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
Wherever we find information and we trace
it back to its source, we always come to a mind.
https://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded
with specific information for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
GOD
If God is the source of all DNA
God is the original Source.
then he is the source of smallpox DNA
and polio DNA and measles DNA.
That was - after the Fall.
The Bible doesn't say that.
Yes it does.
The "awesome" God.
He is most awesome.
When God kills innocent people what
happens to their souls?
Do you consider the destiny of your soul?
No brain means no mind, which means
no soul; it's all "in your head."
"Kenito Benito" wrote in message news:asdnck1upe5umo14il1o4er54a6n3qlace@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Kenito Benito" wrote:
Because of the actions of two people thousands upon thousands of
years ago, we're all screwed. And we will be sent to Hell as a result
from the very deity who made the rule, and can just forgive. But he
refuses, ensuring every human will be doomed to Hell for eternity.
But he LOVES you.
That is a satanic deception, yet you have accepted it in
your foolish attempt to justify your personal rebellion
against the God who sent Jesus that you may have life
eternanl in the realms of glory.
So your position is that your god does NOT love us?
How odd.
You know that is a lie.
You have deliberately lied.
Therefore you are a liar.
"Andrew" wrote:
"Kenito Benito" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Kenito Benito" wrote:
Because of the actions of two people thousands upon thousands of >>>>> years ago, we're all screwed. And we will be sent to Hell as a result >>>>> from the very deity who made the rule, and can just forgive. But he
refuses, ensuring every human will be doomed to Hell for eternity.
But he LOVES you.
That is a satanic deception, yet you have accepted it in
your foolish attempt to justify your personal rebellion
against the God who sent Jesus that you may have life
eternanl in the realms of glory.
So your position is that your god does NOT love us?
How odd.
You know that is a lie.
You have deliberately lied.
Therefore you are a liar.
I asked a question to make certain I properly understood your
position. Clearly I did. If not, you would have let me know.
When I point out, as seen above, "But he LOVES you." you proclaim
it's a satanic deception. The ONLY way you can hold that view is if
your god does not love us.
Either you believe he does not love us, or you lied. Which is it?
I'll accept either answer. But I expect you to try to divert from your
claim.
"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:10aicg2$7eg0$6@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
Wherever we find information and we trace it back to its source, >>>>>>> we always come to a mind.
https://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded with specific
information-a for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a GOD
If God is the source of all DNA
God is the original Source.
-athen he is the source of smallpox DNA -aand polio DNA and measles >>>>>> DNA.
That was - after the Fall.
The Bible doesn't say that.
Yes it does.
The "awesome" God.
He is most awesome.
When God kills innocent people what -ahappens to their souls?
Do you consider the destiny of your soul?
-aNo brain means no mind, which means -ano soul; it's all "in your head."
It is no problem for God to raise us from
the dead. He raised Jesus from the dead. He will raise you also.
"Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming
in which 'all' that are in the graves shall hear His voice and shall
come forth - they that have done good, unto the resurrection of
life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."-a-a-a-a-a ~ Jesus
"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:10aicd4$7eg0$5@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
"Kenito Benito" wrote:
Because of the actions of two people thousands upon thousands of
years ago, we're all screwed. And we will be sent to Hell as a result
from the very deity who made the rule, and can just forgive. But he
refuses, ensuring every human will be doomed to Hell for eternity.
But he LOVES you.
That is a satanic deception, yet you have accepted it in
your foolish attempt to justify your personal rebellion
against the God who sent Jesus that you may have life
eternanl in the realms of glory.
No, it's all due to alien mind control!-a They're all sitting around in
the 11th dimension laughing their alien asses off!!
Unfortunately the medicine they have you on has not helped.
However I hope you are happy.
On 9/18/2025 11:31 PM, Andrew wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:10aicg2$7eg0$6@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
Wherever we find information and we trace it back to its source,
we always come to a mind.
https://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded with specific information for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
GOD
If God is the source of all DNA
God is the original Source.
then he is the source of smallpox DNAand polio DNA and measles DNA.
That was - after the Fall.
The Bible doesn't say that.
Yes it does.
The "awesome" God.
He is most awesome.
When God kills innocent people what happens to their souls?
Do you consider the destiny of your soul?
No brain means no mind, which means no soul; it's all "in your head."
It is no problem for God to raise us from
the dead. He raised Jesus from the dead. He will raise you also.
"Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming
in which 'all' that are in the graves shall hear His voice and shall
come forth - they that have done good, unto the resurrection of
life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of
damnation." ~ Jesus
As long as I weigh less with much fewer wrinkles and no split ends, I am completely okay with that!! I also want new clothes -- standard tee,
mid-calf tiered skirt & sandals will be just fine!
Dawn
Wherever we find information and we trace it back to its source,
we always come to a mind.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a https://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded with specific
information for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a GOD
"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:10abn1m$2j2jj$2@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Wherever we find information and we trace
it back to its source, we always come to a mind.
-ahttps://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded with specific
information for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
-aGOD
Oh, so, very, very wonderful!-a You've made my day, Andrew!!
Then I'm so thankful you were blessed.
It's "skirts from now on!", every single day of the year!!!
I hope you are happy, every single day of
the year!!!
Dawn
~ Andrew
Andrew wrote:
Wherever we find information and we trace it back to its source,
we always come to a mind.
https://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded with specific
information for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
GOD
why does god need a mechanistic system like dna to have life
running?
why not just run on power of magic? ie. humans cannot explain how
anything occurs, except the power of magic.
Andrew wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:10abn1m$2j2jj$2@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Wherever we find information and we trace
it back to its source, we always come to a mind.
-ahttps://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded with specific information
for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
-aGOD
Oh, so, very, very wonderful!-a You've made my day, Andrew!!
Then I'm so thankful you were blessed.
It's "skirts from now on!", every single day of the year!!!
I hope you are happy, every single day of
the year!!!
Dawn
~ Andrew
just noticed this, @dawn, there is no need to sign your name on usenet posts. this is like texts basically.
"Kenito Benito" wrote in message news:4e4qck18oui23sbsklop5dbd46rgl2uu36@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Kenito Benito" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Kenito Benito" wrote:
Because of the actions of two people thousands upon thousands of >>>>>> years ago, we're all screwed. And we will be sent to Hell as a result >>>>>> from the very deity who made the rule, and can just forgive. But he >>>>>> refuses, ensuring every human will be doomed to Hell for eternity. >>>>>> But he LOVES you.
That is a satanic deception, yet you have accepted it in
your foolish attempt to justify your personal rebellion
against the God who sent Jesus that you may have life
eternanl in the realms of glory.
So your position is that your god does NOT love us?
How odd.
You know that is a lie.
You have deliberately lied.
Therefore you are a liar.
I asked a question to make certain I properly understood your
position. Clearly I did. If not, you would have let me know.
I did.
When I point out, as seen above, "But he LOVES you." you proclaim
it's a satanic deception. The ONLY way you can hold that view is if
your god does not love us.
Either you believe he does not love us, or you lied. Which is it?
I'll accept either answer. But I expect you to try to divert from your
claim.
The, "But he LOVES you." was clearly a cynical,
sarcastic statement.in the context of which it was
written.
You knew that.
My best guess is that Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher who
got on the "bad side" of the Romans, and they dealt with him in the
"Roman way."
"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:10al6le$ss81$1@dont-email.me...
My best guess is that Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher who
got on the "bad side" of the Romans, and they dealt with him in the
"Roman way."
No, according to the Bible it was not particularly
the Romans, but the religious authorities of that time.
After they arrested Jesus they brought Him to the Roman governor of
Judaea, Pontius Pilate. They
even had to wake him up.
So it wasn't the Romans, but the Jewish leaders
who officially rejected Him, and demanded for
Him to be crucified.
Oh, sure, and the Gospels also record that "the sky becomes (became)
dark in daytime during the crucifixion of Jesus for roughly three hours..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_darkness
I don't believe it; in my opinion, it was "a theological and literary creation" (per the late scholar Raymond E. Brown.)
Believe such things, if you wish; I don't.
On 9/19/2025 2:52 PM, jojo wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote in message
news:10abn1m$2j2jj$2@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Wherever we find information and we trace
it back to its source, we always come to a mind.
-ahttps://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded with specific
information for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
-aGOD
Oh, so, very, very wonderful!-a You've made my day, Andrew!!
Then I'm so thankful you were blessed.
It's "skirts from now on!", every single day of the year!!!
I hope you are happy, every single day of
the year!!!
Dawn
~ Andrew
just noticed this, @dawn, there is no need to sign your name on
usenet posts. this is like texts basically.
It helps me separate my replies from those of others; feel free
to delete it, of course!
Andrew wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote:
My best guess is that Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher who
got on the "bad side" of the Romans, and they dealt with him in the
"Roman way."
No, according to the Bible it was not particularly
the Romans, but the religious authorities of that time.
After they arrested Jesus they brought Him to the
Roman governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate. They
even had to wake him up.
So it wasn't the Romans, but the Jewish leaders
who officially rejected Him, and demanded for
Him to be crucified.
Oh, sure, and the Gospels also record that "the sky becomes (became)
dark in daytime during the crucifixion of Jesus for roughly three hours..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_darkness
I don't believe it; in my opinion, it was "a theological and literary creation" (per the late scholar Raymond E. Brown.)
Believe such things, if you wish; I don't.
"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:10al6le$ss81$1@dont-email.me...
My best guess is that Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher who
got on the "bad side" of the Romans, and they dealt with him in the
"Roman way."
No, according to the Bible it was not particularly
the Romans, but the religious authorities of that
time.
After they arrested Jesus they brought Him to the
Roman governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate. They
even had to wake him up.
So it wasn't the Romans, but the Jewish leaders
who officially rejected Him, and demanded for
Him to be crucified.
On 9/20/25 12:34 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Oh, sure, and the Gospels also record that "the sky becomes (became)
dark in daytime during the crucifixion of Jesus for roughly three
hours..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_darkness
I don't believe it; in my opinion, it was "a theological and literary
creation" (per the late scholar Raymond E. Brown.)
Believe such things, if you wish; I don't.
It's also important to note that the sky does become dark at fairly
regular intervals -- an eclipse -- that volcanoes and asteroid strikes
can and have resulted in darkness.
It's also gotten bright in the middle of the night!
One thing that can do it is an asteroid, of course... detonating
within the atmosphere with the force of a nuclear weapon.
Mind you, I am a huge proponent to the "Jesus was a latter day
invention." Which means the whole goddamn thing -- every word of
it -- is a literary invention!
"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:10aml2r$17dnq$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote:
My best guess is that Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher who
got on the "bad side" of the Romans, and they dealt with him in the
"Roman way."
No, according to the Bible it was not particularly
the Romans, but the religious authorities of that time.
After they arrested Jesus they brought Him to the
Roman governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate. They
even had to wake him up.
So it wasn't the Romans, but the Jewish leaders
who officially rejected Him, and demanded for
Him to be crucified.
Oh, sure, and the Gospels also record that "the sky becomes (became)
dark in daytime during the crucifixion of Jesus for roughly three
hours..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_darkness
I don't believe it; in my opinion, it was "a theological and literary
creation" (per the late scholar Raymond E. Brown.)
Believe such things, if you wish; I don't.
Thanks Dawn, I hope you have a really nice day!
Bye!
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/19/2025 2:52 PM, jojo wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:10abn1m$2j2jj$2@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Wherever we find information and we trace
it back to its source, we always come to a mind.
-ahttps://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded with specific information >>>>>> for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
-aGOD
Oh, so, very, very wonderful!-a You've made my day, Andrew!!
Then I'm so thankful you were blessed.
It's "skirts from now on!", every single day of the year!!!
I hope you are happy, every single day of
the year!!!
Dawn
~ Andrew
just noticed this, @dawn, there is no need to sign your name on
usenet posts. this is like texts basically.
It helps me separate my replies from those of others; feel free to
delete it, of course!
oh, there are two really good solutions, i will post them. one is an
addon and the other is adding a file in your profile folder to color the replies. i have the profile file, have to search what it was..
Andrew wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote:
My best guess is that Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher who
got on the "bad side" of the Romans, and they dealt with him in the >>>>> "Roman way."
No, according to the Bible it was not particularly
the Romans, but the religious authorities of that time.
After they arrested Jesus they brought Him to the
Roman governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate. They
even had to wake him up.
So it wasn't the Romans, but the Jewish leaders
who officially rejected Him, and demanded for
Him to be crucified.
Oh, sure, and the Gospels also record that "the sky becomes (became)
dark in daytime during the crucifixion of Jesus for roughly three
hours..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_darkness
I don't believe it; in my opinion, it was "a theological and literary
creation" (per the late scholar Raymond E. Brown.)
Believe such things, if you wish; I don't.
Thanks Dawn, I hope you have a really nice day!
Bye!
You, too, Andrew! Fall is coming
soon, and, so, it's "skirt weather"!
"Andrew" wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote:
My best guess is that Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher who
got on the "bad side" of the Romans, and they dealt with him in the
"Roman way."
No, according to the Bible it was not particularly
the Romans, but the religious authorities of that
time.
After they arrested Jesus they brought Him to the
Roman governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate. They
even had to wake him up.
Pontius Pilate was from the Samnite clan of the Pontii.
So it wasn't the Romans, but the Jewish leaders
who officially rejected Him, and demanded for
Him to be crucified.
Crucifixion was the method of execution used by the Romans.
Jewish leaders would have lobbied for stoning. The Bible only states
the Jews wanted Jesus killed. Since crucifixion was the method used by
the Romans at the time for certain offences, that was the method used.
The Jews had little say in the method of punishment used.
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him to
be crucified.
After they arrested Jesus they brought Him to the
Roman governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate. They
even had to wake him up.
Pontius Pilate was from the Samnite clan of the Pontii.
So it wasn't the Romans, but the Jewish leaders
who officially rejected Him, and demanded for
Him to be crucified.
Crucifixion was the method of execution used by the Romans.
Jewish leaders would have lobbied for stoning. The Bible only states
the Jews wanted Jesus killed. Since crucifixion was the method used by
the Romans at the time for certain offences, that was the method used.
The Jews had little say in the method of punishment used.
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically
for Him to be crucified.
"Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to
them. But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him."
~ Luke 23:20 -21
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated
Jews as the bad guys.
Look at the "Jewish" rebellions -- plural -- if you want to know
why the Romans would want to do that.
"Andrew" wrote:
[...]
After they arrested Jesus they brought Him to the
Roman governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate. They
even had to wake him up.
Pontius Pilate was from the Samnite clan of the Pontii.
So it wasn't the Romans, but the Jewish leaders
who officially rejected Him, and demanded for
Him to be crucified.
Crucifixion was the method of execution used by the Romans.
Jewish leaders would have lobbied for stoning. The Bible only states
the Jews wanted Jesus killed. Since crucifixion was the method used by
the Romans at the time for certain offences, that was the method used.
The Jews had little say in the method of punishment used.
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically
for Him to be crucified.
"Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to
them. But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him."
~ Luke 23:20 -21
Due to it being the method of execution Rome
used for such crimes.
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him to >>> be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Look at the "Jewish" rebellions -- plural -- if you want to know
why the Romans would want to do that.
That's for sure. The Romans slaughtered them big time in 70 AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%2870_CE%29
"Kenito Benito" wrote in message news:r5v1dk1csp271mug5tskjjoijvv0bbpgf4@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
[...]
After they arrested Jesus they brought Him to the Roman governor of >>>>> Judaea, Pontius Pilate. They
even had to wake him up.
-a-a-a Pontius Pilate was from the Samnite clan of the Pontii.
So it wasn't the Romans, but the Jewish leaders
who officially rejected Him, and demanded for
Him to be crucified.
-a-a-a Crucifixion was the method of execution used by the Romans.
Jewish leaders would have lobbied for stoning. The Bible only states
the Jews wanted Jesus killed. Since crucifixion was the method used by >>>> the Romans at the time for certain offences, that was the method used. >>>> The Jews had little say in the method of punishment used.
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him
to be crucified.
"Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to
them. But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him."
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ~ Luke 23:20 -21
-a-a Due to it being the method of execution Rome -a-a used for such crimes.
Why do you think they hated Him so vehemently?
"Andrew" wrote:
"JTEM" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him to >>>> be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church,
so they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible
when they made up their stories about Jesus.
Look at the "Jewish" rebellions -- plural -- if you want to know
why the Romans would want to do that.
That's for sure. The Romans slaughtered them big time in 70 AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%2870_CE%29
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"JTEM" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him to >>>>> be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church,
The early Christian church were Jews...converted by the
powerful truth that Jesus was the Messiah in fulfillment
of all the messianic prophecies that were given to them.
so they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible
when they made up their stories about Jesus.
Jesus was Jewish and was the anti-type of the prophetic
symbols that were given to them..The apostle Paul based
much of his evangelical efforts on the Jewish scriptures.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2Look at the "Jewish" rebellions -- plural -- if you want to know
why the Romans would want to do that.
That's for sure. The Romans slaughtered them big time in 70 AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%2870_CE%29
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him to be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church, so
they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they made
up their stories about Jesus.
Look at the "Jewish" rebellions -- plural -- if you want to know
why the Romans would want to do that.
That's for sure. The Romans slaughtered them big time in 70 AD.
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"JTEM" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church,
The early Christian church were Jews...converted by the
powerful truth that Jesus was the Messiah in fulfillment
of all the messianic prophecies that were given to them.
so they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible
when they made up their stories about Jesus.
Jesus was Jewish and was the anti-type of the prophetic
symbols that were given to them..The apostle Paul based
much of his evangelical efforts on the Jewish scriptures.
Look at the "Jewish" rebellions -- plural -- if you want to know
why the Romans would want to do that.
That's for sure. The Romans slaughtered them big time in 70 AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%2870_CE%29
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 13:12:16 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
[...]
After they arrested Jesus they brought Him to the
Roman governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate. They
even had to wake him up.
Pontius Pilate was from the Samnite clan of the Pontii.
So it wasn't the Romans, but the Jewish leaders
who officially rejected Him, and demanded for
Him to be crucified.
Crucifixion was the method of execution used by the Romans.
Jewish leaders would have lobbied for stoning. The Bible only states
the Jews wanted Jesus killed. Since crucifixion was the method used by the Romans at the time for certain offences, that was the method used. The Jews had little say in the method of punishment used.
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically
for Him to be crucified.
"Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to
them. But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him."
Luke 23:20 -21
Due to it being the method of execution Rome used for such crimes.
On 9/22/2025 5:20 AM, Andrew wrote:
"Kenito Benito" wrote in message news:r5v1dk1csp271mug5tskjjoijvv0bbpgf4@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
[...]
After they arrested Jesus they brought Him to the Roman governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate. They
even had to wake him up.
Pontius Pilate was from the Samnite clan of the Pontii.
So it wasn't the Romans, but the Jewish leaders
who officially rejected Him, and demanded for
Him to be crucified.
Crucifixion was the method of execution used by the Romans.
Jewish leaders would have lobbied for stoning. The Bible only states the Jews wanted Jesus killed. Since crucifixion was the method used by
the Romans at the time for certain offences, that was the method used.
The Jews had little say in the method of punishment used.
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him
to be crucified.
"Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to
them. But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him."
Luke 23:20 -21
Due to it being the method of execution Rome used for such crimes.
Why do you think they hated Him so vehemently?
The Romans didn't hate Jesus, nor did the Jews. Jesus, his followers
and the Jews (but, not the Romans) all believed that our World was flat,
and Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who taught that the "Son of Man",
an angelic being, would come down from Heaven and vanquish the Romans.
When Jesus showed-up in the Temple with his message, he got arrested and thrown into the "Roman tank". He was examined, deemed guilty of
sedition against the Empire, and Pilate gave the order.
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote >(Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church, so
they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they made
up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the beginning.
The priests were the ones who stirred up the population against Jesus. Not >all, as there were some who were followers of Jesus secretly. The High Priest >of Israel at the time of the birth of Jesus believed that the Messiah was >coming, were looking for him, and even recognized Jesus as the Messiah when >he was presented to them soon after his birth, and they rejoiced. John the >Baptist Was a cousin of his, who grew up not knowing Jesus personally.
You also learned these things when you were young, So whatAs with these >lies?
Look at the "Jewish" rebellions -- plural -- if you want to know
why the Romans would want to do that.
That's for sure. The Romans slaughtered them big time in 70 AD.
The Jews, just like other nations, did not like the Romans ruling them.
They knew the land was theirs, granted to them by God. While they followed >the religion of Judaism, many did not actually follow God but only gave him >lip service. Just like so many achristiansA do today.
One of the things that the Romans did was to allow the peoples who they >conquered to follow their respective religions/gods within limitations. In >that manner they allowed the High Priests position of Judaism, however, they >changed the position to one that required a new High Priest every year. Some >were believers in God others used it as a position of authority and power >over the people. The High priests worked with the roman government within >their rules for the most part and the High Priests were given a squadron of >soldiers to use as they deemed necessary to keep the people in line under >mosaic laws, and other purposes within the confines of Roman law. Yet many of >the Jews sought their freedom and were rebellious, for good reasons, but were >not strong enough to fight the empire successfully.
Death penalties were under the purview of the Romans. There was a custom for >that worked out with the Jews whereby a person could be set free, that they >all abided by, and this was done to keep the lid on the Jews yet with a vent.
The Jews, as taught by the prophets of God, in the days of old taught of the >messiah that was to come. Yet many were focused solely on the promise that >God, through the Messiah would set up Israel as their ruler, and as such, he >would rule over all the nations of the world, with power and authority. Thus >they would be sitting in a prestigious place, and for that they were looking.
Even his disciples questioned him about that, so deeply was it engrained into >their culture. But the Jews did not recognize officially that he was to be >killed first as a sacrifice for their sins. That he would also have followers >who were not jews. Even though that was written about in many books in the >OT. They were just looking or focused on the ending that would set them up as >a ruling nation.
As such today many christians reflect the attitudes and thoughts of those Jew >in that day. And like them they religiously follow the teachings of Jesus >Christ, but not with their hearts, only with their minds. So just like them >they see, but do not see.
There will be and it is already present, a persecution of Believers in Jesus, >by religious peoples. Part of the participants against them will be and >quietly is already happening by the so-called achristiansA who despise
those people in whom the Spirit of the Almighty God resides.Especially those >through whom the gifts of Gods Spirit operates. In coming days that will >greatly intensify, as predicted in the Bible as well.
I am stopping at this point as this is most likely more than many can bear at >this time. I will keep the door open for a while, since you all keep posting >in the achristianA NGAs but solely for purposes of open discussion and
not for character assassinations.
On Sep 22, 2025, Kenito Benito wrote (Message-ID:<r5v1dk1csp271mug5tskjjoijvv0bbpgf4@4ax.com>):
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 13:12:16 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
[...]
After they arrested Jesus they brought Him to the
Roman governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate. They
even had to wake him up.
Pontius Pilate was from the Samnite clan of the Pontii.
So it wasn't the Romans, but the Jewish leaders
who officially rejected Him, and demanded for
Him to be crucified.
Crucifixion was the method of execution used by the Romans.
Jewish leaders would have lobbied for stoning. The Bible only states
the Jews wanted Jesus killed. Since crucifixion was the method used by >>>> the Romans at the time for certain offences, that was the method used. >>>> The Jews had little say in the method of punishment used.
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically
for Him to be crucified.
"Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to
them. But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him."
Luke 23:20 -21
Due to it being the method of execution Rome used for such crimes.
It was Not the method of execution for crimes as you think, for Jesus committed no crime worthy of a death penalty under the Roman law, which was very specific in such matters. Plus this point was very clearly stated by Pilate as he washed his hands of the whole affair and did so openly and publicly.
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None <none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote >(Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church, so
they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they made
up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the beginning.
But then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional rift
between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the
Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good graces.
So they vilified the non-Messianic Jews (referred to as simply "the
Jews"), blaming them for Jesus' death and attacking Jewish sects like
the Pharisees as they wrote the Gospels.
The priests were the ones who stirred up the population against Jesus. Not >all, as there were some who were followers of Jesus secretly. The High Priest
of Israel at the time of the birth of Jesus believed that the Messiah was >coming, were looking for him, and even recognized Jesus as the Messiah when >he was presented to them soon after his birth, and they rejoiced. John the >Baptist Was a cousin of his, who grew up not knowing Jesus personally.
No, crucifixion is a quintessentially Roman mode of execution. It
wasn't the Jews who stirred up the population against Jesus, but the
Roman authorities. Jesus' claim to be the Messiah was politically
dangerous enough for the Romans to look into the situation, found that
he was indeed guilty of sedition, and executed him for that reason.
You also learned these things when you were young, So whatAs with these >lies?
Look, liar, you know it's stupid to place too much historical weight
on the legends and stories in the gospels, and yet you continue to do
it. Why is that?
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 07:41:08 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"JTEM" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church,
The early Christian church were Jews...converted by the
powerful truth that Jesus was the Messiah in fulfillment
of all the messianic prophecies that were given to them.
Ethnically, they were Jews, but theologically, Christians are *not*
Jewish.
so they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible
when they made up their stories about Jesus.
Jesus was Jewish and was the anti-type of the prophetic
symbols that were given to them..The apostle Paul based
much of his evangelical efforts on the Jewish scriptures.
There was no Old Testament basis for believing that Jesus was the
Messiah. For example, the "Suffering Servant" of the book of Isaiah
refers to the Jewish nation, not Jesus of Nazareth.
Look at the "Jewish" rebellions -- plural -- if you want to know
why the Romans would want to do that.
That's for sure. The Romans slaughtered them big time in 70 AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%2870_CE%29
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church, so
they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they made
up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the beginning.
But then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional rift
between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the
Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good graces.
So they vilified the non-Messianic Jews (referred to as simply "the
Jews"), blaming them for Jesus' death and attacking Jewish sects like
the Pharisees as they wrote the Gospels.
The priests were the ones who stirred up the population against Jesus. Not all, as there were some who were followers of Jesus secretly. The High Priest
of Israel at the time of the birth of Jesus believed that the Messiah was coming, were looking for him, and even recognized Jesus as the Messiah when he was presented to them soon after his birth, and they rejoiced. John the Baptist Was a cousin of his, who grew up not knowing Jesus personally.
No, crucifixion is a quintessentially Roman mode of execution. It
wasn't the Jews who stirred up the population against Jesus, but the
Roman authorities. Jesus' claim to be the Messiah was politically
dangerous enough for the Romans to look into the situation, found that
he was indeed guilty of sedition, and executed him for that reason.
You also learned these things when you were young, So whatrCOs with these lies?
Look, liar, you know it's stupid to place too much historical weight
on the legends and stories in the gospels, and yet you continue to do
it. Why is that?
Look at the "Jewish" rebellions -- plural -- if you want to know
why the Romans would want to do that.
That's for sure. The Romans slaughtered them big time in 70 AD.
The Jews, just like other nations, did not like the Romans ruling them. They knew the land was theirs, granted to them by God. While they followed the religion of Judaism, many did not actually follow God but only gave him lip service. Just like so many rCychristiansrCO do today.
One of the things that the Romans did was to allow the peoples who they conquered to follow their respective religions/gods within limitations. In that manner they allowed the High Priests position of Judaism, however, they
changed the position to one that required a new High Priest every year. Some
were believers in God others used it as a position of authority and power over the people. The High priests worked with the roman government within their rules for the most part and the High Priests were given a squadron of soldiers to use as they deemed necessary to keep the people in line under mosaic laws, and other purposes within the confines of Roman law. Yet many of
the Jews sought their freedom and were rebellious, for good reasons, but were
not strong enough to fight the empire successfully.
Death penalties were under the purview of the Romans. There was a custom for
that worked out with the Jews whereby a person could be set free, that they all abided by, and this was done to keep the lid on the Jews yet with a vent.
The Jews, as taught by the prophets of God, in the days of old taught of the
messiah that was to come. Yet many were focused solely on the promise that God, through the Messiah would set up Israel as their ruler, and as such, he
would rule over all the nations of the world, with power and authority. Thus
they would be sitting in a prestigious place, and for that they were looking.
Even his disciples questioned him about that, so deeply was it engrained into their culture. But the Jews did not recognize officially that he was to be
killed first as a sacrifice for their sins. That he would also have followers
who were not jews. Even though that was written about in many books in the OT. They were just looking or focused on the ending that would set them up as a ruling nation.
As such today many christians reflect the attitudes and thoughts of those Jew in that day. And like them they religiously follow the teachings of Jesus
Christ, but not with their hearts, only with their minds. So just like them they see, but do not see.
There will be and it is already present, a persecution of Believers in Jesus,
by religious peoples. Part of the participants against them will be and quietly is already happening by the so-called rCychristiansrCO who despise those people in whom the Spirit of the Almighty God resides.Especially those
through whom the gifts of Gods Spirit operates. In coming days that will greatly intensify, as predicted in the Bible as well.
I am stopping at this point as this is most likely more than many can bear at
this time. I will keep the door open for a while, since you all keep posting
in the rCychristianrCO NGrCOs but solely for purposes of open discussion and
not for character assassinations.
You realize that you're replying to Andrew with this last screed and
not me, right? And feel free to remove alt.religion.christian if
alt.atheism messages are bothering you.
On 9/22/2025 12:04 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Kenito Benito wrote
(Message-ID:<r5v1dk1csp271mug5tskjjoijvv0bbpgf4@4ax.com>):
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 13:12:16 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net>-a wrote:
[...]
After they arrested Jesus they brought Him to the
Roman governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate. They
even had to wake him up.
Pontius Pilate was from the Samnite clan of the Pontii.
So it wasn't the Romans, but the Jewish leaders
who officially rejected Him, and demanded for
Him to be crucified.
Crucifixion was the method of execution used by the Romans.
Jewish leaders would have lobbied for stoning. The Bible only states >>>>> the Jews wanted Jesus killed. Since crucifixion was the method used by >>>>> the Romans at the time for certain offences, that was the method used. >>>>> The Jews had little say in the method of punishment used.
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically
for Him to be crucified.
"Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to
them. But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him."
Luke 23:20 -21
Due to it being the method of execution Rome used for such crimes.
It was Not the method of execution for crimes as you think, for Jesus
committed no crime worthy of a death penalty under the Roman law,
which was
very specific in such matters. Plus this point was very clearly stated by
Pilate as he washed his hands of the whole affair and did so openly and
publicly.
Didn't happen. In fact, Pilate & Jesus probably never even met each other.
On 9/20/2025 3:19 PM, jojo wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/19/2025 2:52 PM, jojo wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote in message
news:10abn1m$2j2jj$2@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Wherever we find information and we trace
it back to its source, we always come to a mind.
-ahttps://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded with specific
information for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
-aGOD
Oh, so, very, very wonderful!-a You've made my day, Andrew!!
Then I'm so thankful you were blessed.
It's "skirts from now on!", every single day of the year!!!
I hope you are happy, every single day of
the year!!!
Dawn
~ Andrew
just noticed this, @dawn, there is no need to sign your name
on usenet posts. this is like texts basically.
It helps me separate my replies from those of others; feel
free to delete it, of course!
oh, there are two really good solutions, i will post them. one
is an addon and the other is adding a file in your profile
folder to color the replies. i have the profile file, have to
search what it was..
Don't even think about trying to make life more difficult for me!
Dawn
If you were to go to the source, like here and the scriptures surrounding it,
you would see a far different picture.
Scripture also speaks from the perspective of the Romans who found no fault in him. No sedition, nothing. Also verified from Roman history which many try
to discredit so as to destroy the truth for an anti-Jesus narrative.
Liar? What did I lie about?
I have also mentioned here, many, many times that I have personal knowledge and understandings of God, even if they are limited greatly due to the fact that I have had a personal experiential relationship with Him and thereby know the reality of who He is, and that HE exists. Which you very well know
and choose to mock on a personal basis, so as to excuse your choice to
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/20/2025 3:19 PM, jojo wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/19/2025 2:52 PM, jojo wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:10abn1m$2j2jj$2@dont-email.me... >>>>>>> Andrew wrote:
Wherever we find information and we trace
it back to its source, we always come to a mind.
-ahttps://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
Because DNA is a molecule that is loaded with specific
information for the synthesis
of all living things.That is a biological fact.
The "mind" that placed this "information"
in the DNA, was the "mind" of our most
awesome Creator.
-aGOD
Oh, so, very, very wonderful!-a You've made my day, Andrew!!
Then I'm so thankful you were blessed.
It's "skirts from now on!", every single day of the year!!!
I hope you are happy, every single day of
the year!!!
Dawn
~ Andrew
just noticed this, @dawn, there is no need to sign your name on
usenet posts. this is like texts basically.
It helps me separate my replies from those of others; feel free to
delete it, of course!
oh, there are two really good solutions, i will post them. one is an
addon and the other is adding a file in your profile folder to color
the replies. i have the profile file, have to search what it was..
Don't even think about trying to make life more difficult for me!
Dawn
ok very simple solution, you dont need to do anything, just open this
addon and install:
https://services.addons.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/addon/ quotecolors/
else the profile css file.. or was it js? i have to check, that is the
best, no addon.
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:[...]
No, crucifixion is a quintessentially Roman mode of execution. It
wasn't the Jews who stirred up the population against Jesus, but the
Roman authorities. Jesus' claim to be the Messiah was politically
dangerous enough for the Romans to look into the situation, found that
he was indeed guilty of sedition, and executed him for that reason.
You also learned these things when you were young, So whatAs with these
lies?
Look, liar, you know it's stupid to place too much historical weight
on the legends and stories in the gospels, and yet you continue to do
it. Why is that?
Robert has never come to accept that most people do not accept the Bible
as literally true, or even as generally true. He equates contradiction
of the Bible with lying because he has never known better.
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote >(Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church, so
they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they made
up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the beginning.
But then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional rift
between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the
Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good graces.
Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a false >understanding because it stems from the mind of men who speculate on who God >is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having full wisdom and >knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and for that reason >many denominations err and there is separation and not a common bond.
So they vilified the non-Messianic Jews (referred to as simply "the
Jews"), blaming them for Jesus' death and attacking Jewish sects like
the Pharisees as they wrote the Gospels.
That, my friend, is misleading and without understanding. They were to be >blamed for the Death of Christ, and they knew it at the time.
Mat 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, butthat rather a >tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, >saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
Mat 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His bloodbe on us, and on >our children.
The priests were the ones who stirred up the population against Jesus. Not >> > all, as there were some who were followers of Jesus secretly. The High Priest
of Israel at the time of the birth of Jesus believed that the Messiah was >> > coming, were looking for him, and even recognized Jesus as the Messiah when
he was presented to them soon after his birth, and they rejoiced. John the >> > Baptist Was a cousin of his, who grew up not knowing Jesus personally.
No, crucifixion is a quintessentially Roman mode of execution. It
wasn't the Jews who stirred up the population against Jesus, but the
Roman authorities. Jesus' claim to be the Messiah was politically
dangerous enough for the Romans to look into the situation, found that
he was indeed guilty of sedition, and executed him for that reason.
Mat 27:1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the >people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:
Mat 27:2 And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to >Pontius Pilate the governor.
If you were to go to the source, like here and the scriptures surrounding it, >you would see a far different picture.
Scripture also speaks from the perspective of the Romans who found no fault >in him. No sedition, nothing. Also verified from Roman history which many try >to discredit so as to destroy the truth for an anti-Jesus narrative.
You also learned these things when you were young, So whatAs with these
lies?
Look, liar, you know it's stupid to place too much historical weight
on the legends and stories in the gospels, and yet you continue to do
it. Why is that?
Liar? What did I lie about?
I have also mentioned here, many, many times that I have personal knowledge >and understandings of God, even if they are limited greatly due to the fact >that I have had a personal experiential relationship with Him and thereby >know the reality of who He is, and that HE exists. Which you very well know >and choose to mock on a personal basis, so as to excuse your choice to >disbelieve and follow the lead of your god, Lucifer. Even though you do not >know him, yet the thoughts he implants in your head and deceives you with, >you chose to speak.
Look at the "Jewish" rebellions -- plural -- if you want to know
why the Romans would want to do that.
That's for sure. The Romans slaughtered them big time in 70 AD.
The Jews, just like other nations, did not like the Romans ruling them.
They knew the land was theirs, granted to them by God. While they followed >> > the religion of Judaism, many did not actually follow God but only gave him
lip service. Just like so many achristiansA do today.
One of the things that the Romans did was to allow the peoples who they
conquered to follow their respective religions/gods within limitations. In >> > that manner they allowed the High Priests position of Judaism, however, they
changed the position to one that required a new High Priest every year. Some
were believers in God others used it as a position of authority and power >> > over the people. The High priests worked with the roman government within >> > their rules for the most part and the High Priests were given a squadron of
soldiers to use as they deemed necessary to keep the people in line under >> > mosaic laws, and other purposes within the confines of Roman law. Yet many >> > of
the Jews sought their freedom and were rebellious, for good reasons, but >> > were
not strong enough to fight the empire successfully.
Death penalties were under the purview of the Romans. There was a custom for
that worked out with the Jews whereby a person could be set free, that they
all abided by, and this was done to keep the lid on the Jews yet with a
vent.
The Jews, as taught by the prophets of God, in the days of old taught of the
messiah that was to come. Yet many were focused solely on the promise that >> > God, through the Messiah would set up Israel as their ruler, and as such, he
would rule over all the nations of the world, with power and authority. Thus
they would be sitting in a prestigious place, and for that they were
looking.
Even his disciples questioned him about that, so deeply was it engrained >> > into their culture. But the Jews did not recognize officially that he was to be
killed first as a sacrifice for their sins. That he would also have followers
who were not jews. Even though that was written about in many books in the >> > OT. They were just looking or focused on the ending that would set them up >> > as a ruling nation.
As such today many christians reflect the attitudes and thoughts of those >> > Jew in that day. And like them they religiously follow the teachings of Jesus
Christ, but not with their hearts, only with their minds. So just like them
they see, but do not see.
There will be and it is already present, a persecution of Believers in Jesus,
by religious peoples. Part of the participants against them will be and
quietly is already happening by the so-called achristiansA who despise
those people in whom the Spirit of the Almighty God resides.Especially those
through whom the gifts of Gods Spirit operates. In coming days that will >> > greatly intensify, as predicted in the Bible as well.
I am stopping at this point as this is most likely more than many can bear at
this time. I will keep the door open for a while, since you all keep posting
in the achristianA NGAs but solely for purposes of open discussion and
not for character assassinations.
You realize that you're replying to Andrew with this last screed and
not me, right? And feel free to remove alt.religion.christian if
alt.atheism messages are bothering you.
Your ignorances belong amongst yourselves, as many there insist. Yet you all >insist of posting to arc which is not related to aa. I have been posting >lately with my replies marked for followups to aa, so as not to cross post in >an effort to wean you off from crossposting.
I do not know if Andrew originated the cross post of not. And he really >shouldnAt.. Paul the apostle is a good example of that, as he debated those >who were against God in their own temples and places of discourse. He did not >drag them to a place of worship to God, or to a temple of God, to argue and >debate. He only stopped doing that, depending of the location when those he >debated could no longer reasonably debate and sought to kill him because of >his testimony, works of God, and as a result of his teachings drew many away >from their false gods and saw their income decreasing. Meaning the meat >markets that sold meat that was offered as a sacrifice to their gods, the >lack of sales of their images of their false gods as well as their charms, >incenses, etc.
If the christians did not enter your NGAs at any time, your group would >close down within a year for there would be nothing for you all to talk >about. ;)
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote >(Message-ID:<gor2dk1rjfvsqrsdthgnos3d3fai1tqhsd@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 07:41:08 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message
news:51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"JTEM" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church,
The early Christian church were Jews...converted by the
powerful truth that Jesus was the Messiah in fulfillment
of all the messianic prophecies that were given to them.
Ethnically, they were Jews, but theologically, Christians are *not*
Jewish.
Wrong, for a variety of reasons. Biggest of which is your understanding and >lack of knowledge. There is clear evidence in the NT that many Jews >considered the believers a sect of Judaism. In large part because the OT >scriptures speaks of Jesus the Messiah as being a Jew. And that He and His >work of God is clearly spoken of, which they recognized once shown the >scriptures after his resurrection. For a while there was an offshoot of >Judaism that followed his teachings yet held to the Old Covenant laws and >required that Christians, whether they be Jew of Gentile to do the same, >although their main focus was on the Jew, and the gentiles they thought of as >dogs. Peter catered to this people whenever he was around them, yet lived >like a gentile believer when he was clear of them, to which Paul called him >out for it, and also God showed Peter visions that he was totally off base in >doing so.
so they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible
when they made up their stories about Jesus.
Jesus was Jewish and was the anti-type of the prophetic
symbols that were given to them..The apostle Paul based
much of his evangelical efforts on the Jewish scriptures.
There was no Old Testament basis for believing that Jesus was the
Messiah. For example, the "Suffering Servant" of the book of Isaiah
refers to the Jewish nation, not Jesus of Nazareth.
There is plenty of evidence for it, and Jesus showed his disciples where he >was to be found in the OT after his resurrection. The osuffering servanto
is not mentioned in the book of Isaiah under such a title, or anywhere else, >it is a concept only. And yet in the Book of Isaiah there are several >references to him there as in the Book of Psalms and elsewhere. Isaiah >chapter 53 clearly speaks of Jesus and even today many young and a few older >Jews who were taught to hate Jesus when shown that chapter, repent and choose >to follow Jesus as they could see Jesus, crucified, for them.
If you want to discuss/argue the situation you really should read with the >intention of understanding, the Bible so as to familiarize yourself with it >and not speak from the standpoint of hearsay. In a court or understanding, >hearsay is not permissible.
Look at the "Jewish" rebellions -- plural -- if you want to know
why the Romans would want to do that.
That's for sure. The Romans slaughtered them big time in 70 AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%2870_CE%29
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:10:22 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<gor2dk1rjfvsqrsdthgnos3d3fai1tqhsd@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 07:41:08 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"JTEM" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church,
The early Christian church were Jews...converted by the
powerful truth that Jesus was the Messiah in fulfillment
of all the messianic prophecies that were given to them.
Ethnically, they were Jews, but theologically, Christians are *not* Jewish.
Wrong, for a variety of reasons. Biggest of which is your understanding and lack of knowledge. There is clear evidence in the NT that many Jews considered the believers a sect of Judaism. In large part because the OT scriptures speaks of Jesus the Messiah as being a Jew. And that He and His work of God is clearly spoken of, which they recognized once shown the scriptures after his resurrection. For a while there was an offshoot of Judaism that followed his teachings yet held to the Old Covenant laws and required that Christians, whether they be Jew of Gentile to do the same, although their main focus was on the Jew, and the gentiles they thought of as
dogs. Peter catered to this people whenever he was around them, yet lived like a gentile believer when he was clear of them, to which Paul called him out for it, and also God showed Peter visions that he was totally off base in
doing so.
No, the entire theological edifice of the New Testament is
incompatible with the Jewish religion. Are you seriously unfamiliar
with the use of theology in Christianity?
so they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible
when they made up their stories about Jesus.
Jesus was Jewish and was the anti-type of the prophetic
symbols that were given to them..The apostle Paul based
much of his evangelical efforts on the Jewish scriptures.
There was no Old Testament basis for believing that Jesus was the Messiah. For example, the "Suffering Servant" of the book of Isaiah refers to the Jewish nation, not Jesus of Nazareth.
There is plenty of evidence for it, and Jesus showed his disciples where he was to be found in the OT after his resurrection. The rCLsuffering servantrCY
is not mentioned in the book of Isaiah under such a title, or anywhere else,
it is a concept only. And yet in the Book of Isaiah there are several references to him there as in the Book of Psalms and elsewhere. Isaiah chapter 53 clearly speaks of Jesus and even today many young and a few older
Jews who were taught to hate Jesus when shown that chapter, repent and choose
to follow Jesus as they could see Jesus, crucified, for them.
Isaiah 53 *is* about the suffering servant. Did your friend Jesus
forget to tell you that as you studied it?
If you want to discuss/argue the situation you really should read with the intention of understanding, the Bible so as to familiarize yourself with it and not speak from the standpoint of hearsay. In a court or understanding, hearsay is not permissible.
Maybe you should branch out to include some Bible commentaries with
your Bible studied that can familiarize you with the subject. That
way you wouldn't look like an ignoramus when confronting common topics
like the suffering servant of Isaiah 52-53.
Look at the "Jewish" rebellions -- plural -- if you want to know why the Romans would want to do that.
That's for sure. The Romans slaughtered them big time in 70 AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%2870_CE%29
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 11:55:20 -0700, Samuel Spade<sam@spade.invalid>
wrote:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:[...]
No, crucifixion is a quintessentially Roman mode of execution. It
wasn't the Jews who stirred up the population against Jesus, but the Roman authorities. Jesus' claim to be the Messiah was politically dangerous enough for the Romans to look into the situation, found that
he was indeed guilty of sedition, and executed him for that reason.
You also learned these things when you were young, So whatrCOs with these
lies?
Look, liar, you know it's stupid to place too much historical weight
on the legends and stories in the gospels, and yet you continue to do
it. Why is that?
Robert has never come to accept that most people do not accept the Bible
as literally true, or even as generally true. He equates contradiction
of the Bible with lying because he has never known better.
So None is Robert? That figures.
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote >(Message-ID:<mli3dkdqkm0vmnnmcl9fuhvveom9mbeede@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:10:22 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<gor2dk1rjfvsqrsdthgnos3d3fai1tqhsd@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 07:41:08 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message
news:51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"JTEM" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated >> > > > > > > Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church,
The early Christian church were Jews...converted by the
powerful truth that Jesus was the Messiah in fulfillment
of all the messianic prophecies that were given to them.
Ethnically, they were Jews, but theologically, Christians are *not*
Jewish.
Wrong, for a variety of reasons. Biggest of which is your understanding and
lack of knowledge. There is clear evidence in the NT that many Jews
considered the believers a sect of Judaism. In large part because the OT >> > scriptures speaks of Jesus the Messiah as being a Jew. And that He and His >> > work of God is clearly spoken of, which they recognized once shown the
scriptures after his resurrection. For a while there was an offshoot of
Judaism that followed his teachings yet held to the Old Covenant laws and >> > required that Christians, whether they be Jew of Gentile to do the same, >> > although their main focus was on the Jew, and the gentiles they thought of >> > as
dogs. Peter catered to this people whenever he was around them, yet lived >> > like a gentile believer when he was clear of them, to which Paul called him
out for it, and also God showed Peter visions that he was totally off base >> > in
doing so.
No, the entire theological edifice of the New Testament is
incompatible with the Jewish religion. Are you seriously unfamiliar
with the use of theology in Christianity?
There is no theology in the NT.
I am somewhat familiar with theology within so-called Christianity in todays >time.
It in no way is compatible with what a Christian was when the term was first >applied to Believers in Jesus the Messiah/Christ.
The God of the NT is the same as the old. In all ways. And that is what >throws people off kilter as the do not understand what is the difference >between the Covenant of Law and the Covenant of Grace.
so they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible
when they made up their stories about Jesus.
Jesus was Jewish and was the anti-type of the prophetic
symbols that were given to them..The apostle Paul based
much of his evangelical efforts on the Jewish scriptures.
There was no Old Testament basis for believing that Jesus was the
Messiah. For example, the "Suffering Servant" of the book of Isaiah
refers to the Jewish nation, not Jesus of Nazareth.
There is plenty of evidence for it, and Jesus showed his disciples where he
was to be found in the OT after his resurrection. The osuffering servanto >> > is not mentioned in the book of Isaiah under such a title, or anywhere else,
it is a concept only. And yet in the Book of Isaiah there are several
references to him there as in the Book of Psalms and elsewhere. Isaiah
chapter 53 clearly speaks of Jesus and even today many young and a few older
Jews who were taught to hate Jesus when shown that chapter, repent and
choose
to follow Jesus as they could see Jesus, crucified, for them.
Isaiah 53 *is* about the suffering servant. Did your friend Jesus
forget to tell you that as you studied it?
Nope. And as I told you above that is a term of men, a conceptual >understanding of the mind.
If you want to discuss/argue the situation you really should read with the >> > intention of understanding, the Bible so as to familiarize yourself with it
and not speak from the standpoint of hearsay. In a court or understanding, >> > hearsay is not permissible.
Maybe you should branch out to include some Bible commentaries with
your Bible studied that can familiarize you with the subject. That
way you wouldn't look like an ignoramus when confronting common topics
like the suffering servant of Isaiah 52-53.
Perhaps to you it seems like that. But from what you specified above how can >you say or state that Israel is a "Suffering servanto? Who do they serve as >a nation or peoples. Given that the nation was destroyed in 70AD and not >resurrected until 1948?
Look at the "Jewish" rebellions -- plural -- if you want to know >> > > > > > > why the Romans would want to do that.
That's for sure. The Romans slaughtered them big time in 70 AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%2870_CE%29
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church, so they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they made up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the beginning.
But then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional rift between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the
Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good graces.
Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a false understanding because it stems from the mind of men who speculate on who God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having full wisdom and knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and for that reason
many denominations err and there is separation and not a common bond.
To say "Christ is risen" is a theological statement in addition to
being an attempt at history.
So they vilified the non-Messianic Jews (referred to as simply "the Jews"), blaming them for Jesus' death and attacking Jewish sects like
the Pharisees as they wrote the Gospels.
That, my friend, is misleading and without understanding. They were to be blamed for the Death of Christ, and they knew it at the time.
Even the Jews who had nothing to do with Jesus' crucifixion (e.g.,
children)?
Mat 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, butthat rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
Baloney.
Mat 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His bloodbe on us, and on our children.
Which is exactly what the early Christian church *wanted* them to have
said, so they could more easily differentiate themselves from their
Jewish beginnings and neighbors.
The priests were the ones who stirred up the population against Jesus. Not
all, as there were some who were followers of Jesus secretly. The High Priest
of Israel at the time of the birth of Jesus believed that the Messiah was
coming, were looking for him, and even recognized Jesus as the Messiah when
he was presented to them soon after his birth, and they rejoiced. John the
Baptist Was a cousin of his, who grew up not knowing Jesus personally.
No, crucifixion is a quintessentially Roman mode of execution. It
wasn't the Jews who stirred up the population against Jesus, but the Roman authorities. Jesus' claim to be the Messiah was politically dangerous enough for the Romans to look into the situation, found that
he was indeed guilty of sedition, and executed him for that reason.
Mat 27:1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:
Mat 27:2 And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.
If you were to go to the source, like here and the scriptures surrounding it, you would see a far different picture.
An interesting quote. However, it carries no weight for those who
don't accept the Bible as being inspired.
Scripture also speaks from the perspective of the Romans who found no fault in him. No sedition, nothing. Also verified from Roman history which many try to discredit so as to destroy the truth for an anti-Jesus narrative.
The Romans knew what a Messiah was supposed to do. They decided to
nip it in the bud before things got worse.
You also learned these things when you were young, So whatrCOs with these
lies?
Look, liar, you know it's stupid to place too much historical weight
on the legends and stories in the gospels, and yet you continue to do
it. Why is that?
Liar? What did I lie about?
You lied by acting as if other people accept the Bible as being authoritative, which isn't true, as you must surely know by now.
I have also mentioned here, many, many times that I have personal knowledge and understandings of God, even if they are limited greatly due to the fact that I have had a personal experiential relationship with Him and thereby know the reality of who He is, and that HE exists. Which you very well know and choose to mock on a personal basis, so as to excuse your choice to disbelieve and follow the lead of your god, Lucifer. Even though you do not know him, yet the thoughts he implants in your head and deceives you with, you chose to speak.
Thoughts being implanted into heads is craziness.
Look at the "Jewish" rebellions -- plural -- if you want to know why the Romans would want to do that.
That's for sure. The Romans slaughtered them big time in 70 AD.
The Jews, just like other nations, did not like the Romans ruling them. They knew the land was theirs, granted to them by God. While they followed
the religion of Judaism, many did not actually follow God but only gave him
lip service. Just like so many rCychristiansrCO do today.
One of the things that the Romans did was to allow the peoples who they conquered to follow their respective religions/gods within limitations. In
that manner they allowed the High Priests position of Judaism, however, they
changed the position to one that required a new High Priest every year. Some
were believers in God others used it as a position of authority and power
over the people. The High priests worked with the roman government within
their rules for the most part and the High Priests were given a squadron
of
soldiers to use as they deemed necessary to keep the people in line under
mosaic laws, and other purposes within the confines of Roman law. Yet many
of
the Jews sought their freedom and were rebellious, for good reasons, but
were
not strong enough to fight the empire successfully.
Death penalties were under the purview of the Romans. There was a custom
for
that worked out with the Jews whereby a person could be set free, that they
all abided by, and this was done to keep the lid on the Jews yet with a vent.
The Jews, as taught by the prophets of God, in the days of old taught of
the
messiah that was to come. Yet many were focused solely on the promise that
God, through the Messiah would set up Israel as their ruler, and as such,
he
would rule over all the nations of the world, with power and authority. Thus
they would be sitting in a prestigious place, and for that they were looking.
Even his disciples questioned him about that, so deeply was it engrained
into their culture. But the Jews did not recognize officially that he was
to be
killed first as a sacrifice for their sins. That he would also have followers
who were not jews. Even though that was written about in many books in the
OT. They were just looking or focused on the ending that would set them up
as a ruling nation.
As such today many christians reflect the attitudes and thoughts of those
Jew in that day. And like them they religiously follow the teachings of Jesus
Christ, but not with their hearts, only with their minds. So just like them
they see, but do not see.
There will be and it is already present, a persecution of Believers in Jesus,
by religious peoples. Part of the participants against them will be and quietly is already happening by the so-called rCychristiansrCO who despise
those people in whom the Spirit of the Almighty God resides.Especially those
through whom the gifts of Gods Spirit operates. In coming days that will
greatly intensify, as predicted in the Bible as well.
I am stopping at this point as this is most likely more than many can bear at
this time. I will keep the door open for a while, since you all keep posting
in the rCychristianrCO NGrCOs but solely for purposes of open discussion
and
not for character assassinations.
You realize that you're replying to Andrew with this last screed and
not me, right? And feel free to remove alt.religion.christian if alt.atheism messages are bothering you.
Your ignorances belong amongst yourselves, as many there insist. Yet you all
insist of posting to arc which is not related to aa. I have been posting lately with my replies marked for followups to aa, so as not to cross post in
an effort to wean you off from crossposting.
I didn't add a.r.c. I only post to theist newsgroups when they post
to alt.atheism.
I do not know if Andrew originated the cross post of not. And he really shouldnrCOt.. Paul the apostle is a good example of that, as he debated those
who were against God in their own temples and places of discourse. He did not
drag them to a place of worship to God, or to a temple of God, to argue and debate. He only stopped doing that, depending of the location when those he debated could no longer reasonably debate and sought to kill him because of his testimony, works of God, and as a result of his teachings drew many away
from their false gods and saw their income decreasing. Meaning the meat markets that sold meat that was offered as a sacrifice to their gods, the lack of sales of their images of their false gods as well as their charms, incenses, etc.
And you don't think Paul was doing theology when he preached his
sermons?
If the christians did not enter your NGrCOs at any time, your group would close down within a year for there would be nothing for you all to talk about. ;)
Wherever there's intelligent opinions around, there will be things to
talk about. But I thought you were complaining about atheists posting
in your newsgroups, not making a plea for the inclusion of theist
posts in alt.atheism.
On 9/22/2025 12:04 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Kenito Benito wrote (Message-ID:<r5v1dk1csp271mug5tskjjoijvv0bbpgf4@4ax.com>):
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 13:12:16 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
[...]
After they arrested Jesus they brought Him to the
Roman governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate. They
even had to wake him up.
Pontius Pilate was from the Samnite clan of the Pontii.
So it wasn't the Romans, but the Jewish leaders
who officially rejected Him, and demanded for
Him to be crucified.
Crucifixion was the method of execution used by the Romans.
Jewish leaders would have lobbied for stoning. The Bible only states the Jews wanted Jesus killed. Since crucifixion was the method used by
the Romans at the time for certain offences, that was the method used.
The Jews had little say in the method of punishment used.
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically
for Him to be crucified.
"Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to
them. But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him."
Luke 23:20 -21
Due to it being the method of execution Rome used for such crimes.
It was Not the method of execution for crimes as you think, for Jesus committed no crime worthy of a death penalty under the Roman law, which was very specific in such matters. Plus this point was very clearly stated by Pilate as he washed his hands of the whole affair and did so openly and publicly.
Didn't happen. In fact, Pilate & Jesus probably never even met each other.
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 16:43:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<mli3dkdqkm0vmnnmcl9fuhvveom9mbeede@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:10:22 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<gor2dk1rjfvsqrsdthgnos3d3fai1tqhsd@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 07:41:08 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"JTEM" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church,
The early Christian church were Jews...converted by the
powerful truth that Jesus was the Messiah in fulfillment
of all the messianic prophecies that were given to them.
Ethnically, they were Jews, but theologically, Christians are *not* Jewish.
Wrong, for a variety of reasons. Biggest of which is your understanding and
lack of knowledge. There is clear evidence in the NT that many Jews considered the believers a sect of Judaism. In large part because the OT
scriptures speaks of Jesus the Messiah as being a Jew. And that He and His
work of God is clearly spoken of, which they recognized once shown the scriptures after his resurrection. For a while there was an offshoot of Judaism that followed his teachings yet held to the Old Covenant laws and
required that Christians, whether they be Jew of Gentile to do the same,
although their main focus was on the Jew, and the gentiles they thought of
as
dogs. Peter catered to this people whenever he was around them, yet lived
like a gentile believer when he was clear of them, to which Paul called him
out for it, and also God showed Peter visions that he was totally off base
in
doing so.
No, the entire theological edifice of the New Testament is
incompatible with the Jewish religion. Are you seriously unfamiliar
with the use of theology in Christianity?
There is no theology in the NT.
From
https://www.gotquestions.org/New-Testament-theology.html
"New Testament theology is the study of what God has revealed about
Himself in the New Testament. The system of New Testament theology
takes the various truths that the New Testament books teach us about
God and presents them in an organized fashion. The New Testament
discloses the coming of the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament
(Isaiah 9), the rejection of the Messiah by Israel, the fulfillment of
the Law, the birth of the New Testament church (the body of Christ),
the church age, the gospel of Jesus Christ, and instructions for
believers in Jesus Christ."
I am somewhat familiar with theology within so-called Christianity in todays
time.
It in no way is compatible with what a Christian was when the term was first
applied to Believers in Jesus the Messiah/Christ.
The God of the NT is the same as the old. In all ways. And that is what throws people off kilter as the do not understand what is the difference between the Covenant of Law and the Covenant of Grace.
Then why is there a book of Leviticus in your Christian Bible?
so they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible
when they made up their stories about Jesus.
Jesus was Jewish and was the anti-type of the prophetic
symbols that were given to them..The apostle Paul based
much of his evangelical efforts on the Jewish scriptures.
There was no Old Testament basis for believing that Jesus was the Messiah. For example, the "Suffering Servant" of the book of Isaiah refers to the Jewish nation, not Jesus of Nazareth.
There is plenty of evidence for it, and Jesus showed his disciples where
he
was to be found in the OT after his resurrection. The |ore4+osuffering servant|ore4
is not mentioned in the book of Isaiah under such a title, or anywhere else, it is a concept only. And yet in the Book of Isaiah there are several
references to him there as in the Book of Psalms and elsewhere. Isaiah chapter 53 clearly speaks of Jesus and even today many young and a few older
Jews who were taught to hate Jesus when shown that chapter, repent and choose to follow Jesus as they could see Jesus, crucified, for them.
Isaiah 53 *is* about the suffering servant. Did your friend Jesus
forget to tell you that as you studied it?
Nope. And as I told you above that is a term of men, a conceptual understanding of the mind.
It can be a conceptual understanding of the mind *and* an integral
part of Biblical studies.
If you want to discuss/argue the situation you really should read with the
intention of understanding, the Bible so as to familiarize yourself with it
and not speak from the standpoint of hearsay. In a court or understanding,
hearsay is not permissible.
Maybe you should branch out to include some Bible commentaries with
your Bible studied that can familiarize you with the subject. That
way you wouldn't look like an ignoramus when confronting common topics like the suffering servant of Isaiah 52-53.
Perhaps to you it seems like that. But from what you specified above how can
you say or state that Israel is a "Suffering servant|ore4? Who do they serve as
a nation or peoples. Given that the nation was destroyed in 70AD and not resurrected until 1948?
Composed some time shortly after the Babylonian captivity, the lament
about the Suffering Servant is a Jewish construct that helped them
understand where they went wrong after their nation was destroyed by
Babylon in the 6th century BCE.
Look at the "Jewish" rebellions -- plural -- if you want to know
why the Romans would want to do that.
That's for sure. The Romans slaughtered them big time in 70 AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%2870_CE%29
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote >(Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wroteBut then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional rift
(Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated >> > > > > > > Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church, so >> > > > > they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they made >> > > > > up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the beginning. >> > >
between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the
Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good graces.
Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a false
understanding because it stems from the mind of men who speculate on who God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having full wisdom and >> > knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and for that reason
many denominations err and there is separation and not a common bond.
To say "Christ is risen" is a theological statement in addition to
being an attempt at history.
To whose way of thinking as there were over 500 witnesses of it. Plus to >think that someone was trying to create history is foolish, for such attempts >have been tried similar to that, but were always disproven, and or been >discredited soon afterwards.
So they vilified the non-Messianic Jews (referred to as simply "the
Jews"), blaming them for Jesus' death and attacking Jewish sects like
the Pharisees as they wrote the Gospels.
That, my friend, is misleading and without understanding. They were to be >> > blamed for the Death of Christ, and they knew it at the time.
Even the Jews who had nothing to do with Jesus' crucifixion (e.g.,
children)?
All the ones in that crowd that proclaimed it were accepting the >responsibility and with such emphasis that they were fully willing to hold >their children and their childrenAs children as culpable as well. They did >so knowing full well the severity of doing such a thing before God and Man, >and people in that culture did not take such things likely as they considered >themselves bound by their words.
Mat 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, butthat rather a >> > tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, >> > saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
Baloney.
The story is well known, as is the story of what his wife saw In a dream and >relayed to him at the trial.
Mat 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His bloodbe on us, and on
our children.
Which is exactly what the early Christian church *wanted* them to have
said, so they could more easily differentiate themselves from their
Jewish beginnings and neighbors.
The early church were jewish believers in Christ, and their relatives who did >not believe in Jesus they for certain did not want them to be alienated. You >are just blowing smoke, speaking things without thinking and with a knee jerk >reaction. The church you were mosr familiar with was no more related to Jesus >than the JW. And to take those ideas and place that understanding on other is >a great error.
The priests were the ones who stirred up the population against Jesus. NotNo, crucifixion is a quintessentially Roman mode of execution. It
all, as there were some who were followers of Jesus secretly. The High Priest
of Israel at the time of the birth of Jesus believed that the Messiah was
coming, were looking for him, and even recognized Jesus as the Messiah >> > > > when
he was presented to them soon after his birth, and they rejoiced. John the
Baptist Was a cousin of his, who grew up not knowing Jesus personally. >> > >
wasn't the Jews who stirred up the population against Jesus, but the
Roman authorities. Jesus' claim to be the Messiah was politically
dangerous enough for the Romans to look into the situation, found that >> > > he was indeed guilty of sedition, and executed him for that reason.
Mat 27:1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the
people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:
Mat 27:2 And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him >> > to Pontius Pilate the governor.
If you were to go to the source, like here and the scriptures surrounding >> > it, you would see a far different picture.
An interesting quote. However, it carries no weight for those who
don't accept the Bible as being inspired.
Of course not. Especially when you are afraid to read and understand what the >Word of God really says so that you can discuss things intelligently even if >you chose not to follow it. Ghandi was such a person. Agrippa in the days of >Paul was like that as well.
Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a >Christian.
Act 26:29 And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all >that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except >these bonds.
Scripture also speaks from the perspective of the Romans who found no faultThe Romans knew what a Messiah was supposed to do. They decided to
in him. No sedition, nothing. Also verified from Roman history which many >> > try to discredit so as to destroy the truth for an anti-Jesus narrative. >>
nip it in the bud before things got worse.
Nope. Although there was one local ruler In Judea that was of that mindset, >and killed every child and baby under the age of 2 for miles around for fear >he would lose his rulership. And went down in history noted for that deed.
You also learned these things when you were young, So whatAs with these
lies?
Look, liar, you know it's stupid to place too much historical weight
on the legends and stories in the gospels, and yet you continue to do
it. Why is that?
Liar? What did I lie about?
You lied by acting as if other people accept the Bible as being
authoritative, which isn't true, as you must surely know by now.
I know, as well as you, that many people believe that whether they be >Christian or not.
And that does not make me a liar. I also know that you, just like the well >known atheists leaders, who were given enough time to die on a deathbed >realized their mistake yet most felt they fully deserved the end result as >described in the Bible and few very few humbled themselves before God and >sought His Mercy.
I have also mentioned here, many, many times that I have personal knowledge
and understandings of God, even if they are limited greatly due to the fact
that I have had a personal experiential relationship with Him and thereby >> > know the reality of who He is, and that HE exists. Which you very well know
and choose to mock on a personal basis, so as to excuse your choice to
disbelieve and follow the lead of your god, Lucifer. Even though you do not
know him, yet the thoughts he implants in your head and deceives you with, >> > you chose to speak.
Thoughts being implanted into heads is craziness.
Then you accept the thinking that you are crazed?
This is why the bible said one should control the thoughts before acting.
You realize that you're replying to Andrew with this last screed and
not me, right? And feel free to remove alt.religion.christian if
alt.atheism messages are bothering you.
Your ignorances belong amongst yourselves, as many there insist. Yet you all
insist of posting to arc which is not related to aa. I have been posting >> > lately with my replies marked for followups to aa, so as not to cross post >> > in
an effort to wean you off from crossposting.
I didn't add a.r.c. I only post to theist newsgroups when they post
to alt.atheism.
You knew this thread originated there, and bear/sharing the blame for not >trimming the NGAs/
I do not know if Andrew originated the cross post of not. And he really
shouldnAt.. Paul the apostle is a good example of that, as he debated
those
who were against God in their own temples and places of discourse. He did >> > not
drag them to a place of worship to God, or to a temple of God, to argue and
debate. He only stopped doing that, depending of the location when those he
debated could no longer reasonably debate and sought to kill him because of
his testimony, works of God, and as a result of his teachings drew many away
from their false gods and saw their income decreasing. Meaning the meat
markets that sold meat that was offered as a sacrifice to their gods, the >> > lack of sales of their images of their false gods as well as their charms, >> > incenses, etc.
And you don't think Paul was doing theology when he preached his
sermons?
Nope. In those days it was called and was a full part of philosophy, and he >was well trained in that by one of the masters of that day. Yet he taught >Jesus Christ an him crucified, and made a point about speaking and teaching >clear and plainly with simple words, and allowing the power of God to be made >manifest so that people would believe in God and not Paul and his words. IOW >he humbled himself before men and God so that the Glory of God might shine >through.
If the christians did not enter your NGAs at any time, your group would
close down within a year for there would be nothing for you all to talk
about. ;)
Wherever there's intelligent opinions around, there will be things to
talk about. But I thought you were complaining about atheists posting
in your newsgroups, not making a plea for the inclusion of theist
posts in alt.atheism.
Obviously you did not understand. Especially the concept of the thought.
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote >(Message-ID:<8ro3dkplmg3banl0pmhn9h8njh1fsf10ko@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 16:43:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<mli3dkdqkm0vmnnmcl9fuhvveom9mbeede@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:10:22 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<gor2dk1rjfvsqrsdthgnos3d3fai1tqhsd@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 07:41:08 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message
news:51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:The early Christian church were Jews...converted by the
"JTEM" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church, >> > > > > >
powerful truth that Jesus was the Messiah in fulfillment
of all the messianic prophecies that were given to them.
Ethnically, they were Jews, but theologically, Christians are *not* >> > > > > Jewish.
Wrong, for a variety of reasons. Biggest of which is your understanding
and
lack of knowledge. There is clear evidence in the NT that many Jews
considered the believers a sect of Judaism. In large part because the OT
scriptures speaks of Jesus the Messiah as being a Jew. And that He and His
work of God is clearly spoken of, which they recognized once shown the >> > > > scriptures after his resurrection. For a while there was an offshoot of
Judaism that followed his teachings yet held to the Old Covenant laws and
required that Christians, whether they be Jew of Gentile to do the same,
although their main focus was on the Jew, and the gentiles they thought of
as
dogs. Peter catered to this people whenever he was around them, yet lived
like a gentile believer when he was clear of them, to which Paul called
him
out for it, and also God showed Peter visions that he was totally off base
in
doing so.
No, the entire theological edifice of the New Testament is
incompatible with the Jewish religion. Are you seriously unfamiliar
with the use of theology in Christianity?
There is no theology in the NT.
From
https://www.gotquestions.org/New-Testament-theology.html
"New Testament theology is the study of what God has revealed about
Himself in the New Testament. The system of New Testament theology
takes the various truths that the New Testament books teach us about
God and presents them in an organized fashion. The New Testament
discloses the coming of the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament
(Isaiah 9), the rejection of the Messiah by Israel, the fulfillment of
the Law, the birth of the New Testament church (the body of Christ),
the church age, the gospel of Jesus Christ, and instructions for
believers in Jesus Christ."
Those people, while being somewhat informative, miss much. And most are >bound.
I had the privilege of being invited to take courses at DTS. Dallas >theological seminary. I found one professor there who was right on and truly >represented Jesus an His Gospel Message. Sadly he was not ranked high amongst >his peers there, but it is a fact that he was in the ranks of Christ.
I had to leave that school because the theological factors rated as high or >higher than the Word of God.
What they deemed authoritative was the understandings of men who wrote about >the Bible and based their traditions on those things Higher that on scripture >itself. I thought it abhorrent. They constantly noted as definitive what >certain scholars taught, and referred to their findings as well as others the >fit the mold for that clique. Where was Jesus in all of that? Where is what >god spoke through Jesus taken note of? I left and noted to them why. A couple >of years later I wanted to find that professor I spoke of, to see how he was >doing, and share a few things with him and sadly found he too had left, but >hr had passed on to Glory. He I miss, for he was a real genuine believer. I >fondly remember him breaking out in worship hymns singing praises unto God. >Surprising some students there, but they joined in, some with as much gusto >as did he.
I am somewhat familiar with theology within so-called Christianity in todays
time.
It in no way is compatible with what a Christian was when the term was first
applied to Believers in Jesus the Messiah/Christ.
The God of the NT is the same as the old. In all ways. And that is what
throws people off kilter as the do not understand what is the difference >> > between the Covenant of Law and the Covenant of Grace.
Then why is there a book of Leviticus in your Christian Bible?
Because it is there to know the mind of God, his love and desire for us. Also >his desire for the was we should walk in and all for our benefit.
In those days an under that covenant, which was what the Israelites would >accept and voted on, when they committed great and abundant sin, and keep >doing so after repeated admonitions and caution signs then when repented and >said they were sorry the curses were immediately repelled, lifted, and he >restored them to their promised blessings.
When Moses first read the law covenant to the nation so that they could all >vote on it he said,
Deu 11:26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;
Deu 11:27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which >I command you this day:
Deu 11:28 And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your >God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after >other gods, which ye have not known.
Jesus redeemed us all from the curse of the law. The blessings remain. The >curse of sin now takes place after physical death as far as the judgments of >God, but there are natural judgments that still result because of unwise >choices due to the natural laws of this realm.
Isaiah 53 *is* about the suffering servant. Did your friend Jesusso they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible
when they made up their stories about Jesus.
Jesus was Jewish and was the anti-type of the prophetic
symbols that were given to them..The apostle Paul based
much of his evangelical efforts on the Jewish scriptures.
There was no Old Testament basis for believing that Jesus was the
Messiah. For example, the "Suffering Servant" of the book of Isaiah >> > > > > refers to the Jewish nation, not Jesus of Nazareth.
There is plenty of evidence for it, and Jesus showed his disciples where
he
was to be found in the OT after his resurrection. The rCLsuffering servantrC
is not mentioned in the book of Isaiah under such a title, or anywhere >> > > > else, it is a concept only. And yet in the Book of Isaiah there are several
references to him there as in the Book of Psalms and elsewhere. Isaiah >> > > > chapter 53 clearly speaks of Jesus and even today many young and a few >> > > > older
Jews who were taught to hate Jesus when shown that chapter, repent and >> > > > choose to follow Jesus as they could see Jesus, crucified, for them. >> > >
forget to tell you that as you studied it?
Nope. And as I told you above that is a term of men, a conceptual
understanding of the mind.
It can be a conceptual understanding of the mind *and* an integral
part of Biblical studies.
Of course it is, which is what I was describing and how cults come about >along with denominations disagreeing with one another and therefore disunity >in the body of Christ. It is the result of the evil one throwing shade.
If you want to discuss/argue the situation you really should read with the
intention of understanding, the Bible so as to familiarize yourself with it
and not speak from the standpoint of hearsay. In a court or understanding,
hearsay is not permissible.
Maybe you should branch out to include some Bible commentaries with
your Bible studied that can familiarize you with the subject. That
way you wouldn't look like an ignoramus when confronting common topics >> > > like the suffering servant of Isaiah 52-53.
Perhaps to you it seems like that. But from what you specified above how can
you say or state that Israel is a "Suffering servantrC? Who do they serve as
a nation or peoples. Given that the nation was destroyed in 70AD and not >> > resurrected until 1948?
Composed some time shortly after the Babylonian captivity, the lament
about the Suffering Servant is a Jewish construct that helped them
understand where they went wrong after their nation was destroyed by
Babylon in the 6th century BCE.
Not at all. Perhaps if you would read it all though you might see. If it is >all too confusing for you, which may very well be the case, and you cannot >explain it in your own words, then that too should show you something.
Look at the "Jewish" rebellions -- plural -- if you want to know
why the Romans would want to do that.
That's for sure. The Romans slaughtered them big time in 70 AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%2870_CE%29
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 11:55:20 -0700, Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid>
wrote:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:[...]
No, crucifixion is a quintessentially Roman mode of execution. It
wasn't the Jews who stirred up the population against Jesus, but the
Roman authorities. Jesus' claim to be the Messiah was politically
dangerous enough for the Romans to look into the situation, found that
he was indeed guilty of sedition, and executed him for that reason.
You also learned these things when you were young, So whatAs with these >> >lies?
Look, liar, you know it's stupid to place too much historical weight
on the legends and stories in the gospels, and yet you continue to do
it. Why is that?
Robert has never come to accept that most people do not accept the Bible
as literally true, or even as generally true. He equates contradiction
of the Bible with lying because he has never known better.
So None is Robert? That figures.
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 17:38:06 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church, so
they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they made
up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the beginning.
But then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional rift between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good graces.
Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a false understanding because it stems from the mind of men who speculate on who
God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having full wisdom and
knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and for that reason
many denominations err and there is separation and not a common bond.
To say "Christ is risen" is a theological statement in addition to
being an attempt at history.
To whose way of thinking as there were over 500 witnesses of it. Plus to think that someone was trying to create history is foolish, for such attempts
have been tried similar to that, but were always disproven, and or been discredited soon afterwards.
Paul *claimed* that 500 witnesses saw him, but who was counting,
right? And are you seriously claiming that attempts to create history
are always unsuccessful? Do you believe all the stories promulgated
by the Mormons, for example?
So they vilified the non-Messianic Jews (referred to as simply "the Jews"), blaming them for Jesus' death and attacking Jewish sects like the Pharisees as they wrote the Gospels.
That, my friend, is misleading and without understanding. They were to be
blamed for the Death of Christ, and they knew it at the time.
Even the Jews who had nothing to do with Jesus' crucifixion (e.g., children)?
All the ones in that crowd that proclaimed it were accepting the responsibility and with such emphasis that they were fully willing to hold their children and their childrenrCOs children as culpable as well. They did
so knowing full well the severity of doing such a thing before God and Man, and people in that culture did not take such things likely as they considered themselves bound by their words.
Was it the children's fault that they were supposedly indoctrinated
that way?
Mat 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, butthat rather a
tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude,
saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
Baloney.
The story is well known, as is the story of what his wife saw In a dream and
relayed to him at the trial.
It is well-known, but it's probably apocryphal.
Mat 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His bloodbe on us, and
on our children.
Which is exactly what the early Christian church *wanted* them to have said, so they could more easily differentiate themselves from their Jewish beginnings and neighbors.
The early church were jewish believers in Christ, and their relatives who did
not believe in Jesus they for certain did not want them to be alienated. You
are just blowing smoke, speaking things without thinking and with a knee jerk
reaction. The church you were mosr familiar with was no more related to Jesus
than the JW. And to take those ideas and place that understanding on other is a great error.
No, they wanted to go beyond Judaism. That's why they argued that
Jewish ceremonial laws like kosher food didn't apply to Christians and
newly converted Gentiles.
The priests were the ones who stirred up the population against Jesus.
Not
all, as there were some who were followers of Jesus secretly. The High
Priest
of Israel at the time of the birth of Jesus believed that the Messiah
was
coming, were looking for him, and even recognized Jesus as the Messiah
when
he was presented to them soon after his birth, and they rejoiced. John
the
Baptist Was a cousin of his, who grew up not knowing Jesus personally.
No, crucifixion is a quintessentially Roman mode of execution. It wasn't the Jews who stirred up the population against Jesus, but the Roman authorities. Jesus' claim to be the Messiah was politically dangerous enough for the Romans to look into the situation, found that
he was indeed guilty of sedition, and executed him for that reason.
Mat 27:1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the
people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:
Mat 27:2 And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him
to Pontius Pilate the governor.
If you were to go to the source, like here and the scriptures surrounding
it, you would see a far different picture.
An interesting quote. However, it carries no weight for those who
don't accept the Bible as being inspired.
Of course not. Especially when you are afraid to read and understand what the
Word of God really says so that you can discuss things intelligently even if
you chose not to follow it. Ghandi was such a person. Agrippa in the days of
Paul was like that as well.
Not at all. I've read the Bible in its entirety, as I've probably
told you before, even taking notes as I went. But unlike you, I've
read what *scholars say* about the Bible as well.
Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
Act 26:29 And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except
these bonds.
So?
Scripture also speaks from the perspective of the Romans who found no fault
in him. No sedition, nothing. Also verified from Roman history which many
try to discredit so as to destroy the truth for an anti-Jesus narrative.
The Romans knew what a Messiah was supposed to do. They decided to
nip it in the bud before things got worse.
Nope. Although there was one local ruler In Judea that was of that mindset, and killed every child and baby under the age of 2 for miles around for fear
he would lose his rulership. And went down in history noted for that deed.
You're talking about Herod the Great. It would've been characteristic
of him to do something like that, but he probably never did, for a
variety of reasons.
You also learned these things when you were young, So whatrCOs with these lies?
Look, liar, you know it's stupid to place too much historical weight on the legends and stories in the gospels, and yet you continue to do it. Why is that?
Liar? What did I lie about?
You lied by acting as if other people accept the Bible as being authoritative, which isn't true, as you must surely know by now.
I know, as well as you, that many people believe that whether they be Christian or not.
And that does not make me a liar. I also know that you, just like the well known atheists leaders, who were given enough time to die on a deathbed realized their mistake yet most felt they fully deserved the end result as described in the Bible and few very few humbled themselves before God and sought His Mercy.
So if you're not a liar, I have to ask, Why the lie? And didn't you
post a video about atheists on their deathbeds that was debunked by
several atheists here in alt.atheism?
I have also mentioned here, many, many times that I have personal knowledge
and understandings of God, even if they are limited greatly due to the fact
that I have had a personal experiential relationship with Him and thereby
know the reality of who He is, and that HE exists. Which you very well know
and choose to mock on a personal basis, so as to excuse your choice to disbelieve and follow the lead of your god, Lucifer. Even though you do not
know him, yet the thoughts he implants in your head and deceives you with,
you chose to speak.
Thoughts being implanted into heads is craziness.
Then you accept the thinking that you are crazed?
This is why the bible said one should control the thoughts before acting.
Umm... no, I don't believe in thoughts being implanted. That's you
that believes that!
[...]
You realize that you're replying to Andrew with this last screed and not me, right? And feel free to remove alt.religion.christian if alt.atheism messages are bothering you.
Your ignorances belong amongst yourselves, as many there insist. Yet you
all
insist of posting to arc which is not related to aa. I have been posting
lately with my replies marked for followups to aa, so as not to cross post
in
an effort to wean you off from crossposting.
I didn't add a.r.c. I only post to theist newsgroups when they post
to alt.atheism.
You knew this thread originated there, and bear/sharing the blame for not trimming the NGrCOs/
I don't trim them, because I believe people should be able to see the reactions to what they see posted in their own newsgroups.
I do not know if Andrew originated the cross post of not. And he really shouldnrCOt.. Paul the apostle is a good example of that, as he debated those
who were against God in their own temples and places of discourse. He did
not
drag them to a place of worship to God, or to a temple of God, to argue and
debate. He only stopped doing that, depending of the location when those
he
debated could no longer reasonably debate and sought to kill him because
of
his testimony, works of God, and as a result of his teachings drew many away
from their false gods and saw their income decreasing. Meaning the meat markets that sold meat that was offered as a sacrifice to their gods, the
lack of sales of their images of their false gods as well as their charms,
incenses, etc.
And you don't think Paul was doing theology when he preached his
sermons?
Nope. In those days it was called and was a full part of philosophy, and he was well trained in that by one of the masters of that day. Yet he taught Jesus Christ an him crucified, and made a point about speaking and teaching clear and plainly with simple words, and allowing the power of God to be made
manifest so that people would believe in God and not Paul and his words. IOW
he humbled himself before men and God so that the Glory of God might shine through.
Once you begin to ask why anyone should be concerned about Christ
crucified, you're down the rabbit hole into theology.
If the christians did not enter your NGrCOs at any time, your group would
close down within a year for there would be nothing for you all to talk about. ;)
Wherever there's intelligent opinions around, there will be things to talk about. But I thought you were complaining about atheists posting
in your newsgroups, not making a plea for the inclusion of theist
posts in alt.atheism.
Obviously you did not understand. Especially the concept of the thought.
What's so difficult about the "concept of thought"? Or are you lying
again?
"Kenito Benito" wrote in message news:r5v1dk1csp271mug5tskjjoijvv0bbpgf4@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
[...]
After they arrested Jesus they brought Him to the
Roman governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate. They
even had to wake him up.
Pontius Pilate was from the Samnite clan of the Pontii.
So it wasn't the Romans, but the Jewish leaders
who officially rejected Him, and demanded for
Him to be crucified.
Crucifixion was the method of execution used by the Romans.
Jewish leaders would have lobbied for stoning. The Bible only states
the Jews wanted Jesus killed. Since crucifixion was the method used by >>>> the Romans at the time for certain offences, that was the method used. >>>> The Jews had little say in the method of punishment used.
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically
for Him to be crucified.
"Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to
them. But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him."
~ Luke 23:20 -21
Due to it being the method of execution Rome
used for such crimes.
Why do you think they hated Him so vehemently?
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote >(Message-ID:<d284dk9el1qqlp9nv7d2pvu8q5ghbu4jon@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 17:38:06 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wroteTo say "Christ is risen" is a theological statement in addition to
(Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a false
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me... >> > > > > > > > > Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church, so
they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they made
up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the beginning.
But then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional rift >> > > > > between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the
Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good graces. >> > > >
understanding because it stems from the mind of men who speculate on who
God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having full wisdom and
knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and for that >> > > > reason
many denominations err and there is separation and not a common bond. >> > >
being an attempt at history.
To whose way of thinking as there were over 500 witnesses of it. Plus to >> > think that someone was trying to create history is foolish, for such
attempts
have been tried similar to that, but were always disproven, and or been
discredited soon afterwards.
Paul *claimed* that 500 witnesses saw him, but who was counting,
right? And are you seriously claiming that attempts to create history
are always unsuccessful? Do you believe all the stories promulgated
by the Mormons, for example?
Paul never said that. When the book of Mormons does not agree with scripture >then their teachings are fully suspect. Many are seemingly nice people on the >outside. But on weekends the roads from Salt Lake City out of town on Friday >nights and sat mornings are packed to LV and north also, out of state for >casinos, etc. and on Sunday evenings it is the reverse. I am also very >familiar with many and know some of the ins n outs I will say no more about >them.
So they vilified the non-Messianic Jews (referred to as simply "the >> > > > > Jews"), blaming them for Jesus' death and attacking Jewish sects like
the Pharisees as they wrote the Gospels.
That, my friend, is misleading and without understanding. They were to be
blamed for the Death of Christ, and they knew it at the time.
Even the Jews who had nothing to do with Jesus' crucifixion (e.g.,
children)?
All the ones in that crowd that proclaimed it were accepting the
responsibility and with such emphasis that they were fully willing to hold >> > their children and their childrenAs children as culpable as well. They did >> > so knowing full well the severity of doing such a thing before God and Man,
and people in that culture did not take such things likely as they
considered themselves bound by their words.
Was it the children's fault that they were supposedly indoctrinated
that way?
Is it your fault that your were born into a sin nature because of Adam Fall? >And are you powerless to seek and receive deliverance from that condition?
Mat 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, butthat rather aBaloney.
tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude,
saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. >> > >
The story is well known, as is the story of what his wife saw In a dream and
relayed to him at the trial.
It is well-known, but it's probably apocryphal.
Any excuse to justify the choices you make.
Mat 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His bloodbe on us, and
on our children.
Which is exactly what the early Christian church *wanted* them to have >> > > said, so they could more easily differentiate themselves from their
Jewish beginnings and neighbors.
The early church were jewish believers in Christ, and their relatives who >> > did
not believe in Jesus they for certain did not want them to be alienated. You
are just blowing smoke, speaking things without thinking and with a knee >> > jerk
reaction. The church you were mosr familiar with was no more related to
Jesus
than the JW. And to take those ideas and place that understanding on other >> > is a great error.
No, they wanted to go beyond Judaism. That's why they argued that
Jewish ceremonial laws like kosher food didn't apply to Christians and
newly converted Gentiles.
Yet they rigidly followed the Law Covenant in most areas. We have already >discussed that in part, not long ago. What did they know about Grace? And why >have many departed from them?
Mat 27:1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders ofThe priests were the ones who stirred up the population against Jesus.
Not
all, as there were some who were followers of Jesus secretly. The High
Priest
of Israel at the time of the birth of Jesus believed that the Messiah
was
coming, were looking for him, and even recognized Jesus as the Messiah
when
he was presented to them soon after his birth, and they rejoiced. John
the
Baptist Was a cousin of his, who grew up not knowing Jesus personally.
No, crucifixion is a quintessentially Roman mode of execution. It
wasn't the Jews who stirred up the population against Jesus, but the >> > > > > Roman authorities. Jesus' claim to be the Messiah was politically
dangerous enough for the Romans to look into the situation, found that
he was indeed guilty of sedition, and executed him for that reason. >> > > >
the
people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:
Mat 27:2 And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him
to Pontius Pilate the governor.
If you were to go to the source, like here and the scriptures surrounding
it, you would see a far different picture.
An interesting quote. However, it carries no weight for those who
don't accept the Bible as being inspired.
Of course not. Especially when you are afraid to read and understand what the
Word of God really says so that you can discuss things intelligently even if
you chose not to follow it. Ghandi was such a person. Agrippa in the days of
Paul was like that as well.
Not at all. I've read the Bible in its entirety, as I've probably
told you before, even taking notes as I went. But unlike you, I've
read what *scholars say* about the Bible as well.
What scholars? And of which denominations? You may have read it once all the >way through, but for what reason, purpose, an what did you take out of it?
I may have read more oscholarso writings than you, as well as bible >commentators as well. I know the strengths and weaknesses of many. But I >would far rather base my understanding upon the words of God, learn what he >has to say, and make it mine, Than to use the words of others. Yet I have >used the words of others many times, for a variety of reasons. One being to >show what others say so that they might know and understand that it is not >just my understanding. That others know the same as well as more than I. >People sometimes turn against the message because of the messenger. I have >seen that happen on more than one occasion when my entire reply to a question >or two was answered solely by quoting the Bible and what it said that would >answer their questions. Yet their response was against it because it was my >interpretation of the scripture. In spite of the fact that they fully knew it >was a direct quote.
There are many better versed with the word of God than I. But what I do know, >I know. Because of experiences, trust, and the leading of the Lord. And I am >happy and very content to follow his lead. And learn new things.
Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a >> > Christian.
Act 26:29 And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all >> > that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except
these bonds.
So?
It was part of an answer that you requested.
You're talking about Herod the Great. It would've been characteristicScripture also speaks from the perspective of the Romans who found no >> > > > fault
in him. No sedition, nothing. Also verified from Roman history which many
try to discredit so as to destroy the truth for an anti-Jesus narrative.
The Romans knew what a Messiah was supposed to do. They decided to
nip it in the bud before things got worse.
Nope. Although there was one local ruler In Judea that was of that mindset,
and killed every child and baby under the age of 2 for miles around for fear
he would lose his rulership. And went down in history noted for that deed. >>
of him to do something like that, but he probably never did, for a
variety of reasons.
Pure conjecture on your part. But he earned a nickname because of what he >did, that no doubt many have heard but did not understand why he was known by >that.
You also learned these things when you were young, So whatAs with >> > > > > > these lies?
Look, liar, you know it's stupid to place too much historical weight >> > > > > on the legends and stories in the gospels, and yet you continue to do
it. Why is that?
Liar? What did I lie about?
You lied by acting as if other people accept the Bible as being
authoritative, which isn't true, as you must surely know by now.
I know, as well as you, that many people believe that whether they be
Christian or not.
And that does not make me a liar. I also know that you, just like the well >> > known atheists leaders, who were given enough time to die on a deathbed
realized their mistake yet most felt they fully deserved the end result as >> > described in the Bible and few very few humbled themselves before God and >> > sought His Mercy.
So if you're not a liar, I have to ask, Why the lie? And didn't you
post a video about atheists on their deathbeds that was debunked by
several atheists here in alt.atheism?
Nope. Since what links I did give gave eyewitness accounts that no one in >your group could possibly dismiss truthfully.
Umm... no, I don't believe in thoughts being implanted. That's youI have also mentioned here, many, many times that I have personal
knowledge
and understandings of God, even if they are limited greatly due to the >> > > > fact
that I have had a personal experiential relationship with Him and thereby
know the reality of who He is, and that HE exists. Which you very well >> > > > know
and choose to mock on a personal basis, so as to excuse your choice to >> > > > disbelieve and follow the lead of your god, Lucifer. Even though you do
not
know him, yet the thoughts he implants in your head and deceives you with,
you chose to speak.
Thoughts being implanted into heads is craziness.
Then you accept the thinking that you are crazed?
This is why the bible said one should control the thoughts before acting. >>
that believes that!
It will not me long until you have a rude awakening and recognize that you >had a thought that was not your own perhaps noticeably different than what >you would normally have within your normal character.
You realize that you're replying to Andrew with this last screed and >> > > > > not me, right? And feel free to remove alt.religion.christian if
alt.atheism messages are bothering you.
Your ignorances belong amongst yourselves, as many there insist. Yet you
all
insist of posting to arc which is not related to aa. I have been posting
lately with my replies marked for followups to aa, so as not to cross post
in
an effort to wean you off from crossposting.
I didn't add a.r.c. I only post to theist newsgroups when they post
to alt.atheism.
You knew this thread originated there, and bear/sharing the blame for not >> > trimming the NGAs/
I don't trim them, because I believe people should be able to see the
reactions to what they see posted in their own newsgroups.
OH? So you think you know from where peoples comments originate?
I do not know if Andrew originated the cross post of not. And he really
shouldnAt.. Paul the apostle is a good example of that, as he debated >> > > > those
who were against God in their own temples and places of discourse. He did
not
drag them to a place of worship to God, or to a temple of God, to argue
and
debate. He only stopped doing that, depending of the location when those
he
debated could no longer reasonably debate and sought to kill him because
of
his testimony, works of God, and as a result of his teachings drew many
away
from their false gods and saw their income decreasing. Meaning the meat
markets that sold meat that was offered as a sacrifice to their gods, the
lack of sales of their images of their false gods as well as their charms,
incenses, etc.
And you don't think Paul was doing theology when he preached his
sermons?
Nope. In those days it was called and was a full part of philosophy, and he
was well trained in that by one of the masters of that day. Yet he taught >> > Jesus Christ an him crucified, and made a point about speaking and teaching
clear and plainly with simple words, and allowing the power of God to be >> > made
manifest so that people would believe in God and not Paul and his words. IOW
he humbled himself before men and God so that the Glory of God might shine >> > through.
Once you begin to ask why anyone should be concerned about Christ
crucified, you're down the rabbit hole into theology.
Only because you follow a certain theological understanding. It is a box that >you put other into, including yourself so as to know in your mind how to >react to them. And you cannot think outside of the box as you are not >permitted to do so.
What's so difficult about the "concept of thought"? Or are you lyingIf the christians did not enter your NGAs at any time, your group would
close down within a year for there would be nothing for you all to talk
about. ;)
Wherever there's intelligent opinions around, there will be things to
talk about. But I thought you were complaining about atheists posting
in your newsgroups, not making a plea for the inclusion of theist
posts in alt.atheism.
Obviously you did not understand. Especially the concept of the thought. >>
again?
Is that really the best you can do? Your comment belies your ability to >understand. ;)
"Andrew" wrote:
"Kenito Benito" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
After they arrested Jesus they brought Him to the
Roman governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate. They
even had to wake him up.
Pontius Pilate was from the Samnite clan of the Pontii.
So it wasn't the Romans, but the Jewish leaders
who officially rejected Him, and demanded for
Him to be crucified.
Crucifixion was the method of execution used by the Romans.
Jewish leaders would have lobbied for stoning. The Bible only states >>>>> the Jews wanted Jesus killed. Since crucifixion was the method used by >>>>> the Romans at the time for certain offences, that was the method used. >>>>> The Jews had little say in the method of punishment used.
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically
for Him to be crucified.
"Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to
them. But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him."
~ Luke 23:20 -21
Due to it being the method of execution Rome
used for such crimes.
Why do you think they hated Him so vehemently?
I think the story is fictional. But if we accept the tale as
true, he was hated because he challenged the authority and religious traditions of the Jewish people.
Jesus is also reported to have committed blasphemy by
claiming to be equal to the God of the Jews.
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wroteBut then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional rift
(Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him >>>>>>>>> to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated >>>>>>>> Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church, so >>>>>> they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they made >>>>>> up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the beginning. >>>>
between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the
Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good graces.
Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a false
understanding because it stems from the mind of men who speculate on who God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having full wisdom and >>> knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and for that reason
many denominations err and there is separation and not a common bond.
To say "Christ is risen" is a theological statement in addition to
being an attempt at history.
To whose way of thinking as there were over 500 witnesses of it. Plus to think that someone was trying to create history is foolish, for such attempts have been tried similar to that, but were always disproven, and or been discredited soon afterwards.
On 9/22/2025 7:38 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non>-a wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non>-a wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wroteBut then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional rift >>>>> between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the
(Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net>-a wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me... >>>>>>>>> Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically >>>>>>>>>> for Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated >>>>>>>>> Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church, so >>>>>>> they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they made >>>>>>> up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the beginning. >>>>>
Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good graces.
Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a false
understanding because it stems from the mind of men who speculate on
who God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having full
wisdom and
knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and for
that reason
many denominations err and there is separation and not a common bond.
To say "Christ is risen" is a theological statement in addition to
being an attempt at history.
To whose way of thinking as there were over 500 witnesses of it. Plus to
think that someone was trying to create history is foolish, for such
attempts
have been tried similar to that, but were always disproven, and or been
discredited soon afterwards.
The so-called "500 witnesses" is likely a latter embellishment added by
some scribe to "beef up" Paul's account, or Paul himself is just storytelling.-a Nowhere is this supposed "mass apparition" ever mentioned anywhere else, either elsewhere in the New Testament or in secular
sources, and none of the 500 are ever named, nor did any of them leave
any surviving accounts of their own individual experiences, or convey
those experiences to anyone else.
As with the "crucifixion darkness," the appearances to 500 human beings lacks contextual credibility, as it only gets mentioned in one single source, when, in fact, it should have been mentioned in dozens of independent sources if, in fact, it had happened.
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:26:04 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<d284dk9el1qqlp9nv7d2pvu8q5ghbu4jon@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 17:38:06 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for
Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church, so
they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they made
up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the beginning.
But then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional rift
between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good graces.
Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a false understanding because it stems from the mind of men who speculate on who
God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having full wisdom
and
knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and for that
reason
many denominations err and there is separation and not a common bond.
To say "Christ is risen" is a theological statement in addition to being an attempt at history.
To whose way of thinking as there were over 500 witnesses of it. Plus to
think that someone was trying to create history is foolish, for such attempts
have been tried similar to that, but were always disproven, and or been discredited soon afterwards.
Paul *claimed* that 500 witnesses saw him, but who was counting,
right? And are you seriously claiming that attempts to create history
are always unsuccessful? Do you believe all the stories promulgated
by the Mormons, for example?
Paul never said that. When the book of Mormons does not agree with scripture
then their teachings are fully suspect. Many are seemingly nice people on the
outside. But on weekends the roads from Salt Lake City out of town on Friday
nights and sat mornings are packed to LV and north also, out of state for casinos, etc. and on Sunday evenings it is the reverse. I am also very familiar with many and know some of the ins n outs I will say no more about them.
Paul said it in 1 Corinthians 15:6. And regardless of whether
Mormonism agrees with scripture, it's still a very large denomination.
So if the Mormons could do it, why couldn't first century Christians
do it?
So they vilified the non-Messianic Jews (referred to as simply "the
Jews"), blaming them for Jesus' death and attacking Jewish sects like
the Pharisees as they wrote the Gospels.
That, my friend, is misleading and without understanding. They were to
be
blamed for the Death of Christ, and they knew it at the time.
Even the Jews who had nothing to do with Jesus' crucifixion (e.g., children)?
All the ones in that crowd that proclaimed it were accepting the responsibility and with such emphasis that they were fully willing to hold
their children and their childrenrCOs children as culpable as well. They
did
so knowing full well the severity of doing such a thing before God and Man,
and people in that culture did not take such things likely as they considered themselves bound by their words.
Was it the children's fault that they were supposedly indoctrinated
that way?
Is it your fault that your were born into a sin nature because of Adam Fall?
And are you powerless to seek and receive deliverance from that condition?
No, it's not my fault. So why should I suffer for what Adam and Eve supposedly did?
Mat 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, butthat rather
a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
Baloney.
The story is well known, as is the story of what his wife saw In a dream
and relayed to him at the trial.
It is well-known, but it's probably apocryphal.
Any excuse to justify the choices you make.
How is "apocryphal" an excuse?
Mat 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His bloodbe on us, and
on our children.
Which is exactly what the early Christian church *wanted* them to have
said, so they could more easily differentiate themselves from their Jewish beginnings and neighbors.
The early church were jewish believers in Christ, and their relatives who
did
not believe in Jesus they for certain did not want them to be alienated.
You
are just blowing smoke, speaking things without thinking and with a knee
jerk
reaction. The church you were mosr familiar with was no more related to Jesus
than the JW. And to take those ideas and place that understanding on other
is a great error.
No, they wanted to go beyond Judaism. That's why they argued that
Jewish ceremonial laws like kosher food didn't apply to Christians and newly converted Gentiles.
Yet they rigidly followed the Law Covenant in most areas. We have already discussed that in part, not long ago. What did they know about Grace? And why have many departed from them?
But they began to throw off the Jewish yoke, as it were, as they began
to see themselves as Christians and not theological Jews. And grace
without works is dead, to paraphrase the book of James.
The priests were the ones who stirred up the population against Jesus.
Not
all, as there were some who were followers of Jesus secretly. The High
Priest
of Israel at the time of the birth of Jesus believed that the Messiah
was
coming, were looking for him, and even recognized Jesus as the Messiah
when
he was presented to them soon after his birth, and they rejoiced. John
the
Baptist Was a cousin of his, who grew up not knowing Jesus personally.
No, crucifixion is a quintessentially Roman mode of execution. It wasn't the Jews who stirred up the population against Jesus, but the
Roman authorities. Jesus' claim to be the Messiah was politically dangerous enough for the Romans to look into the situation, found that
he was indeed guilty of sedition, and executed him for that reason.
Mat 27:1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of
the
people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:
Mat 27:2 And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered
him
to Pontius Pilate the governor.
If you were to go to the source, like here and the scriptures surrounding
it, you would see a far different picture.
An interesting quote. However, it carries no weight for those who don't accept the Bible as being inspired.
Of course not. Especially when you are afraid to read and understand what
the
Word of God really says so that you can discuss things intelligently even
if
you chose not to follow it. Ghandi was such a person. Agrippa in the days
of
Paul was like that as well.
Not at all. I've read the Bible in its entirety, as I've probably
told you before, even taking notes as I went. But unlike you, I've
read what *scholars say* about the Bible as well.
What scholars? And of which denominations? You may have read it once all the
way through, but for what reason, purpose, an what did you take out of it?
Raymond E. Brown, for one. And Bible scholars of the
literary-critical persuasion don't need to approach the Bible from
the viewpoint of any denomination.
I may have read more rCLscholarsrCY writings than you, as well as bible commentators as well. I know the strengths and weaknesses of many. But I would far rather base my understanding upon the words of God, learn what he has to say, and make it mine, Than to use the words of others. Yet I have used the words of others many times, for a variety of reasons. One being to show what others say so that they might know and understand that it is not just my understanding. That others know the same as well as more than I. People sometimes turn against the message because of the messenger. I have seen that happen on more than one occasion when my entire reply to a question
or two was answered solely by quoting the Bible and what it said that would answer their questions. Yet their response was against it because it was my interpretation of the scripture. In spite of the fact that they fully knew it was a direct quote.
You've read Biblical scholarship but have never heard of the Suffering Servant?
There are many better versed with the word of God than I. But what I do know,
I know. Because of experiences, trust, and the leading of the Lord. And I am
happy and very content to follow his lead. And learn new things.
There's no reason to believe the Lord is leading you.
Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a
Christian.
Act 26:29 And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all
that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.
So?
It was part of an answer that you requested.
When did I ever request anything like that?
Scripture also speaks from the perspective of the Romans who found no
fault
in him. No sedition, nothing. Also verified from Roman history which
many
try to discredit so as to destroy the truth for an anti-Jesus narrative.
The Romans knew what a Messiah was supposed to do. They decided to nip it in the bud before things got worse.
Nope. Although there was one local ruler In Judea that was of that mindset,
and killed every child and baby under the age of 2 for miles around for fear
he would lose his rulership. And went down in history noted for that deed.
You're talking about Herod the Great. It would've been characteristic
of him to do something like that, but he probably never did, for a variety of reasons.
Pure conjecture on your part. But he earned a nickname because of what he did, that no doubt many have heard but did not understand why he was known by that.
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents
"The historicity of the Matthew account is not accepted by modern sources.[7][2][8] The story of the massacre is found in no gospel
other than Matthew, nor is it mentioned in the surviving works of
Nicolaus of Damascus (who was a personal friend of Herod the Great),
nor in Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, despite his recording many
of Herod's misdeeds, including the murder of three of his own sons.[9]
The early 5th-century account of MacrobiusrCothat "on hearing that the
son of Herod, king of the Jews, had been slain when Herod ordered that
all boys in Syria under the age of two be killed, [Augustus] said,
'It's better to be Herod's pig than his son'"rCohas been discounted as extra-biblical evidence for the event due to its later authorship,
possible influence by the gospel narrative, and the confused nature of
the account.[10] In view of the lack of independent confirmation that
the event occurred, the story acts as a kind of folklore inspired by
Herod's reputation.[8] As a matter of understanding what the myth is
trying to communicate, its lack of historicity is unsurprising given
that gospels were primarily written as theological documents rather
than chronological timelines.[11][12][13][14]"
You also learned these things when you were young, So whatrCOs with
these lies?
Look, liar, you know it's stupid to place too much historical weight
on the legends and stories in the gospels, and yet you continue to do
it. Why is that?
Liar? What did I lie about?
You lied by acting as if other people accept the Bible as being authoritative, which isn't true, as you must surely know by now.
I know, as well as you, that many people believe that whether they be Christian or not.
And that does not make me a liar. I also know that you, just like the well
known atheists leaders, who were given enough time to die on a deathbed realized their mistake yet most felt they fully deserved the end result as
described in the Bible and few very few humbled themselves before God and
sought His Mercy.
So if you're not a liar, I have to ask, Why the lie? And didn't you
post a video about atheists on their deathbeds that was debunked by several atheists here in alt.atheism?
Nope. Since what links I did give gave eyewitness accounts that no one in your group could possibly dismiss truthfully.
Maybe it was Andrew that posted it. I'm sure we've discussed
recently, though.
I have also mentioned here, many, many times that I have personal knowledge
and understandings of God, even if they are limited greatly due to the
fact
that I have had a personal experiential relationship with Him and thereby
know the reality of who He is, and that HE exists. Which you very well
know
and choose to mock on a personal basis, so as to excuse your choice to
disbelieve and follow the lead of your god, Lucifer. Even though you do
not
know him, yet the thoughts he implants in your head and deceives you
with,
you chose to speak.
Thoughts being implanted into heads is craziness.
Then you accept the thinking that you are crazed?
This is why the bible said one should control the thoughts before acting.
Umm... no, I don't believe in thoughts being implanted. That's you
that believes that!
It will not be long until you have a rude awakening and recognize that you had a thought that was not your own perhaps noticeably different than what you would normally have within your normal character.
Not long until? What's wrong with now?
You realize that you're replying to Andrew with this last screed and
not me, right? And feel free to remove alt.religion.christian if alt.atheism messages are bothering you.
Your ignorances belong amongst yourselves, as many there insist. Yet you
all
insist of posting to arc which is not related to aa. I have been posting
lately with my replies marked for followups to aa, so as not to cross
post
in
an effort to wean you off from crossposting.
I didn't add a.r.c. I only post to theist newsgroups when they post to alt.atheism.
You knew this thread originated there, and bear/sharing the blame for not
trimming the NGrCOs/
I don't trim them, because I believe people should be able to see the reactions to what they see posted in their own newsgroups.
OH? So you think you know from where peoples comments originate?
I know what groups it's being read in, which serves the purpose.
I do not know if Andrew originated the cross post of not. And he really
shouldnrCOt.. Paul the apostle is a good example of that, as he debated
those
who were against God in their own temples and places of discourse. He
did
not
drag them to a place of worship to God, or to a temple of God, to argue
and
debate. He only stopped doing that, depending of the location when those
he
debated could no longer reasonably debate and sought to kill him because
of
his testimony, works of God, and as a result of his teachings drew many
away
from their false gods and saw their income decreasing. Meaning the meat
markets that sold meat that was offered as a sacrifice to their gods,
the
lack of sales of their images of their false gods as well as their charms,
incenses, etc.
And you don't think Paul was doing theology when he preached his sermons?
Nope. In those days it was called and was a full part of philosophy, and
he
was well trained in that by one of the masters of that day. Yet he taught
Jesus Christ an him crucified, and made a point about speaking and teaching
clear and plainly with simple words, and allowing the power of God to be
made
manifest so that people would believe in God and not Paul and his words.
IOW
he humbled himself before men and God so that the Glory of God might shine
through.
Once you begin to ask why anyone should be concerned about Christ crucified, you're down the rabbit hole into theology.
Only because you follow a certain theological understanding. It is a box that
you put other into, including yourself so as to know in your mind how to react to them. And you cannot think outside of the box as you are not permitted to do so.
No, I don't follow any theological understanding. I'm an atheist,
after all.
If the christians did not enter your NGrCOs at any time, your group would
close down within a year for there would be nothing for you all to talk
about. ;)
Wherever there's intelligent opinions around, there will be things to talk about. But I thought you were complaining about atheists posting in your newsgroups, not making a plea for the inclusion of theist posts in alt.atheism.
Obviously you did not understand. Especially the concept of the thought.
What's so difficult about the "concept of thought"? Or are you lying again?
Is that really the best you can do? Your comment belies your ability to understand. ;)
Thought is what you create with your mind. How's that?
On Sep 23, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote >(Message-ID:<e5h5dkt5hp1l4qqt1jsft3og876q3vep1g@4ax.com>):
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:26:04 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<d284dk9el1qqlp9nv7d2pvu8q5ghbu4jon@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 17:38:06 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote: >> > > > > > >
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for
Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church, so
they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they made
up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the beginning.
But then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional rift
between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the >> > > > > > > Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good graces.
Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a false >> > > > > > understanding because it stems from the mind of men who speculate on who
God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having full wisdom
and
knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and for that
reason
many denominations err and there is separation and not a common bond.
To say "Christ is risen" is a theological statement in addition to >> > > > > being an attempt at history.
To whose way of thinking as there were over 500 witnesses of it. Plus to
think that someone was trying to create history is foolish, for such >> > > > attempts
have been tried similar to that, but were always disproven, and or been
discredited soon afterwards.
Paul *claimed* that 500 witnesses saw him, but who was counting,
right? And are you seriously claiming that attempts to create history
are always unsuccessful? Do you believe all the stories promulgated
by the Mormons, for example?
Paul never said that. When the book of Mormons does not agree with scripture
then their teachings are fully suspect. Many are seemingly nice people on >> > the
outside. But on weekends the roads from Salt Lake City out of town on Friday
nights and sat mornings are packed to LV and north also, out of state for >> > casinos, etc. and on Sunday evenings it is the reverse. I am also very
familiar with many and know some of the ins n outs I will say no more about
them.
Paul said it in 1 Corinthians 15:6. And regardless of whether
Mormonism agrees with scripture, it's still a very large denomination.
So if the Mormons could do it, why couldn't first century Christians
do it?
1Co 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
There is no mention of 500 people there are all.
Hinduism has far more people than the Mormons, does that give them more >legitimacy? Plus they have well over 1K gods.Some claim that Hinduism existed >before Jesus. They accept spirituality and practice that a lot as well, even >though it is evil. See the rabbit holes in the thinking of the mind of men? >Given your reasoning a person could justify adultery by telling you that as >they were doing it, they were thinking of you and thus justify it.
No, it's not my fault. So why should I suffer for what Adam and EveSo they vilified the non-Messianic Jews (referred to as simply "the
Jews"), blaming them for Jesus' death and attacking Jewish sects like
the Pharisees as they wrote the Gospels.
That, my friend, is misleading and without understanding. They were to
be
blamed for the Death of Christ, and they knew it at the time.
Even the Jews who had nothing to do with Jesus' crucifixion (e.g., >> > > > > children)?
All the ones in that crowd that proclaimed it were accepting the
responsibility and with such emphasis that they were fully willing to hold
their children and their childrenAs children as culpable as well. They >> > > > did
so knowing full well the severity of doing such a thing before God and >> > > > Man,
and people in that culture did not take such things likely as they
considered themselves bound by their words.
Was it the children's fault that they were supposedly indoctrinated
that way?
Is it your fault that your were born into a sin nature because of Adam Fall?
And are you powerless to seek and receive deliverance from that condition? >>
supposedly did?
You are their offspring you inherited their existence. They subjected the >world to the power of Lucifer, making him the god of this world into which >you were born.
You have a choice, once you reach the age of accountability of with choosing >the things of this world and all that goes with it, or accepting the promised >Messiah and all that he provides for your escape from it, as well as the >power to live accordingly and all power over the spiritual enemy. Choose >blessings or choose curses, default is the world you were born into.
Mat 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, butthat rather
a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the >> > > > > > multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
Baloney.
The story is well known, as is the story of what his wife saw In a dream
and relayed to him at the trial.
It is well-known, but it's probably apocryphal.
Any excuse to justify the choices you make.
How is "apocryphal" an excuse?
You were avoiding accepting the uncontested truth.
Mat 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His bloodbe on us, and
on our children.
Which is exactly what the early Christian church *wanted* them to have
said, so they could more easily differentiate themselves from their >> > > > > Jewish beginnings and neighbors.
The early church were jewish believers in Christ, and their relatives who
did
not believe in Jesus they for certain did not want them to be alienated.
You
are just blowing smoke, speaking things without thinking and with a knee
jerk
reaction. The church you were mosr familiar with was no more related to
Jesus
than the JW. And to take those ideas and place that understanding on other
is a great error.
No, they wanted to go beyond Judaism. That's why they argued that
Jewish ceremonial laws like kosher food didn't apply to Christians and >> > > newly converted Gentiles.
Yet they rigidly followed the Law Covenant in most areas. We have already >> > discussed that in part, not long ago. What did they know about Grace? And >> > why have many departed from them?
But they began to throw off the Jewish yoke, as it were, as they began
to see themselves as Christians and not theological Jews. And grace
without works is dead, to paraphrase the book of James.
There was no jewish yoke. They signed up, and at the time of Christ both the >northern and the southern tribes both had divorced themselves from God, >choosing the gods of this earth and abandoned Him. Only a small remnant >remained faithful to God.
As to James, it does not say what you claimed. It said that Faith without >works is dead.
Raymond E. Brown, for one. And Bible scholars of theThe priests were the ones who stirred up the population against Jesus.
Not
all, as there were some who were followers of Jesus secretly. The High
Priest
of Israel at the time of the birth of Jesus believed that the Messiah
was
coming, were looking for him, and even recognized Jesus as the Messiah
when
he was presented to them soon after his birth, and they rejoiced. John
the
Baptist Was a cousin of his, who grew up not knowing Jesus personally.
No, crucifixion is a quintessentially Roman mode of execution. It
wasn't the Jews who stirred up the population against Jesus, but the
Roman authorities. Jesus' claim to be the Messiah was politically
dangerous enough for the Romans to look into the situation, found that
he was indeed guilty of sedition, and executed him for that reason.
Mat 27:1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of
the
people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:
Mat 27:2 And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered
him
to Pontius Pilate the governor.
If you were to go to the source, like here and the scriptures
surrounding
it, you would see a far different picture.
An interesting quote. However, it carries no weight for those who
don't accept the Bible as being inspired.
Of course not. Especially when you are afraid to read and understand what
the
Word of God really says so that you can discuss things intelligently even
if
you chose not to follow it. Ghandi was such a person. Agrippa in the days
of
Paul was like that as well.
Not at all. I've read the Bible in its entirety, as I've probably
told you before, even taking notes as I went. But unlike you, I've
read what *scholars say* about the Bible as well.
What scholars? And of which denominations? You may have read it once all the
way through, but for what reason, purpose, an what did you take out of it? >>
literary-critical persuasion don't need to approach the Bible from
the viewpoint of any denomination.
Yet they do.
He a RC Priest was a specialist on the hypothetical Johannine community, >which he speculated contributed to the authorship of the Gospel of John.... >Blah blah blah.
That is not a bible scholar. You are just throwing stuff up against a wall in >the hopes that it sticks.
You must be bored to death, and desire to be recognized by someone. Hence all >the nonsense. Well let me tell you about someone who really cares about you, >even before you were Born, and that is Jesus Christ, who died for you so that >you might have peace, not the peace of this world but a peace that goes >beyond the mind of man to comprehend. Take advantage of that while you are >still living.
I may have read more oscholarso writings than you, as well as bible
commentators as well. I know the strengths and weaknesses of many. But I >> > would far rather base my understanding upon the words of God, learn what he
has to say, and make it mine, Than to use the words of others. Yet I have >> > used the words of others many times, for a variety of reasons. One being to
show what others say so that they might know and understand that it is not >> > just my understanding. That others know the same as well as more than I. >> > People sometimes turn against the message because of the messenger. I have >> > seen that happen on more than one occasion when my entire reply to a
question
or two was answered solely by quoting the Bible and what it said that would
answer their questions. Yet their response was against it because it was my
interpretation of the scripture. In spite of the fact that they fully knew >> > it was a direct quote.
You've read Biblical scholarship but have never heard of the Suffering
Servant?
Only vaguely, and it was never a biblical expression.
Not that it matters, it is only theological, meaning from the mind of men, >not God.
There are many better versed with the word of God than I. But what I do know,
I know. Because of experiences, trust, and the leading of the Lord. And I am
happy and very content to follow his lead. And learn new things.
There's no reason to believe the Lord is leading you.
You have no way of determining that. You have not had an experiential >relationship with God so as to know one way or the other, as you have been >shunning that your entire life.
Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a
Christian.
Act 26:29 And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all
that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, >> > > > except these bonds.
So?
It was part of an answer that you requested.
When did I ever request anything like that?
If you were to pour over this thread, perhaps going back in time a few days >ago when I responded with the info then you might see it. But I understand >from you that you are against going over things to see and understand, even >if it is what you wrote. And since you constantly break up paragraphs into >sound bites in order to tear thought continuity apart, it is difficult to >carry on any meaningful conversation with you as you lose even your own train >of thought.
Scripture also speaks from the perspective of the Romans who found no
fault
in him. No sedition, nothing. Also verified from Roman history which
many
try to discredit so as to destroy the truth for an anti-Jesus narrative.
The Romans knew what a Messiah was supposed to do. They decided to >> > > > > nip it in the bud before things got worse.
Nope. Although there was one local ruler In Judea that was of that
mindset,
and killed every child and baby under the age of 2 for miles around for
fear
he would lose his rulership. And went down in history noted for that deed.
You're talking about Herod the Great. It would've been characteristic
of him to do something like that, but he probably never did, for a
variety of reasons.
Pure conjecture on your part. But he earned a nickname because of what he >> > did, that no doubt many have heard but did not understand why he was known >> > by that.
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents
"The historicity of the Matthew account is not accepted by modern
sources.[7][2][8] The story of the massacre is found in no gospel
other than Matthew, nor is it mentioned in the surviving works of
Nicolaus of Damascus (who was a personal friend of Herod the Great),
nor in Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, despite his recording many
of Herod's misdeeds, including the murder of three of his own sons.[9]
The early 5th-century account of Macrobiusuthat "on hearing that the
son of Herod, king of the Jews, had been slain when Herod ordered that
all boys in Syria under the age of two be killed, [Augustus] said,
'It's better to be Herod's pig than his son'"uhas been discounted as
extra-biblical evidence for the event due to its later authorship,
possible influence by the gospel narrative, and the confused nature of
the account.[10] In view of the lack of independent confirmation that
the event occurred, the story acts as a kind of folklore inspired by
Herod's reputation.[8] As a matter of understanding what the myth is
trying to communicate, its lack of historicity is unsurprising given
that gospels were primarily written as theological documents rather
than chronological timelines.[11][12][13][14]"
Odd that they recount the historic evidences of it, yet deny its existence. >Herod's personal friends were that only as long as they agreed with him. And >what you also quoted showed the ridiculous nature of this article. boys in >Syria under the age of two be killed, [Augustus] said, 'It's better to be >Herod's pig than his sonA"
Even you should have been astute enough to catch that grievous error, unless >like in other areas you always accept what seems to fit your agenda, and deny >all else.
You also learned these things when you were young, So whatAs with
these lies?
Look, liar, you know it's stupid to place too much historical weight
on the legends and stories in the gospels, and yet you continue to do
it. Why is that?
Liar? What did I lie about?
You lied by acting as if other people accept the Bible as being
authoritative, which isn't true, as you must surely know by now.
I know, as well as you, that many people believe that whether they be >> > > > Christian or not.
And that does not make me a liar. I also know that you, just like the well
known atheists leaders, who were given enough time to die on a deathbed
realized their mistake yet most felt they fully deserved the end result as
described in the Bible and few very few humbled themselves before God and
sought His Mercy.
So if you're not a liar, I have to ask, Why the lie? And didn't you
post a video about atheists on their deathbeds that was debunked by
several atheists here in alt.atheism?
Nope. Since what links I did give gave eyewitness accounts that no one in >> > your group could possibly dismiss truthfully.
Maybe it was Andrew that posted it. I'm sure we've discussed
recently, though.
I have also mentioned here, many, many times that I have personal >> > > > > > knowledge
and understandings of God, even if they are limited greatly due to the
fact
that I have had a personal experiential relationship with Him and >> > > > > > thereby
know the reality of who He is, and that HE exists. Which you very well
know
and choose to mock on a personal basis, so as to excuse your choice to
disbelieve and follow the lead of your god, Lucifer. Even though you do
not
know him, yet the thoughts he implants in your head and deceives you
with,
you chose to speak.
Thoughts being implanted into heads is craziness.
Then you accept the thinking that you are crazed?
This is why the bible said one should control the thoughts before acting.
Umm... no, I don't believe in thoughts being implanted. That's you
that believes that!
It will not be long until you have a rude awakening and recognize that you >> > had a thought that was not your own perhaps noticeably different than what >> > you would normally have within your normal character.
Not long until? What's wrong with now?
There is a time and a place for everything.
You realize that you're replying to Andrew with this last screed and
not me, right? And feel free to remove alt.religion.christian if >> > > > > > > alt.atheism messages are bothering you.
Your ignorances belong amongst yourselves, as many there insist. Yet you
all
insist of posting to arc which is not related to aa. I have been posting
lately with my replies marked for followups to aa, so as not to cross
post
in
an effort to wean you off from crossposting.
I didn't add a.r.c. I only post to theist newsgroups when they post >> > > > > to alt.atheism.
You knew this thread originated there, and bear/sharing the blame for not
trimming the NGAs/
I don't trim them, because I believe people should be able to see the
reactions to what they see posted in their own newsgroups.
OH? So you think you know from where peoples comments originate?
I know what groups it's being read in, which serves the purpose.
And you know that how?
I do not know if Andrew originated the cross post of not. And he really
shouldnAt.. Paul the apostle is a good example of that, as he debated
those
who were against God in their own temples and places of discourse. He
did
not
drag them to a place of worship to God, or to a temple of God, to argue
and
debate. He only stopped doing that, depending of the location when those
he
debated could no longer reasonably debate and sought to kill him because
of
his testimony, works of God, and as a result of his teachings drew many
away
from their false gods and saw their income decreasing. Meaning the meat
markets that sold meat that was offered as a sacrifice to their gods,
the
lack of sales of their images of their false gods as well as their >> > > > > > charms,
incenses, etc.
And you don't think Paul was doing theology when he preached his
sermons?
Nope. In those days it was called and was a full part of philosophy, and
he
was well trained in that by one of the masters of that day. Yet he taught
Jesus Christ an him crucified, and made a point about speaking and
teaching
clear and plainly with simple words, and allowing the power of God to be
made
manifest so that people would believe in God and not Paul and his words.
IOW
he humbled himself before men and God so that the Glory of God might shine
through.
Once you begin to ask why anyone should be concerned about Christ
crucified, you're down the rabbit hole into theology.
Only because you follow a certain theological understanding. It is a box >> > that
you put other into, including yourself so as to know in your mind how to >> > react to them. And you cannot think outside of the box as you are not
permitted to do so.
No, I don't follow any theological understanding. I'm an atheist,
after all.
Yet you have your own theology and religion, bearing in mind all the things >you people have said, and stick to at least in front of others in your >church/group. Your favorite mantras, dogmaAs etc.
If the christians did not enter your NGAs at any time, your group >> > > > > > would
close down within a year for there would be nothing for you all to talk
about. ;)
Wherever there's intelligent opinions around, there will be things to
talk about. But I thought you were complaining about atheists posting
in your newsgroups, not making a plea for the inclusion of theist
posts in alt.atheism.
Obviously you did not understand. Especially the concept of the thought.
What's so difficult about the "concept of thought"? Or are you lying
again?
Is that really the best you can do? Your comment belies your ability to
understand. ;)
Thought is what you create with your mind. How's that?
Pretty poor, to be perfectly honest with you, shallow.
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 18:03:54 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 23, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<e5h5dkt5hp1l4qqt1jsft3og876q3vep1g@4ax.com>):
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:26:04 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<d284dk9el1qqlp9nv7d2pvu8q5ghbu4jon@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 17:38:06 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for
Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church, so
they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they
made
up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the beginning.
But then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional rift
between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the
Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good graces.
Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a false
understanding because it stems from the mind of men who speculate on
who
God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having full wisdom
and
knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and for that
reason
many denominations err and there is separation and not a common bond.
To say "Christ is risen" is a theological statement in addition to
being an attempt at history.
To whose way of thinking as there were over 500 witnesses of it. Plus to
think that someone was trying to create history is foolish, for such
attempts
have been tried similar to that, but were always disproven, and or been
discredited soon afterwards.
Paul *claimed* that 500 witnesses saw him, but who was counting, right? And are you seriously claiming that attempts to create history are always unsuccessful? Do you believe all the stories promulgated by the Mormons, for example?
Paul never said that. When the book of Mormons does not agree with scripture
then their teachings are fully suspect. Many are seemingly nice people on
the
outside. But on weekends the roads from Salt Lake City out of town on Friday
nights and sat mornings are packed to LV and north also, out of state for
casinos, etc. and on Sunday evenings it is the reverse. I am also very familiar with many and know some of the ins n outs I will say no more about
them.
Paul said it in 1 Corinthians 15:6. And regardless of whether
Mormonism agrees with scripture, it's still a very large denomination.
So if the Mormons could do it, why couldn't first century Christians
do it?
1Co 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
There is no mention of 500 people there are all.
Try vs. 6, like I said above.
It says:
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers
and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though
some have fallen asleep.
Hinduism has far more people than the Mormons, does that give them more legitimacy? Plus they have well over 1K gods.Some claim that Hinduism existed
before Jesus. They accept spirituality and practice that a lot as well, even
though it is evil. See the rabbit holes in the thinking of the mind of men? Given your reasoning a person could justify adultery by telling you that as they were doing it, they were thinking of you and thus justify it.
If Hinduism is a false religion, there must've been a point in time
when its founders were trying to create history, but according to you
they would've been disproven and discredited, leading to the collapse
of their religion -- but they're still here. How do you explain that?
So they vilified the non-Messianic Jews (referred to as simply "the
Jews"), blaming them for Jesus' death and attacking Jewish sects like
the Pharisees as they wrote the Gospels.
That, my friend, is misleading and without understanding. They were to
be
blamed for the Death of Christ, and they knew it at the time.
Even the Jews who had nothing to do with Jesus' crucifixion (e.g.,
children)?
All the ones in that crowd that proclaimed it were accepting the responsibility and with such emphasis that they were fully willing to
hold
their children and their childrenrCOs children as culpable as well. They
did
so knowing full well the severity of doing such a thing before God and
Man,
and people in that culture did not take such things likely as they considered themselves bound by their words.
Was it the children's fault that they were supposedly indoctrinated that way?
Is it your fault that your were born into a sin nature because of Adam Fall?
And are you powerless to seek and receive deliverance from that condition?
No, it's not my fault. So why should I suffer for what Adam and Eve supposedly did?
You are their offspring you inherited their existence. They subjected the world to the power of Lucifer, making him the god of this world into which you were born.
If I was born into such a world, it's not my fault if that birth leads
to trouble, is it?
You have a choice, once you reach the age of accountability of with choosing
the things of this world and all that goes with it, or accepting the promised
Messiah and all that he provides for your escape from it, as well as the power to live accordingly and all power over the spiritual enemy. Choose blessings or choose curses, default is the world you were born into.
What would be the point of choosing curses over blessings?
Mat 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, butthat
rather
a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the
multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person:
see ye to it.
Baloney.
The story is well known, as is the story of what his wife saw In a dream
and relayed to him at the trial.
It is well-known, but it's probably apocryphal.
Any excuse to justify the choices you make.
How is "apocryphal" an excuse?
You were avoiding accepting the uncontested truth.
Which was what?
Mat 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His bloodbe on us,
and on our children.
Which is exactly what the early Christian church *wanted* them to have
said, so they could more easily differentiate themselves from their
Jewish beginnings and neighbors.
The early church were jewish believers in Christ, and their relatives
who
did
not believe in Jesus they for certain did not want them to be alienated.
You
are just blowing smoke, speaking things without thinking and with a knee
jerk
reaction. The church you were mosr familiar with was no more related to
Jesus
than the JW. And to take those ideas and place that understanding on
other
is a great error.
No, they wanted to go beyond Judaism. That's why they argued that Jewish ceremonial laws like kosher food didn't apply to Christians and
newly converted Gentiles.
Yet they rigidly followed the Law Covenant in most areas. We have already
discussed that in part, not long ago. What did they know about Grace? And
why have many departed from them?
But they began to throw off the Jewish yoke, as it were, as they began
to see themselves as Christians and not theological Jews. And grace without works is dead, to paraphrase the book of James.
There was no jewish yoke. They signed up, and at the time of Christ both the
northern and the southern tribes both had divorced themselves from God, choosing the gods of this earth and abandoned Him. Only a small remnant remained faithful to God.
The book of Leviticus which was foisted on unsuspecting Israelites,
can't be better described by anything other than that it's a yoke.
As to James, it does not say what you claimed. It said that Faith without works is dead.
I said I was paraphrasing it. Grace and faith share the characteristic loophole that you should be able to get away with anything, as long as
you have faith, or trust in God's grace.
The priests were the ones who stirred up the population against
Jesus.
Not
all, as there were some who were followers of Jesus secretly. The
High
Priest
of Israel at the time of the birth of Jesus believed that the
Messiah
was
coming, were looking for him, and even recognized Jesus as the
Messiah
when
he was presented to them soon after his birth, and they rejoiced.
John
the
Baptist Was a cousin of his, who grew up not knowing Jesus personally.
No, crucifixion is a quintessentially Roman mode of execution. It
wasn't the Jews who stirred up the population against Jesus, but the
Roman authorities. Jesus' claim to be the Messiah was politically
dangerous enough for the Romans to look into the situation, found
that
he was indeed guilty of sedition, and executed him for that reason.
Mat 27:1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders
of
the
people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:
Mat 27:2 And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered
him
to Pontius Pilate the governor.
If you were to go to the source, like here and the scriptures surrounding
it, you would see a far different picture.
An interesting quote. However, it carries no weight for those who don't accept the Bible as being inspired.
Of course not. Especially when you are afraid to read and understand
what
the
Word of God really says so that you can discuss things intelligently
even
if
you chose not to follow it. Ghandi was such a person. Agrippa in the
days
of
Paul was like that as well.
Not at all. I've read the Bible in its entirety, as I've probably told you before, even taking notes as I went. But unlike you, I've read what *scholars say* about the Bible as well.
What scholars? And of which denominations? You may have read it once all
the
way through, but for what reason, purpose, an what did you take out of it?
Raymond E. Brown, for one. And Bible scholars of the
literary-critical persuasion don't need to approach the Bible from
the viewpoint of any denomination.
Yet they do.
He a RC Priest was a specialist on the hypothetical Johannine community, which he speculated contributed to the authorship of the Gospel of John.... Blah blah blah.
That is not a bible scholar. You are just throwing stuff up against a wall in
the hopes that it sticks.
How would being a Catholic prevent someone from being a Bible scholar?
And what about these scholars:
https://www.bibleanalysis.org/who-are-some-well-known-biblical-scholars-today-
and-what-are-their-areas-of-focus/
You must be bored to death, and desire to be recognized by someone. Hence all the nonsense. Well let me tell you about someone who really cares about you,
even before you were Born, and that is Jesus Christ, who died for you so that
you might have peace, not the peace of this world but a peace that goes beyond the mind of man to comprehend. Take advantage of that while you are still living.
So disagreement with you has become "nonsense"? And you know I was
raised as a Christian, so you can't talk to me like I've never heard
about the plan of salvation. And you can't explain why I can't make a decision for Christ *after* I die rather than now.
I may have read more rCLscholarsrCY writings than you, as well as bible commentators as well. I know the strengths and weaknesses of many. But I
would far rather base my understanding upon the words of God, learn what
he
has to say, and make it mine, Than to use the words of others. Yet I have
used the words of others many times, for a variety of reasons. One being
to
show what others say so that they might know and understand that it is not
just my understanding. That others know the same as well as more than I.
People sometimes turn against the message because of the messenger. I have
seen that happen on more than one occasion when my entire reply to a question
or two was answered solely by quoting the Bible and what it said that would
answer their questions. Yet their response was against it because it was
my
interpretation of the scripture. In spite of the fact that they fully knew
it was a direct quote.
You've read Biblical scholarship but have never heard of the Suffering Servant?
Only vaguely, and it was never a biblical expression.
Of course. It's an expression used by Biblical studies, not the Bible
itself -- which you claimed to be familiar with.
Not that it matters, it is only theological, meaning from the mind of men, not God.
No, theology is itself the study of God.
There are many better versed with the word of God than I. But what I do know,
I know. Because of experiences, trust, and the leading of the Lord. And I
am
happy and very content to follow his lead. And learn new things.
There's no reason to believe the Lord is leading you.
You have no way of determining that. You have not had an experiential relationship with God so as to know one way or the other, as you have been shunning that your entire life.
I determine that by observing that a supposed relationship with God is
really just a psychological artifact of wishful thinking.
Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a
Christian.
Act 26:29 And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also
all
that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am,
except these bonds.
So?
It was part of an answer that you requested.
When did I ever request anything like that?
If you were to pour over this thread, perhaps going back in time a few days ago when I responded with the info then you might see it. But I understand from you that you are against going over things to see and understand, even if it is what you wrote. And since you constantly break up paragraphs into sound bites in order to tear thought continuity apart, it is difficult to carry on any meaningful conversation with you as you lose even your own train
of thought.
That's "pore" over, not "pour over". And I only break up paragraphs
when you have them broken up first.
Scripture also speaks from the perspective of the Romans who found no
fault
in him. No sedition, nothing. Also verified from Roman history which
many
try to discredit so as to destroy the truth for an anti-Jesus narrative.
The Romans knew what a Messiah was supposed to do. They decided to
nip it in the bud before things got worse.
Nope. Although there was one local ruler In Judea that was of that mindset,
and killed every child and baby under the age of 2 for miles around for
fear
he would lose his rulership. And went down in history noted for that
deed.
You're talking about Herod the Great. It would've been characteristic of him to do something like that, but he probably never did, for a variety of reasons.
Pure conjecture on your part. But he earned a nickname because of what he
did, that no doubt many have heard but did not understand why he was known
by that.
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents
"The historicity of the Matthew account is not accepted by modern sources.[7][2][8] The story of the massacre is found in no gospel
other than Matthew, nor is it mentioned in the surviving works of Nicolaus of Damascus (who was a personal friend of Herod the Great),
nor in Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, despite his recording many
of Herod's misdeeds, including the murder of three of his own sons.[9] The early 5th-century account of MacrobiusrCothat "on hearing that the son of Herod, king of the Jews, had been slain when Herod ordered that all boys in Syria under the age of two be killed, [Augustus] said,
'It's better to be Herod's pig than his son'"rCohas been discounted as extra-biblical evidence for the event due to its later authorship, possible influence by the gospel narrative, and the confused nature of the account.[10] In view of the lack of independent confirmation that
the event occurred, the story acts as a kind of folklore inspired by Herod's reputation.[8] As a matter of understanding what the myth is trying to communicate, its lack of historicity is unsurprising given
that gospels were primarily written as theological documents rather
than chronological timelines.[11][12][13][14]"
Odd that they recount the historic evidences of it, yet deny its existence. Herod's personal friends were that only as long as they agreed with him. And
what you also quoted showed the ridiculous nature of this article. boys in Syria under the age of two be killed, [Augustus] said, 'It's better to be Herod's pig than his sonrCO"
Which has nothing to do with the supposed massacre of the infants. Did
you read about how it wasn't mentioned in Nicolaus of Damascus, the non-Matthean gospels, or Josephus?
Even you should have been astute enough to catch that grievous error, unless
like in other areas you always accept what seems to fit your agenda, and deny all else.
There was no grievous error, except on your part. Your agenda is
blinding you to that.
You also learned these things when you were young, So whatrCOs with
these lies?
Look, liar, you know it's stupid to place too much historical weight
on the legends and stories in the gospels, and yet you continue to do
it. Why is that?
Liar? What did I lie about?
You lied by acting as if other people accept the Bible as being authoritative, which isn't true, as you must surely know by now.
I know, as well as you, that many people believe that whether they be
Christian or not.
And that does not make me a liar. I also know that you, just like the
well
known atheists leaders, who were given enough time to die on a deathbed
realized their mistake yet most felt they fully deserved the end result
as
described in the Bible and few very few humbled themselves before God
and
sought His Mercy.
So if you're not a liar, I have to ask, Why the lie? And didn't you post a video about atheists on their deathbeds that was debunked by several atheists here in alt.atheism?
Nope. Since what links I did give gave eyewitness accounts that no one in
your group could possibly dismiss truthfully.
Maybe it was Andrew that posted it. I'm sure we've discussed
recently, though.
I have also mentioned here, many, many times that I have personal
knowledge
and understandings of God, even if they are limited greatly due to the
fact
that I have had a personal experiential relationship with Him and
thereby
know the reality of who He is, and that HE exists. Which you very well
know
and choose to mock on a personal basis, so as to excuse your choice to
disbelieve and follow the lead of your god, Lucifer. Even though you
do
not
know him, yet the thoughts he implants in your head and deceives you
with,
you chose to speak.
Thoughts being implanted into heads is craziness.
Then you accept the thinking that you are crazed?
This is why the bible said one should control the thoughts before acting.
Umm... no, I don't believe in thoughts being implanted. That's you that believes that!
It will not be long until you have a rude awakening and recognize that you
had a thought that was not your own perhaps noticeably different than what
you would normally have within your normal character.
Not long until? What's wrong with now?
There is a time and a place for everything.
And the time for a rude awakening is now.
You realize that you're replying to Andrew with this last screed and
not me, right? And feel free to remove alt.religion.christian if
alt.atheism messages are bothering you.
Your ignorances belong amongst yourselves, as many there insist. Yet
you
all
insist of posting to arc which is not related to aa. I have been
posting
lately with my replies marked for followups to aa, so as not to cross
post
in
an effort to wean you off from crossposting.
I didn't add a.r.c. I only post to theist newsgroups when they post
to alt.atheism.
You knew this thread originated there, and bear/sharing the blame for
not
trimming the NGrCOs/
I don't trim them, because I believe people should be able to see the reactions to what they see posted in their own newsgroups.
OH? So you think you know from where peoples comments originate?
I know what groups it's being read in, which serves the purpose.
And you know that how?
How do I know what?
I do not know if Andrew originated the cross post of not. And he
really
shouldnrCOt.. Paul the apostle is a good example of that, as he debated
those
who were against God in their own temples and places of discourse. He
did
not
drag them to a place of worship to God, or to a temple of God, to
argue
and
debate. He only stopped doing that, depending of the location when
those
he
debated could no longer reasonably debate and sought to kill him
because
of
his testimony, works of God, and as a result of his teachings drew
many
away
from their false gods and saw their income decreasing. Meaning the
meat
markets that sold meat that was offered as a sacrifice to their gods,
the
lack of sales of their images of their false gods as well as their
charms,
incenses, etc.
And you don't think Paul was doing theology when he preached his sermons?
Nope. In those days it was called and was a full part of philosophy, and
he
was well trained in that by one of the masters of that day. Yet he taught
Jesus Christ an him crucified, and made a point about speaking and teaching
clear and plainly with simple words, and allowing the power of God to be
made
manifest so that people would believe in God and not Paul and his words.
IOW
he humbled himself before men and God so that the Glory of God might
shine
through.
Once you begin to ask why anyone should be concerned about Christ crucified, you're down the rabbit hole into theology.
Only because you follow a certain theological understanding. It is a box
that
you put other into, including yourself so as to know in your mind how to
react to them. And you cannot think outside of the box as you are not permitted to do so.
No, I don't follow any theological understanding. I'm an atheist,
after all.
Yet you have your own theology and religion, bearing in mind all the things you people have said, and stick to at least in front of others in your church/group. Your favorite mantras, dogmarCOs etc.
Any examples of these "mantras and dogmas"?
If the christians did not enter your NGrCOs at any time, your group
would
close down within a year for there would be nothing for you all to
talk
about. ;)
Wherever there's intelligent opinions around, there will be things to
talk about. But I thought you were complaining about atheists posting
in your newsgroups, not making a plea for the inclusion of theist posts in alt.atheism.
Obviously you did not understand. Especially the concept of the thought.
What's so difficult about the "concept of thought"? Or are you lying again?
Is that really the best you can do? Your comment belies your ability to understand. ;)
Thought is what you create with your mind. How's that?
Pretty poor, to be perfectly honest with you, shallow.
What's shallow about it?
On 9/22/2025 7:38 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church, so
they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they made
up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the beginning.
But then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional rift between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good graces.
Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a false understanding because it stems from the mind of men who speculate on who
God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having full wisdom and
knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and for that reason
many denominations err and there is separation and not a common bond.
To say "Christ is risen" is a theological statement in addition to
being an attempt at history.
To whose way of thinking as there were over 500 witnesses of it. Plus to think that someone was trying to create history is foolish, for such attempts
have been tried similar to that, but were always disproven, and or been discredited soon afterwards.
The so-called "500 witnesses" is likely a latter embellishment added by
some scribe to "beef up" Paul's account, or Paul himself is just storytelling. Nowhere is this supposed "mass apparition" ever mentioned anywhere else, either elsewhere in the New Testament or in secular
sources, and none of the 500 are ever named, nor did any of them leave
any surviving accounts of their own individual experiences, or convey
those experiences to anyone else.
As with the "crucifixion darkness," the appearances to 500 human beings
lacks contextual credibility, as it only gets mentioned in one single
source, when, in fact, it should have been mentioned in dozens of
independent sources if, in fact, it had happened.
On Sep 23, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10ava3e$3agu7$2@dont-email.me>):
On 9/22/2025 7:38 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wroteTo say "Christ is risen" is a theological statement in addition to
(Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a false
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wroteBut then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional rift >>>>>> between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the
(Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me... >>>>>>>>>> Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated >>>>>>>>>> Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church, so >>>>>>>> they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they made >>>>>>>> up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the beginning. >>>>>>
Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good graces. >>>>>
understanding because it stems from the mind of men who speculate on who >>>>> God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having full wisdom and
knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and for that >>>>> reason
many denominations err and there is separation and not a common bond. >>>>
being an attempt at history.
To whose way of thinking as there were over 500 witnesses of it. Plus to >>> think that someone was trying to create history is foolish, for such
attempts
have been tried similar to that, but were always disproven, and or been
discredited soon afterwards.
The so-called "500 witnesses" is likely a latter embellishment added by
some scribe to "beef up" Paul's account, or Paul himself is just
storytelling. Nowhere is this supposed "mass apparition" ever mentioned
anywhere else, either elsewhere in the New Testament or in secular
sources, and none of the 500 are ever named, nor did any of them leave
any surviving accounts of their own individual experiences, or convey
those experiences to anyone else.
As with the "crucifixion darkness," the appearances to 500 human beings
lacks contextual credibility, as it only gets mentioned in one single
source, when, in fact, it should have been mentioned in dozens of
independent sources if, in fact, it had happened.
It was. It is mentioned by others in the NT. Most notable John, Matthew Luke, Mark.
Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus at that time. Paul saw him for the first time on the road to Damascus
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
Jesus then taught Paul in the desert for during a time of three years.
Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taughtit, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
***
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
Gal 1:20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
On Sep 23, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote >(Message-ID:<hhs6dk554kgtepv2ru2t96n508iiu1k2fu@4ax.com>):
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 18:03:54 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 23, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<e5h5dkt5hp1l4qqt1jsft3og876q3vep1g@4ax.com>):
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:26:04 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<d284dk9el1qqlp9nv7d2pvu8q5ghbu4jon@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 17:38:06 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote: >> > > > > > >
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>): >> > > > > > > > > >
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for
Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church, so
they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they
made
up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the >> > > > > > > > > > beginning.
But then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional rift
between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the
Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good graces.
Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a false
understanding because it stems from the mind of men who speculate on
who
God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having full wisdom
and
knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and for that
reason
many denominations err and there is separation and not a common bond.
To say "Christ is risen" is a theological statement in addition to
being an attempt at history.
To whose way of thinking as there were over 500 witnesses of it. Plus to
think that someone was trying to create history is foolish, for such
attempts
have been tried similar to that, but were always disproven, and or been
discredited soon afterwards.
Paul *claimed* that 500 witnesses saw him, but who was counting,
right? And are you seriously claiming that attempts to create history
are always unsuccessful? Do you believe all the stories promulgated >> > > > > by the Mormons, for example?
Paul never said that. When the book of Mormons does not agree with
scripture
then their teachings are fully suspect. Many are seemingly nice people on
the
outside. But on weekends the roads from Salt Lake City out of town on >> > > > Friday
nights and sat mornings are packed to LV and north also, out of state for
casinos, etc. and on Sunday evenings it is the reverse. I am also very >> > > > familiar with many and know some of the ins n outs I will say no more >> > > > about
them.
Paul said it in 1 Corinthians 15:6. And regardless of whether
Mormonism agrees with scripture, it's still a very large denomination. >> > > So if the Mormons could do it, why couldn't first century Christians
do it?
1Co 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
There is no mention of 500 people there are all.
Try vs. 6, like I said above.
Sorry, my mistake with selecting the wrong verse/
It says:
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers
and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though
some have fallen asleep.
There was no attempt to create history, however, which was your contention.
Taken in the light of context,....
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day >according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of >whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
Paul related what he was told by those that were there at the scene when it >happened. Paul was not part of that crowd at that time for he was persecuting >them.
There are other places in scripture that confirms these things, if you care >to find the truth, such as,...
Act 13:29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took >him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
Act 13:30 But God raised him from the dead:
Act 13:31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from >Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.
Act 13:32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which >was made unto the fathers,
Hinduism has far more people than the Mormons, does that give them more
legitimacy? Plus they have well over 1K gods.Some claim that Hinduism
existed
before Jesus. They accept spirituality and practice that a lot as well, even
though it is evil. See the rabbit holes in the thinking of the mind of men?
Given your reasoning a person could justify adultery by telling you that as
they were doing it, they were thinking of you and thus justify it.
If Hinduism is a false religion, there must've been a point in time
when its founders were trying to create history, but according to you
they would've been disproven and discredited, leading to the collapse
of their religion -- but they're still here. How do you explain that?
That is pure foolishness, and you have no historical basis of thought for >that.
Even the Jews who had nothing to do with Jesus' crucifixion (e.g.,So they vilified the non-Messianic Jews (referred to as simply "the
Jews"), blaming them for Jesus' death and attacking Jewish sects like
the Pharisees as they wrote the Gospels.
That, my friend, is misleading and without understanding. They were to
be
blamed for the Death of Christ, and they knew it at the time. >> > > > > > >
children)?
All the ones in that crowd that proclaimed it were accepting the >> > > > > > responsibility and with such emphasis that they were fully willing to
hold
their children and their childrenAs children as culpable as well. They
did
so knowing full well the severity of doing such a thing before God and
Man,
and people in that culture did not take such things likely as they >> > > > > > considered themselves bound by their words.
Was it the children's fault that they were supposedly indoctrinated >> > > > > that way?
Is it your fault that your were born into a sin nature because of Adam >> > > > Fall?
And are you powerless to seek and receive deliverance from that condition?
No, it's not my fault. So why should I suffer for what Adam and Eve
supposedly did?
You are their offspring you inherited their existence. They subjected the >> > world to the power of Lucifer, making him the god of this world into which >> > you were born.
If I was born into such a world, it's not my fault if that birth leads
to trouble, is it?
Blame it on your parents if it be such a curse to you. However, you are >provided a way of escape, both while you are in this earth, as well as >afterwards if you do not allow pride to block that door.
You have a choice, once you reach the age of accountability of with choosing
the things of this world and all that goes with it, or accepting the
promised
Messiah and all that he provides for your escape from it, as well as the >> > power to live accordingly and all power over the spiritual enemy. Choose >> > blessings or choose curses, default is the world you were born into.
What would be the point of choosing curses over blessings?
Without Jesus that is the default.
Mat 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, butthat
rather
a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the
multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person:
see ye to it.
Baloney.
The story is well known, as is the story of what his wife saw In a dream
and relayed to him at the trial.
It is well-known, but it's probably apocryphal.
Any excuse to justify the choices you make.
How is "apocryphal" an excuse?
You were avoiding accepting the uncontested truth.
Which was what?
What the context of this part of the exchange was about.
Mat 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His bloodbe on us,
and on our children.
Which is exactly what the early Christian church *wanted* them to have
said, so they could more easily differentiate themselves from their
Jewish beginnings and neighbors.
The early church were jewish believers in Christ, and their relatives
who
did
not believe in Jesus they for certain did not want them to be alienated.
You
are just blowing smoke, speaking things without thinking and with a knee
jerk
reaction. The church you were mosr familiar with was no more related to
Jesus
than the JW. And to take those ideas and place that understanding on
other
is a great error.
No, they wanted to go beyond Judaism. That's why they argued that
Jewish ceremonial laws like kosher food didn't apply to Christians and
newly converted Gentiles.
Yet they rigidly followed the Law Covenant in most areas. We have already
discussed that in part, not long ago. What did they know about Grace? And
why have many departed from them?
But they began to throw off the Jewish yoke, as it were, as they began >> > > to see themselves as Christians and not theological Jews. And grace
without works is dead, to paraphrase the book of James.
There was no jewish yoke. They signed up, and at the time of Christ both the
northern and the southern tribes both had divorced themselves from God,
choosing the gods of this earth and abandoned Him. Only a small remnant
remained faithful to God.
The book of Leviticus which was foisted on unsuspecting Israelites,
can't be better described by anything other than that it's a yoke.
They willingly voted on it all.
As to James, it does not say what you claimed. It said that Faith without >> > works is dead.
I said I was paraphrasing it. Grace and faith share the characteristic
loophole that you should be able to get away with anything, as long as
you have faith, or trust in God's grace.
Nope, you get away with nothing, a person is forgiven, but if they willingly >dwell in their past sins that shows they were not sincere. Christ taught >about that in the parable of the seeds.
The priests were the ones who stirred up the population against
Jesus.
Not
all, as there were some who were followers of Jesus secretly. The
High
Priest
of Israel at the time of the birth of Jesus believed that the
Messiah
was
coming, were looking for him, and even recognized Jesus as the
Messiah
when
he was presented to them soon after his birth, and they rejoiced.
John
the
Baptist Was a cousin of his, who grew up not knowing Jesus >> > > > > > > > > > personally.
No, crucifixion is a quintessentially Roman mode of execution. It
wasn't the Jews who stirred up the population against Jesus, but the
Roman authorities. Jesus' claim to be the Messiah was politically
dangerous enough for the Romans to look into the situation, found
that
he was indeed guilty of sedition, and executed him for that reason.
Mat 27:1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders
of
the
people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:
Mat 27:2 And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered
him
to Pontius Pilate the governor.
If you were to go to the source, like here and the scriptures >> > > > > > > > surrounding
it, you would see a far different picture.
An interesting quote. However, it carries no weight for those who
don't accept the Bible as being inspired.
Of course not. Especially when you are afraid to read and understand
what
the
Word of God really says so that you can discuss things intelligently
even
if
you chose not to follow it. Ghandi was such a person. Agrippa in the
days
of
Paul was like that as well.
Not at all. I've read the Bible in its entirety, as I've probably
told you before, even taking notes as I went. But unlike you, I've >> > > > > read what *scholars say* about the Bible as well.
What scholars? And of which denominations? You may have read it once all
the
way through, but for what reason, purpose, an what did you take out of it?
Raymond E. Brown, for one. And Bible scholars of the
literary-critical persuasion don't need to approach the Bible from
the viewpoint of any denomination.
Yet they do.
He a RC Priest was a specialist on the hypothetical Johannine community, >> > which he speculated contributed to the authorship of the Gospel of John....
Blah blah blah.
That is not a bible scholar. You are just throwing stuff up against a wall >> > in
the hopes that it sticks.
How would being a Catholic prevent someone from being a Bible scholar?
And what about these scholars:
You were the one who claimed that denominational affiliation had no bearing >on Bible scholars. Yet pointed out one who was a priest of the RCC.
https://www.bibleanalysis.org/who-are-some-well-known-biblical-scholars-today-
and-what-are-their-areas-of-focus/
Your point for that? What is it supposed to prove?
You must be bored to death, and desire to be recognized by someone. Hence >> > all the nonsense. Well let me tell you about someone who really cares about you,
even before you were Born, and that is Jesus Christ, who died for you so that
you might have peace, not the peace of this world but a peace that goes
beyond the mind of man to comprehend. Take advantage of that while you are >> > still living.
So disagreement with you has become "nonsense"? And you know I was
raised as a Christian, so you can't talk to me like I've never heard
about the plan of salvation. And you can't explain why I can't make a
decision for Christ *after* I die rather than now.
When you shift the focus to a person totally disregarding the subject of the >Bible and its truth, that is nonsense. I am not written directly about in the >scriptures personally.
You were not raised as a christian. To be a oChrist like oneo you would
need to be born again, filled with the spirit of God, and lived like Christ >Jesus. You were raised in SDA to be one. When you die, your position is fixed >at the point of death. That can be fixed well ahead of that time via the plan >of salvation as long as you do not chose to walk away and abandon it. That >that do, the bible said, it would be better if they had never been born, for >their ending will be worse that had they never made the choice to accept >Jesus into their life. However there are certain qualification that must be >met, for this is applicable for the that tasted the good things of God, as >His power, and then chose to walk away. Jesus also spoke on prodigal sons and >how they are welcomed back, should they return before their death.
I may have read more oscholarso writings than you, as well as bible
commentators as well. I know the strengths and weaknesses of many. But I
would far rather base my understanding upon the words of God, learn what
he
has to say, and make it mine, Than to use the words of others. Yet I have
used the words of others many times, for a variety of reasons. One being
to
show what others say so that they might know and understand that it is not
just my understanding. That others know the same as well as more than I.
People sometimes turn against the message because of the messenger. I have
seen that happen on more than one occasion when my entire reply to a >> > > > question
or two was answered solely by quoting the Bible and what it said that >> > > > would
answer their questions. Yet their response was against it because it was
my
interpretation of the scripture. In spite of the fact that they fully knew
it was a direct quote.
You've read Biblical scholarship but have never heard of the Suffering >> > > Servant?
Only vaguely, and it was never a biblical expression.
Of course. It's an expression used by Biblical studies, not the Bible
itself -- which you claimed to be familiar with.
So then you agree there is no reason for me to be dining in that manner.
Not that it matters, it is only theological, meaning from the mind of men, >> > not God.
No, theology is itself the study of God.
There are many gods to study. But how can one know a god that they never met, >or experienced?
Why are there many atheists who got degrees in divinity and theology, yet >declere there is no God or gods? Do you ever spend time thinking? Pondering? >Or considering what ifs? You know, serious thoughts about life, etc.?
There are many better versed with the word of God than I. But what I do
know,
I know. Because of experiences, trust, and the leading of the Lord. And I
am
happy and very content to follow his lead. And learn new things.
There's no reason to believe the Lord is leading you.
You have no way of determining that. You have not had an experiential
relationship with God so as to know one way or the other, as you have been >> > shunning that your entire life.
I determine that by observing that a supposed relationship with God is
really just a psychological artifact of wishful thinking.
Really? There are millions who have had experiential relationships with the >God of the Bible, who know God, received his love, and live in it, Like >Charlie Kirks wife has done, and without God in her life she would not have >experience a peace in her pain, a peace that only God could give as it far >surpasses all human understanding. There is no wishful thinking that could >create that or even experience it.
Jesus said to cast all your cares upon Him. And he will direct your path, >plus a whole lot more things for those who place their difficulties into His >hands, expecting. Unless you have gone through times where there is nowhere >else to turn, you might never know what that is and how God works and >intervenes for His Children. Those that are born by Him, aka Born Again. I >have been there, done that, and I had peace when it seemed as if everything I >cared about was failing. IAve learned of other who have gone through
similar or seeming worse things that did I, and we all have one thing in >common that came out of it. Faith! A rock solid Belief in God. Via >experiences. Trust, confidence, Joy, peace, and an open door of communication >with our Heavenly Father. None of it bound by religion.
Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a
Christian.
Act 26:29 And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also
all
that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am,
except these bonds.
So?
It was part of an answer that you requested.
When did I ever request anything like that?
If you were to pour over this thread, perhaps going back in time a few days
ago when I responded with the info then you might see it. But I understand >> > from you that you are against going over things to see and understand, even
if it is what you wrote. And since you constantly break up paragraphs into >> > sound bites in order to tear thought continuity apart, it is difficult to >> > carry on any meaningful conversation with you as you lose even your own
train
of thought.
That's "pore" over, not "pour over". And I only break up paragraphs
when you have them broken up first.
That is not true and your posts reflect it. Spelling flames? Lol.
Scripture also speaks from the perspective of the Romans who found no
fault
in him. No sedition, nothing. Also verified from Roman history which
many
try to discredit so as to destroy the truth for an anti-Jesus >> > > > > > > > narrative.
The Romans knew what a Messiah was supposed to do. They decided to
nip it in the bud before things got worse.
Nope. Although there was one local ruler In Judea that was of that >> > > > > > mindset,
and killed every child and baby under the age of 2 for miles around for
fear
he would lose his rulership. And went down in history noted for that
deed.
You're talking about Herod the Great. It would've been characteristic
of him to do something like that, but he probably never did, for a >> > > > > variety of reasons.
Pure conjecture on your part. But he earned a nickname because of what he
did, that no doubt many have heard but did not understand why he was known
by that.
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents
"The historicity of the Matthew account is not accepted by modern
sources.[7][2][8] The story of the massacre is found in no gospel
other than Matthew, nor is it mentioned in the surviving works of
Nicolaus of Damascus (who was a personal friend of Herod the Great),
nor in Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, despite his recording many
of Herod's misdeeds, including the murder of three of his own sons.[9] >> > > The early 5th-century account of Macrobiusuthat "on hearing that the
son of Herod, king of the Jews, had been slain when Herod ordered that >> > > all boys in Syria under the age of two be killed, [Augustus] said,
'It's better to be Herod's pig than his son'"uhas been discounted as
extra-biblical evidence for the event due to its later authorship,
possible influence by the gospel narrative, and the confused nature of >> > > the account.[10] In view of the lack of independent confirmation that
the event occurred, the story acts as a kind of folklore inspired by
Herod's reputation.[8] As a matter of understanding what the myth is
trying to communicate, its lack of historicity is unsurprising given
that gospels were primarily written as theological documents rather
than chronological timelines.[11][12][13][14]"
Odd that they recount the historic evidences of it, yet deny its existence.
Herod's personal friends were that only as long as they agreed with him. And
what you also quoted showed the ridiculous nature of this article. boys in >> > Syria under the age of two be killed, [Augustus] said, 'It's better to be >> > Herod's pig than his sonA"
Which has nothing to do with the supposed massacre of the infants. Did
you read about how it wasn't mentioned in Nicolaus of Damascus, the
non-Matthean gospels, or Josephus?
You said you read the whole bible, Was Jesus born in Syria? Was Jerusalem >located in Syria?
Even you should have been astute enough to catch that grievous error, unless
like in other areas you always accept what seems to fit your agenda, and >> > deny all else.
There was no grievous error, except on your part. Your agenda is
blinding you to that.
There sure was. And you did not catch it. Your agenda blinded you to what you >read. You focused on things that fit your narrative.
I know, as well as you, that many people believe that whether they beYou also learned these things when you were young, So whatAs with
these lies?
Look, liar, you know it's stupid to place too much historical weight
on the legends and stories in the gospels, and yet you continue to do
it. Why is that?
Liar? What did I lie about?
You lied by acting as if other people accept the Bible as being >> > > > > > > authoritative, which isn't true, as you must surely know by now. >> > > > > >
Christian or not.
And that does not make me a liar. I also know that you, just like the
well
known atheists leaders, who were given enough time to die on a deathbed
realized their mistake yet most felt they fully deserved the end result
as
described in the Bible and few very few humbled themselves before God
and
sought His Mercy.
So if you're not a liar, I have to ask, Why the lie? And didn't you >> > > > > post a video about atheists on their deathbeds that was debunked by >> > > > > several atheists here in alt.atheism?
Nope. Since what links I did give gave eyewitness accounts that no one in
your group could possibly dismiss truthfully.
Maybe it was Andrew that posted it. I'm sure we've discussed
recently, though.
I have also mentioned here, many, many times that I have personal
knowledge
and understandings of God, even if they are limited greatly due to the
fact
that I have had a personal experiential relationship with Him and
thereby
know the reality of who He is, and that HE exists. Which you very well
know
and choose to mock on a personal basis, so as to excuse your choice to
disbelieve and follow the lead of your god, Lucifer. Even though you
do
not
know him, yet the thoughts he implants in your head and deceives you
with,
you chose to speak.
Thoughts being implanted into heads is craziness.
Then you accept the thinking that you are crazed?
This is why the bible said one should control the thoughts before >> > > > > > acting.
Umm... no, I don't believe in thoughts being implanted. That's you >> > > > > that believes that!
It will not be long until you have a rude awakening and recognize that you
had a thought that was not your own perhaps noticeably different than what
you would normally have within your normal character.
Not long until? What's wrong with now?
There is a time and a place for everything.
And the time for a rude awakening is now.
God knows the timing.
You realize that you're replying to Andrew with this last screed and
not me, right? And feel free to remove alt.religion.christian if
alt.atheism messages are bothering you.
Your ignorances belong amongst yourselves, as many there insist. Yet
you
all
insist of posting to arc which is not related to aa. I have been
posting
lately with my replies marked for followups to aa, so as not to cross
post
in
an effort to wean you off from crossposting.
I didn't add a.r.c. I only post to theist newsgroups when they post
to alt.atheism.
You knew this thread originated there, and bear/sharing the blame for
not
trimming the NGAs/
I don't trim them, because I believe people should be able to see the
reactions to what they see posted in their own newsgroups.
OH? So you think you know from where peoples comments originate?
I know what groups it's being read in, which serves the purpose.
And you know that how?
How do I know what?
LOL,, already lost track in just four lines?
I do not know if Andrew originated the cross post of not. And he
really
shouldnAt.. Paul the apostle is a good example of that, as he >> > > > > > > > debated
those
who were against God in their own temples and places of discourse. He
did
not
drag them to a place of worship to God, or to a temple of God, to
argue
and
debate. He only stopped doing that, depending of the location when
those
he
debated could no longer reasonably debate and sought to kill him
because
of
his testimony, works of God, and as a result of his teachings drew
many
away
from their false gods and saw their income decreasing. Meaning the
meat
markets that sold meat that was offered as a sacrifice to their gods,
the
lack of sales of their images of their false gods as well as their
charms,
incenses, etc.
And you don't think Paul was doing theology when he preached his >> > > > > > > sermons?
Nope. In those days it was called and was a full part of philosophy, and
he
was well trained in that by one of the masters of that day. Yet he >> > > > > > taught
Jesus Christ an him crucified, and made a point about speaking and >> > > > > > teaching
clear and plainly with simple words, and allowing the power of God to be
made
manifest so that people would believe in God and not Paul and his words.
IOW
he humbled himself before men and God so that the Glory of God might
shine
through.
Once you begin to ask why anyone should be concerned about Christ
crucified, you're down the rabbit hole into theology.
Only because you follow a certain theological understanding. It is a box
that
you put other into, including yourself so as to know in your mind how to
react to them. And you cannot think outside of the box as you are not >> > > > permitted to do so.
No, I don't follow any theological understanding. I'm an atheist,
after all.
Yet you have your own theology and religion, bearing in mind all the things
you people have said, and stick to at least in front of others in your
church/group. Your favorite mantras, dogmaAs etc.
Any examples of these "mantras and dogmas"?
Yes, the aa posts are full of them.
If the christians did not enter your NGAs at any time, your group
would
close down within a year for there would be nothing for you all to
talk
about. ;)
Wherever there's intelligent opinions around, there will be things to
talk about. But I thought you were complaining about atheists posting
in your newsgroups, not making a plea for the inclusion of theist
posts in alt.atheism.
Obviously you did not understand. Especially the concept of the thought.
What's so difficult about the "concept of thought"? Or are you lying >> > > > > again?
Is that really the best you can do? Your comment belies your ability to
understand. ;)
Thought is what you create with your mind. How's that?
Pretty poor, to be perfectly honest with you, shallow.
What's shallow about it?
I would rather not say, I was hoping you would reflect on it yourself.
Time for some massive snipping of text here or start a new thread since DNA >is no longer the subject.
On 9/24/2025 2:15 AM, None wrote:
On Sep 23, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10ava3e$3agu7$2@dont-email.me>):
On 9/22/2025 7:38 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for
Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church, so
they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they made
up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the beginning.
But then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional rift
between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good graces.
Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a false understanding because it stems from the mind of men who speculate on who
God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having full wisdom
and
knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and for that
reason
many denominations err and there is separation and not a common bond.
To say "Christ is risen" is a theological statement in addition to being an attempt at history.
To whose way of thinking as there were over 500 witnesses of it. Plus to
think that someone was trying to create history is foolish, for such attempts
have been tried similar to that, but were always disproven, and or been discredited soon afterwards.
The so-called "500 witnesses" is likely a latter embellishment added by some scribe to "beef up" Paul's account, or Paul himself is just storytelling. Nowhere is this supposed "mass apparition" ever mentioned anywhere else, either elsewhere in the New Testament or in secular sources, and none of the 500 are ever named, nor did any of them leave any surviving accounts of their own individual experiences, or convey those experiences to anyone else.
As with the "crucifixion darkness," the appearances to 500 human beings lacks contextual credibility, as it only gets mentioned in one single source, when, in fact, it should have been mentioned in dozens of independent sources if, in fact, it had happened.
It was. It is mentioned by others in the NT. Most notable John, Matthew Luke,
Mark.
Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus at that time. Paul saw him for the first
time on the road to Damascus
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
Jesus then taught Paul in the desert for during a time of three years.
Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taughtit, but by the
revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted
it:
***
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
Gal 1:20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
An interesting contradiction occurs with Paul's testimony, which was
pointed out by Thomas Paine, one of America's founding fathers. Here it
is in outline form:
1) Paul, while being a Jew, claims to have persecuted Christians, a
claim also made about him by the author of Acts.
2) When someone persecutes another, especially, a strange, it is
because you do not like what that person has done, is saying, and/or
certain viewpoints that they, as a group, hold to. (As an example, it
is possible for a Jew and a Muslim to hate each other even though they
have never met.)
3) As such, Paul, prior to his conversion to Christianity, must have
head the accounts of Jesus of Nazareth rising from the dead, which must
have included the so-called appearances of Jesus to the "five hundred".
In spite of hearing those accounts, Paul continued to persecute
Christians; as such, Paul himself did not find the accounts of Jesus
being raised from the dead by God as being convincing.
4) It was only after Paul's private experience that he converted.
Conclusion: The only evidence that Paul offers for the Risen Christ is
his private experience, as he himself discounted all the experiences of
all the other Christians who claimed to have experienced the Risen Christ.
On Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:03:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:<massive snip>
On Sep 23, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<hhs6dk554kgtepv2ru2t96n508iiu1k2fu@4ax.com>):
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 18:03:54 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 23, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<e5h5dkt5hp1l4qqt1jsft3og876q3vep1g@4ax.com>):
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:26:04 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<d284dk9el1qqlp9nv7d2pvu8q5ghbu4jon@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 17:38:06 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
It says:
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers
and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though
some have fallen asleep.
There was no attempt to create history, however, which was your contention.
Maybe not completely intentionally, but that's what the
legends/fiction found in the Gospels indicate.
Taken in the light of context,....
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
Paul related what he was told by those that were there at the scene when it happened. Paul was not part of that crowd at that time for he was persecuting them.
So the earliest "history" of the New Testament has Jesus simply
"appearing" mystically to those who were interested, without
supposedly walking and talking physically among the believers like chronologically later passages in the Gospels claim. And the 500
witnesses have nothing to do with what Paul was doing before his
conversion.
There are other places in scripture that confirms these things, if you care to find the truth, such as,...
Act 13:29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took
him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
Act 13:30 But God raised him from the dead:
Act 13:31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.
Act 13:32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
Obviously, the Bible claims that Jesus rose physically from the dead,
but the question is when did they begin to claim that, and which parts
of the Bible claimed either of those things (mystical appearance
rather than walking and talking with The Eleven after the supposed resurrection)?
Hinduism has far more people than the Mormons, does that give them more legitimacy? Plus they have well over 1K gods.Some claim that Hinduism existed
before Jesus. They accept spirituality and practice that a lot as well, even
though it is evil. See the rabbit holes in the thinking of the mind of men?
Given your reasoning a person could justify adultery by telling you that
as
they were doing it, they were thinking of you and thus justify it.
If Hinduism is a false religion, there must've been a point in time
when its founders were trying to create history, but according to you they would've been disproven and discredited, leading to the collapse
of their religion -- but they're still here. How do you explain that?
That is pure foolishness, and you have no historical basis of thought for that.
The point is, a wrong idea (like the supposed resurrection of Jesus)
can spread easily without it necessarily being based on facts.
So they vilified the non-Messianic Jews (referred to as simply "the
Jews"), blaming them for Jesus' death and attacking Jewish sects
like
the Pharisees as they wrote the Gospels.
That, my friend, is misleading and without understanding. They were
to
be
blamed for the Death of Christ, and they knew it at the time.
Even the Jews who had nothing to do with Jesus' crucifixion (e.g.,
children)?
All the ones in that crowd that proclaimed it were accepting the
responsibility and with such emphasis that they were fully willing to
hold
their children and their childrenrCOs children as culpable as well.
They
did
so knowing full well the severity of doing such a thing before God and
Man,
and people in that culture did not take such things likely as they
considered themselves bound by their words.
Was it the children's fault that they were supposedly indoctrinated
that way?
Is it your fault that your were born into a sin nature because of Adam
Fall?
And are you powerless to seek and receive deliverance from that condition?
No, it's not my fault. So why should I suffer for what Adam and Eve supposedly did?
You are their offspring you inherited their existence. They subjected the
world to the power of Lucifer, making him the god of this world into which
you were born.
If I was born into such a world, it's not my fault if that birth leads
to trouble, is it?
Blame it on your parents if it be such a curse to you. However, you are provided a way of escape, both while you are in this earth, as well as afterwards if you do not allow pride to block that door.
No, the blame belongs with God, not people's parents.
You have a choice, once you reach the age of accountability of with choosing
the things of this world and all that goes with it, or accepting the promised
Messiah and all that he provides for your escape from it, as well as the
power to live accordingly and all power over the spiritual enemy. Choose
blessings or choose curses, default is the world you were born into.
What would be the point of choosing curses over blessings?
Without Jesus that is the default.
But who would choose such a default? What would be the point?
<
There was no jewish yoke. They signed up, and at the time of Christ both
the
northern and the southern tribes both had divorced themselves from God, choosing the gods of this earth and abandoned Him. Only a small remnant remained faithful to God.
The book of Leviticus which was foisted on unsuspecting Israelites,
can't be better described by anything other than that it's a yoke.
They willingly voted on it all.
No, the book of Leviticus was God's supposed ideas, not those of the Israelites.
As to James, it does not say what you claimed. It said that Faith without
works is dead.
I said I was paraphrasing it. Grace and faith share the characteristic loophole that you should be able to get away with anything, as long as you have faith, or trust in God's grace.
Nope, you get away with nothing, a person is forgiven, but if they willingly
dwell in their past sins that shows they were not sincere. Christ taught about that in the parable of the seeds.
Sure. As long as you repent sincerely, you can do whatever you want.
Remember how many times Jesus suggested his followers forgive others
of their sin?
Not at all. I've read the Bible in its entirety, as I've probably told you before, even taking notes as I went. But unlike you, I've
read what *scholars say* about the Bible as well.
What scholars? And of which denominations? You may have read it once all
the
way through, but for what reason, purpose, an what did you take out of
it?
Raymond E. Brown, for one. And Bible scholars of the literary-critical persuasion don't need to approach the Bible from the viewpoint of any denomination.
Yet they do.
He a RC Priest was a specialist on the hypothetical Johannine community,
which he speculated contributed to the authorship of the Gospel of John....
Blah blah blah.
That is not a bible scholar. You are just throwing stuff up against a wall
in
the hopes that it sticks.
How would being a Catholic prevent someone from being a Bible scholar? And what about these scholars:
You were the one who claimed that denominational affiliation had no bearing on Bible scholars. Yet pointed out one who was a priest of the RCC.
What do you disagree with concerning the conclusions of Roman Catholic Biblical scholarship?
https://www.bibleanalysis.org/who-are-some-well-known-biblical-scholars-tod
ay-and-what-are-their-areas-of-focus/
Your point for that? What is it supposed to prove?
I thought you had been claiming there was no such thing as Bible
scholars when you said "What scholars"? in the quoted text above.
You must be bored to death, and desire to be recognized by someone. Hence
all the nonsense. Well let me tell you about someone who really cares about you,
even before you were Born, and that is Jesus Christ, who died for you so
that
you might have peace, not the peace of this world but a peace that goes beyond the mind of man to comprehend. Take advantage of that while you are
still living.
So disagreement with you has become "nonsense"? And you know I was
raised as a Christian, so you can't talk to me like I've never heard about the plan of salvation. And you can't explain why I can't make a decision for Christ *after* I die rather than now.
When you shift the focus to a person totally disregarding the subject of the
Bible and its truth, that is nonsense. I am not written directly about in the scriptures personally.
No, I've *debunked* your understanding of the Bible, rather than "disregarding" it.
You were not raised as a christian. To be a rCLChrist like onerCY you would need to be born again, filled with the spirit of God, and lived like Christ Jesus. You were raised in SDA to be one. When you die, your position is fixed
at the point of death. That can be fixed well ahead of that time via the plan
of salvation as long as you do not chose to walk away and abandon it. That that do, the bible said, it would be better if they had never been born, for
their ending will be worse that had they never made the choice to accept Jesus into their life. However there are certain qualification that must be met, for this is applicable for the that tasted the good things of God, as His power, and then chose to walk away. Jesus also spoke on prodigal sons and
how they are welcomed back, should they return before their death.
What makes you think I wasn't raised as a Christian? The Seventh-day Adventists *are* a valid Protestant denomination, after all. And if
it would be better for some unrepentant people to have never been
born, maybe God should show them mercy and refuse to send them to
hell, but rather just gently removing them from existence.
I may have read more rCLscholarsrCY writings than you, as well as bible
commentators as well. I know the strengths and weaknesses of many. But I
would far rather base my understanding upon the words of God, learn what
he
has to say, and make it mine, Than to use the words of others. Yet I
have
used the words of others many times, for a variety of reasons. One being
to
show what others say so that they might know and understand that it is
not
just my understanding. That others know the same as well as more than I.
People sometimes turn against the message because of the messenger. I
have
seen that happen on more than one occasion when my entire reply to a
question
or two was answered solely by quoting the Bible and what it said that
would
answer their questions. Yet their response was against it because it was
my interpretation of the scripture. In spite of the fact that they fully
knew it was a direct quote.
You've read Biblical scholarship but have never heard of the Suffering
Servant?
Only vaguely, and it was never a biblical expression.
Of course. It's an expression used by Biblical studies, not the Bible itself -- which you claimed to be familiar with.
So then you agree there is no reason for me to be dining in that manner.
No. What do you mean by "dining in that manner"?
Not that it matters, it is only theological, meaning from the mind of men,
not God.
No, theology is itself the study of God.
There are many gods to study. But how can one know a god that they never met,
or experienced?
Why are there many atheists who got degrees in divinity and theology, yet declere there is no God or gods? Do you ever spend time thinking? Pondering?
Or considering what ifs? You know, serious thoughts about life, etc.?
No, I've long past the "what if" stage. I'm now quite certain that
theism in any of its varieties is wrong.
There are many better versed with the word of God than I. But what I do
know,
I know. Because of experiences, trust, and the leading of the Lord. And
I
am
happy and very content to follow his lead. And learn new things.
There's no reason to believe the Lord is leading you.
You have no way of determining that. You have not had an experiential relationship with God so as to know one way or the other, as you have been
shunning that your entire life.
I determine that by observing that a supposed relationship with God is really just a psychological artifact of wishful thinking.
Really? There are millions who have had experiential relationships with the God of the Bible, who know God, received his love, and live in it, Like Charlie Kirks wife has done, and without God in her life she would not have experience a peace in her pain, a peace that only God could give as it far surpasses all human understanding. There is no wishful thinking that could create that or even experience it.
Jesus said to cast all your cares upon Him. And he will direct your path, plus a whole lot more things for those who place their difficulties into His
hands, expecting. Unless you have gone through times where there is nowhere else to turn, you might never know what that is and how God works and intervenes for His Children. Those that are born by Him, aka Born Again. I have been there, done that, and I had peace when it seemed as if everything I
cared about was failing. IrCOve learned of other who have gone through similar or seeming worse things that did I, and we all have one thing in common that came out of it. Faith! A rock solid Belief in God. Via experiences. Trust, confidence, Joy, peace, and an open door of communication
with our Heavenly Father. None of it bound by religion.
Mrs. Kirk did the right thing (in the sense of being consistent with
her religion), while President Trump says he harbors hate for his
political enemies.
Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to
be a Christian.
Act 26:29 And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also
all
that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am,
except these bonds.
So?
It was part of an answer that you requested.
When did I ever request anything like that?
If you were to pour over this thread, perhaps going back in time a few days
ago when I responded with the info then you might see it. But I understand
from you that you are against going over things to see and understand, even
if it is what you wrote. And since you constantly break up paragraphs into
sound bites in order to tear thought continuity apart, it is difficult to
carry on any meaningful conversation with you as you lose even your own train
of thought.
That's "pore" over, not "pour over". And I only break up paragraphs
when you have them broken up first.
That is not true and your posts reflect it. Spelling flames? Lol.
It is true, and as for the spelling flame...now you know!
Scripture also speaks from the perspective of the Romans who found
no
fault
in him. No sedition, nothing. Also verified from Roman history which
many
try to discredit so as to destroy the truth for an anti-Jesus
narrative.
The Romans knew what a Messiah was supposed to do. They decided to
nip it in the bud before things got worse.
Nope. Although there was one local ruler In Judea that was of that
mindset,
and killed every child and baby under the age of 2 for miles around
for
fear
he would lose his rulership. And went down in history noted for that
deed.
You're talking about Herod the Great. It would've been characteristic
of him to do something like that, but he probably never did, for a
variety of reasons.
Pure conjecture on your part. But he earned a nickname because of what
he
did, that no doubt many have heard but did not understand why he was
known
by that.
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents
"The historicity of the Matthew account is not accepted by modern sources.[7][2][8] The story of the massacre is found in no gospel other than Matthew, nor is it mentioned in the surviving works of Nicolaus of Damascus (who was a personal friend of Herod the Great), nor in Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, despite his recording many of Herod's misdeeds, including the murder of three of his own sons.[9]
The early 5th-century account of MacrobiusrCothat "on hearing that the
son of Herod, king of the Jews, had been slain when Herod ordered that
all boys in Syria under the age of two be killed, [Augustus] said, 'It's better to be Herod's pig than his son'"rCohas been discounted as
extra-biblical evidence for the event due to its later authorship, possible influence by the gospel narrative, and the confused nature of
the account.[10] In view of the lack of independent confirmation that the event occurred, the story acts as a kind of folklore inspired by Herod's reputation.[8] As a matter of understanding what the myth is trying to communicate, its lack of historicity is unsurprising given that gospels were primarily written as theological documents rather than chronological timelines.[11][12][13][14]"
Odd that they recount the historic evidences of it, yet deny its existence.
Herod's personal friends were that only as long as they agreed with him.
And
what you also quoted showed the ridiculous nature of this article. boys in
Syria under the age of two be killed, [Augustus] said, 'It's better to be
Herod's pig than his sonrCO"
Which has nothing to do with the supposed massacre of the infants. Did you read about how it wasn't mentioned in Nicolaus of Damascus, the non-Matthean gospels, or Josephus?
You said you read the whole bible, Was Jesus born in Syria? Was Jerusalem located in Syria?
Jesus was born in Nazareth (being born in Bethlehem was just a later
fiction created to make Jesus seem more like a Messiah). So of course
Jesus wasn't born in Syria. You don't need to have Jesus born where
you live in order to mention he was born there.
Even you should have been astute enough to catch that grievous error, unless
like in other areas you always accept what seems to fit your agenda, and
deny all else.
There was no grievous error, except on your part. Your agenda is
blinding you to that.
There sure was. And you did not catch it. Your agenda blinded you to what you read. You focused on things that fit your narrative.
The idea of it being better to be a pig than a son has nothing to do
with the supposed massacre of the infants.
OH? So you think you know from where peoples comments originate?
I know what groups it's being read in, which serves the purpose.
And you know that how?
How do I know what?
LOL,, already lost track in just four lines?
Are you still wondering how I could know what's being read in a
newsgroup with cross-posts? LOL!
No, I don't follow any theological understanding. I'm an atheist, after all.
Yet you have your own theology and religion, bearing in mind all the things
you people have said, and stick to at least in front of others in your church/group. Your favorite mantras, dogmarCOs etc.
Any examples of these "mantras and dogmas"?
Yes, the aa posts are full of them.
That is not an "example."
Time for some massive snipping of text here or start a new thread since DNA is no longer the subject.
Snip away all you please.
On Sep 24, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b16k1$3p0ga$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/24/2025 2:15 AM, None wrote:
On Sep 23, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10ava3e$3agu7$2@dont-email.me>):
On 9/22/2025 7:38 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wroteTo say "Christ is risen" is a theological statement in addition to >>>>>> being an attempt at history.
(Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote: >>>>>>>>Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a false >>>>>>> understanding because it stems from the mind of men who speculate on who
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wroteBut then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional rift >>>>>>>> between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the >>>>>>>> Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good graces. >>>>>>>
(Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me... >>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for >>>>>>>>>>>>> Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated >>>>>>>>>>>> Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church, so >>>>>>>>>> they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they made >>>>>>>>>> up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the beginning. >>>>>>>>
God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having full wisdom >>>>>>> and
knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and for that >>>>>>> reason
many denominations err and there is separation and not a common bond. >>>>>>
To whose way of thinking as there were over 500 witnesses of it. Plus to >>>>> think that someone was trying to create history is foolish, for such >>>>> attempts
have been tried similar to that, but were always disproven, and or been >>>>> discredited soon afterwards.
The so-called "500 witnesses" is likely a latter embellishment added by >>>> some scribe to "beef up" Paul's account, or Paul himself is just
storytelling. Nowhere is this supposed "mass apparition" ever mentioned >>>> anywhere else, either elsewhere in the New Testament or in secular
sources, and none of the 500 are ever named, nor did any of them leave >>>> any surviving accounts of their own individual experiences, or convey
those experiences to anyone else.
As with the "crucifixion darkness," the appearances to 500 human beings >>>> lacks contextual credibility, as it only gets mentioned in one single
source, when, in fact, it should have been mentioned in dozens of
independent sources if, in fact, it had happened.
It was. It is mentioned by others in the NT. Most notable John, Matthew
Luke,
Mark.
Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus at that time. Paul saw him for the first
time on the road to Damascus
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, >>> how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day
according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of >>> whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. >>>
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due >>> time.
Jesus then taught Paul in the desert for during a time of three years.
Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of >>> me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taughtit, but by >>> the
revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews'
religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted
it:
***
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before >>> me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and >>> abode with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's
brother.
Gal 1:20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie >>> not.
This was an interesting read. At first I thought you were writing a synopsis of one of his writings, but such does not appear to be the case. I have not studied his works, but I briefly reviewed some of the comments made by others who have their own views of what he wrote. Sadly it is difficult to comment on them since I would have to study up on Paine in order to know something about him, and it would have to be mainly the things written by his hand, not based on the comments of others, unless they were peer friends of his, personally.
What little I read this morning, was a whole lot of things supposedly of what he said and thought, but it was clear that people cherry picked phrases that lent themselves to support their personal agendas. According to what you outlined it would seem that Paine had at best a shallow and limited understanding of the Bible, and virtually no personal knowledge of God.
I will make a brief comment to each numeric point. LOL, hopefully brief.
An interesting contradiction occurs with Paul's testimony, which was
pointed out by Thomas Paine, one of America's founding fathers. Here it
is in outline form:
1) Paul, while being a Jew, claims to have persecuted Christians, a
claim also made about him by the author of Acts.
This point shows and gives an understanding of how little attention he paid to the NT.
It is obvious that he was a chief persecutor and he explained why.
2) When someone persecutes another, especially, a strange, it is
because you do not like what that person has done, is saying, and/or
certain viewpoints that they, as a group, hold to. (As an example, it
is possible for a Jew and a Muslim to hate each other even though they
have never met.)
That would describe his agenda for those he persecuted. He took the attitude of a Muslim towards the destruction of all those who opposed his religious mindset, under the authority of the High Priest of his day.
3) As such, Paul, prior to his conversion to Christianity, must have
head the accounts of Jesus of Nazareth rising from the dead, which must
have included the so-called appearances of Jesus to the "five hundred".
In spite of hearing those accounts, Paul continued to persecute
Christians; as such, Paul himself did not find the accounts of Jesus
being raised from the dead by God as being convincing.
He may have heard, and was aware of the reports. Especially because he was chief amongst the Pharisees. Like the typical atheist of today, they hear much and deny all, and this was also the mindset of the Jews who persecuted their brother Jew who believed in Christ. To them it was heresy. Yet the OT spoke of the Messiah that was to come, when, and where, and what he would do. They had an idea that he was to come and set them up as a ruling Nation over all other nations. And that will happen in the future, but many looked for it happening then, even demanding that he be that or else be denied. The NT spells it out but few pay attention to it so that they might understand the MO of that day amongst the religious Jew.
4) It was only after Paul's private experience that he converted.
It was only then that he was hit full face with the undeniable truth that he could not ignore. No longer could he deny and put things off and discount the truth without cause. The believer who came to him and healed him of his blindness and spoke to him, as commanded by God, was fearful of doing so, based on Sauls reputation for killing and torturing believers. Said so to God, yet he went to him and ministered to him what God said he should do.
Conclusion: The only evidence that Paul offers for the Risen Christ is
his private experience, as he himself discounted all the experiences of
all the other Christians who claimed to have experienced the Risen Christ.
Personal experiential knowledge, yes. But it also revealed to him that he was persecuting others by believing lies. And that what the other apostles taught was indeed true.
On 9/24/2025 1:37 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 24, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b16k1$3p0ga$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/24/2025 2:15 AM, None wrote:
On Sep 23, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10ava3e$3agu7$2@dont-email.me>):
On 9/22/2025 7:38 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for
Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church, so
they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they
made
up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the beginning.
But then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional rift
between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the
Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good graces.
Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a false
understanding because it stems from the mind of men who speculate on
who
God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having full wisdom
and
knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and for that
reason
many denominations err and there is separation and not a common bond.
To say "Christ is risen" is a theological statement in addition to
being an attempt at history.
To whose way of thinking as there were over 500 witnesses of it. Plus to
think that someone was trying to create history is foolish, for such
attempts
have been tried similar to that, but were always disproven, and or been
discredited soon afterwards.
The so-called "500 witnesses" is likely a latter embellishment added by
some scribe to "beef up" Paul's account, or Paul himself is just storytelling. Nowhere is this supposed "mass apparition" ever mentioned
anywhere else, either elsewhere in the New Testament or in secular sources, and none of the 500 are ever named, nor did any of them leave
any surviving accounts of their own individual experiences, or convey those experiences to anyone else.
As with the "crucifixion darkness," the appearances to 500 human beings
lacks contextual credibility, as it only gets mentioned in one single source, when, in fact, it should have been mentioned in dozens of independent sources if, in fact, it had happened.
It was. It is mentioned by others in the NT. Most notable John, Matthew Luke,
Mark.
Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus at that time. Paul saw him for the first
time on the road to Damascus
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once;
of
whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due
time.
Jesus then taught Paul in the desert for during a time of three years.
Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached
of
me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taughtit, but by
the
revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted
it:
***
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before
me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and
abode with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
Gal 1:20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie
not.
This was an interesting read. At first I thought you were writing a synopsis
of one of his writings, but such does not appear to be the case. I have not studied his works, but I briefly reviewed some of the comments made by others
who have their own views of what he wrote. Sadly it is difficult to comment on them since I would have to study up on Paine in order to know something about him, and it would have to be mainly the things written by his hand, not
based on the comments of others, unless they were peer friends of his, personally.
What little I read this morning, was a whole lot of things supposedly of what
he said and thought, but it was clear that people cherry picked phrases that
lent themselves to support their personal agendas. According to what you outlined it would seem that Paine had at best a shallow and limited understanding of the Bible, and virtually no personal knowledge of God.
I will make a brief comment to each numeric point. LOL, hopefully brief.
An interesting contradiction occurs with Paul's testimony, which was pointed out by Thomas Paine, one of America's founding fathers. Here it is in outline form:
1) Paul, while being a Jew, claims to have persecuted Christians, a
claim also made about him by the author of Acts.
This point shows and gives an understanding of how little attention he paid to the NT.
It is obvious that he was a chief persecutor and he explained why.
2) When someone persecutes another, especially, a strange, it is
because you do not like what that person has done, is saying, and/or certain viewpoints that they, as a group, hold to. (As an example, it
is possible for a Jew and a Muslim to hate each other even though they have never met.)
That would describe his agenda for those he persecuted. He took the attitude
of a Muslim towards the destruction of all those who opposed his religious mindset, under the authority of the High Priest of his day.
3) As such, Paul, prior to his conversion to Christianity, must have
head the accounts of Jesus of Nazareth rising from the dead, which must have included the so-called appearances of Jesus to the "five hundred". In spite of hearing those accounts, Paul continued to persecute Christians; as such, Paul himself did not find the accounts of Jesus being raised from the dead by God as being convincing.
He may have heard, and was aware of the reports. Especially because he was chief amongst the Pharisees. Like the typical atheist of today, they hear much and deny all, and this was also the mindset of the Jews who persecuted their brother Jew who believed in Christ. To them it was heresy. Yet the OT spoke of the Messiah that was to come, when, and where, and what he would do.
They had an idea that he was to come and set them up as a ruling Nation over
all other nations. And that will happen in the future, but many looked for it
happening then, even demanding that he be that or else be denied. The NT spells it out but few pay attention to it so that they might understand the MO of that day amongst the religious Jew.
4) It was only after Paul's private experience that he converted.
It was only then that he was hit full face with the undeniable truth that he
could not ignore. No longer could he deny and put things off and discount the
truth without cause. The believer who came to him and healed him of his blindness and spoke to him, as commanded by God, was fearful of doing so, based on Sauls reputation for killing and torturing believers. Said so to God, yet he went to him and ministered to him what God said he should do.
Conclusion: The only evidence that Paul offers for the Risen Christ is his private experience, as he himself discounted all the experiences of all the other Christians who claimed to have experienced the Risen Christ.
Personal experiential knowledge, yes. But it also revealed to him that he was persecuting others by believing lies. And that what the other apostles taught was indeed true.
I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, and any "appearances" to the contrary after his Passion were purely
physiological in nature.
Dawn
On Sep 25, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b43lk$gl7c$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/24/2025 1:37 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 24, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b16k1$3p0ga$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/24/2025 2:15 AM, None wrote:
On Sep 23, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10ava3e$3agu7$2@dont-email.me>):
On 9/22/2025 7:38 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wroteTo say "Christ is risen" is a theological statement in addition to >>>>>>>> being an attempt at history.
(Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a false >>>>>>>>> understanding because it stems from the mind of men who speculate on >>>>>>>>> who
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>): >>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew wrote:Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church, so
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically for
Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the hated >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened.. >>>>>>>>>>>>
they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they >>>>>>>>>>>> made
up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the >>>>>>>>>>> beginning.
But then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional rift >>>>>>>>>> between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the >>>>>>>>>> Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good graces. >>>>>>>>>
God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having full wisdom
and
knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and for that >>>>>>>>> reason
many denominations err and there is separation and not a common bond. >>>>>>>>
To whose way of thinking as there were over 500 witnesses of it. Plus to
think that someone was trying to create history is foolish, for such >>>>>>> attempts
have been tried similar to that, but were always disproven, and or been >>>>>>> discredited soon afterwards.
The so-called "500 witnesses" is likely a latter embellishment added by >>>>>> some scribe to "beef up" Paul's account, or Paul himself is just
storytelling. Nowhere is this supposed "mass apparition" ever mentioned >>>>>> anywhere else, either elsewhere in the New Testament or in secular >>>>>> sources, and none of the 500 are ever named, nor did any of them leave >>>>>> any surviving accounts of their own individual experiences, or convey >>>>>> those experiences to anyone else.
As with the "crucifixion darkness," the appearances to 500 human beings >>>>>> lacks contextual credibility, as it only gets mentioned in one single >>>>>> source, when, in fact, it should have been mentioned in dozens of
independent sources if, in fact, it had happened.
It was. It is mentioned by others in the NT. Most notable John, Matthew >>>>> Luke,
Mark.
Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus at that time. Paul saw him for the >>>>> first
time on the road to Damascus
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day >>>>> according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; >>>>> of
whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen
asleep.
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. >>>>>
1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due
time.
Jesus then taught Paul in the desert for during a time of three years. >>>>>
Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached >>>>> of
me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taughtit, but by >>>>> the
revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' >>>>> religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and >>>>> wasted
it:
***
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before
me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and >>>>> abode with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's >>>>> brother.
Gal 1:20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie >>>>> not.
This was an interesting read. At first I thought you were writing a synopsis
of one of his writings, but such does not appear to be the case. I have not >>> studied his works, but I briefly reviewed some of the comments made by
others
who have their own views of what he wrote. Sadly it is difficult to comment >>> on them since I would have to study up on Paine in order to know something >>> about him, and it would have to be mainly the things written by his hand, >>> not
based on the comments of others, unless they were peer friends of his,
personally.
What little I read this morning, was a whole lot of things supposedly of >>> what
he said and thought, but it was clear that people cherry picked phrases that
lent themselves to support their personal agendas. According to what you >>> outlined it would seem that Paine had at best a shallow and limited
understanding of the Bible, and virtually no personal knowledge of God.
I will make a brief comment to each numeric point. LOL, hopefully brief. >>>>
An interesting contradiction occurs with Paul's testimony, which was
pointed out by Thomas Paine, one of America's founding fathers. Here it >>>> is in outline form:
1) Paul, while being a Jew, claims to have persecuted Christians, a
claim also made about him by the author of Acts.
This point shows and gives an understanding of how little attention he paid >>> to the NT.
It is obvious that he was a chief persecutor and he explained why.
2) When someone persecutes another, especially, a strange, it is
because you do not like what that person has done, is saying, and/or
certain viewpoints that they, as a group, hold to. (As an example, it
is possible for a Jew and a Muslim to hate each other even though they >>>> have never met.)
That would describe his agenda for those he persecuted. He took the attitude
of a Muslim towards the destruction of all those who opposed his religious >>> mindset, under the authority of the High Priest of his day.
3) As such, Paul, prior to his conversion to Christianity, must have
head the accounts of Jesus of Nazareth rising from the dead, which must >>>> have included the so-called appearances of Jesus to the "five hundred". >>>> In spite of hearing those accounts, Paul continued to persecute
Christians; as such, Paul himself did not find the accounts of Jesus
being raised from the dead by God as being convincing.
He may have heard, and was aware of the reports. Especially because he was >>> chief amongst the Pharisees. Like the typical atheist of today, they hear >>> much and deny all, and this was also the mindset of the Jews who persecuted >>> their brother Jew who believed in Christ. To them it was heresy. Yet the OT >>> spoke of the Messiah that was to come, when, and where, and what he would >>> do.
They had an idea that he was to come and set them up as a ruling Nation over
all other nations. And that will happen in the future, but many looked for >>> it
happening then, even demanding that he be that or else be denied. The NT >>> spells it out but few pay attention to it so that they might understand the >>> MO of that day amongst the religious Jew.
4) It was only after Paul's private experience that he converted.
It was only then that he was hit full face with the undeniable truth that he
could not ignore. No longer could he deny and put things off and discount >>> the
truth without cause. The believer who came to him and healed him of his
blindness and spoke to him, as commanded by God, was fearful of doing so, >>> based on Sauls reputation for killing and torturing believers. Said so to >>> God, yet he went to him and ministered to him what God said he should do. >>>>
Personal experiential knowledge, yes. But it also revealed to him that he >>> was persecuting others by believing lies. And that what the other apostles >>> taught was indeed true.
Conclusion: The only evidence that Paul offers for the Risen Christ is >>>> his private experience, as he himself discounted all the experiences of >>>> all the other Christians who claimed to have experienced the Risen Christ. >>>
I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, and any
"appearances" to the contrary after his Passion were purely
physiological in nature.
Dawn
Then by those standards any denials of it are also physiological in nature.
Dead caterpillars turn into Butterflies.
Interesting that you used the word rCLPassionrCY.
On 9/25/2025 5:16 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 25, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b43lk$gl7c$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/24/2025 1:37 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 24, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b16k1$3p0ga$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/24/2025 2:15 AM, None wrote:
On Sep 23, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10ava3e$3agu7$2@dont-email.me>):
On 9/22/2025 7:38 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically
for
Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the
hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church,
so
they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they
made
up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the
beginning.
But then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional
rift
between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the
Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good
graces.
Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a false
understanding because it stems from the mind of men who speculate on
who
God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having full
wisdom
and
knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and for
that
reason
many denominations err and there is separation and not a common
bond.
To say "Christ is risen" is a theological statement in addition to
being an attempt at history.
To whose way of thinking as there were over 500 witnesses of it. Plus
to
think that someone was trying to create history is foolish, for such
attempts
have been tried similar to that, but were always disproven, and or
been
discredited soon afterwards.
The so-called "500 witnesses" is likely a latter embellishment added by
some scribe to "beef up" Paul's account, or Paul himself is just storytelling. Nowhere is this supposed "mass apparition" ever mentioned
anywhere else, either elsewhere in the New Testament or in secular
sources, and none of the 500 are ever named, nor did any of them leave
any surviving accounts of their own individual experiences, or convey
those experiences to anyone else.
As with the "crucifixion darkness," the appearances to 500 human beings
lacks contextual credibility, as it only gets mentioned in one single
source, when, in fact, it should have been mentioned in dozens of independent sources if, in fact, it had happened.
It was. It is mentioned by others in the NT. Most notable John, Matthew
Luke,
Mark.
Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus at that time. Paul saw him for the
first
time on the road to Damascus
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day
according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once;
of
whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of
due
time.
Jesus then taught Paul in the desert for during a time of three years.
Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached
of
me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taughtit, but
by
the
revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews'
religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and
wasted
it:
***
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before
me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and
abode with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's
brother.
Gal 1:20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I
lie
not.
This was an interesting read. At first I thought you were writing a synopsis
of one of his writings, but such does not appear to be the case. I have not
studied his works, but I briefly reviewed some of the comments made by others
who have their own views of what he wrote. Sadly it is difficult to comment
on them since I would have to study up on Paine in order to know something
about him, and it would have to be mainly the things written by his hand,
not
based on the comments of others, unless they were peer friends of his, personally.
What little I read this morning, was a whole lot of things supposedly of
what
he said and thought, but it was clear that people cherry picked phrases that
lent themselves to support their personal agendas. According to what you
outlined it would seem that Paine had at best a shallow and limited understanding of the Bible, and virtually no personal knowledge of God.
I will make a brief comment to each numeric point. LOL, hopefully brief.
An interesting contradiction occurs with Paul's testimony, which was pointed out by Thomas Paine, one of America's founding fathers. Here it
is in outline form:
1) Paul, while being a Jew, claims to have persecuted Christians, a claim also made about him by the author of Acts.
This point shows and gives an understanding of how little attention he paid
to the NT.
It is obvious that he was a chief persecutor and he explained why.
2) When someone persecutes another, especially, a strange, it is because you do not like what that person has done, is saying, and/or certain viewpoints that they, as a group, hold to. (As an example, it is possible for a Jew and a Muslim to hate each other even though they
have never met.)
That would describe his agenda for those he persecuted. He took the attitude
of a Muslim towards the destruction of all those who opposed his religious
mindset, under the authority of the High Priest of his day.
3) As such, Paul, prior to his conversion to Christianity, must have head the accounts of Jesus of Nazareth rising from the dead, which must
have included the so-called appearances of Jesus to the "five hundred".
In spite of hearing those accounts, Paul continued to persecute Christians; as such, Paul himself did not find the accounts of Jesus being raised from the dead by God as being convincing.
He may have heard, and was aware of the reports. Especially because he was
chief amongst the Pharisees. Like the typical atheist of today, they hear
much and deny all, and this was also the mindset of the Jews who persecuted
their brother Jew who believed in Christ. To them it was heresy. Yet the
OT
spoke of the Messiah that was to come, when, and where, and what he would
do.
They had an idea that he was to come and set them up as a ruling Nation over
all other nations. And that will happen in the future, but many looked for
it
happening then, even demanding that he be that or else be denied. The NT
spells it out but few pay attention to it so that they might understand the
MO of that day amongst the religious Jew.
4) It was only after Paul's private experience that he converted.
It was only then that he was hit full face with the undeniable truth that
he
could not ignore. No longer could he deny and put things off and discount
the
truth without cause. The believer who came to him and healed him of his blindness and spoke to him, as commanded by God, was fearful of doing so,
based on Sauls reputation for killing and torturing believers. Said so to
God, yet he went to him and ministered to him what God said he should do.
Conclusion: The only evidence that Paul offers for the Risen Christ is
his private experience, as he himself discounted all the experiences of
all the other Christians who claimed to have experienced the Risen Christ.
Personal experiential knowledge, yes. But it also revealed to him that he
was persecuting others by believing lies. And that what the other apostles
taught was indeed true.
I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, and any "appearances" to the contrary after his Passion were purely
physiological in nature.
Dawn
Then by those standards any denials of it are also physiological in nature.
Dead caterpillars turn into Butterflies.
Interesting that you used the word rCLPassionrCY.
Why? "Passion" is defined in Merriam-Webster:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/passion
As for "denials" being "physiological", one could make the same claim
about the FSM and/or Orbiting Teapots:
https://russell.humanities.mcmaster.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/11-69.pdf
On Sep 25, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b4fhn$k74m$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/25/2025 5:16 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 25, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b43lk$gl7c$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/24/2025 1:37 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 24, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b16k1$3p0ga$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/24/2025 2:15 AM, None wrote:
On Sep 23, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10ava3e$3agu7$2@dont-email.me>):
On 9/22/2025 7:38 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>): >>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>): >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew wrote:Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian church, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> made
up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning.
But then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional >>>>>>>>>>>> rift
between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the >>>>>>>>>>>> Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good >>>>>>>>>>>> graces.
Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a false >>>>>>>>>>> understanding because it stems from the mind of men who speculate on
who
God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having full >>>>>>>>>>> wisdom
and
knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and for >>>>>>>>>>> that
reason
many denominations err and there is separation and not a common >>>>>>>>>>> bond.
To say "Christ is risen" is a theological statement in addition to >>>>>>>>>> being an attempt at history.
To whose way of thinking as there were over 500 witnesses of it. Plus >>>>>>>>> to
think that someone was trying to create history is foolish, for such >>>>>>>>> attempts
have been tried similar to that, but were always disproven, and or >>>>>>>>> been
discredited soon afterwards.
The so-called "500 witnesses" is likely a latter embellishment added by
some scribe to "beef up" Paul's account, or Paul himself is just >>>>>>>> storytelling. Nowhere is this supposed "mass apparition" ever mentioned
anywhere else, either elsewhere in the New Testament or in secular >>>>>>>> sources, and none of the 500 are ever named, nor did any of them leave >>>>>>>> any surviving accounts of their own individual experiences, or convey >>>>>>>> those experiences to anyone else.
As with the "crucifixion darkness," the appearances to 500 human beings
lacks contextual credibility, as it only gets mentioned in one single >>>>>>>> source, when, in fact, it should have been mentioned in dozens of >>>>>>>> independent sources if, in fact, it had happened.
It was. It is mentioned by others in the NT. Most notable John, Matthew >>>>>>> Luke,
Mark.
Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus at that time. Paul saw him for the >>>>>>> first
time on the road to Damascus
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also >>>>>>> received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day >>>>>>> according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once;
of
whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen >>>>>>> asleep.
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. >>>>>>>
1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of >>>>>>> due
time.
Jesus then taught Paul in the desert for during a time of three years. >>>>>>>
Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached
of
me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taughtit, but >>>>>>> by
the
revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' >>>>>>> religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and >>>>>>> wasted
it:
***
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles >>>>>>> before
me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and
abode with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's >>>>>>> brother.
Gal 1:20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I >>>>>>> lie
not.
This was an interesting read. At first I thought you were writing a
synopsis
of one of his writings, but such does not appear to be the case. I have >>>>> not
studied his works, but I briefly reviewed some of the comments made by >>>>> others
who have their own views of what he wrote. Sadly it is difficult to
comment
on them since I would have to study up on Paine in order to know something
about him, and it would have to be mainly the things written by his hand, >>>>> not
based on the comments of others, unless they were peer friends of his, >>>>> personally.
What little I read this morning, was a whole lot of things supposedly of >>>>> what
he said and thought, but it was clear that people cherry picked phrases >>>>> that
lent themselves to support their personal agendas. According to what you >>>>> outlined it would seem that Paine had at best a shallow and limited
understanding of the Bible, and virtually no personal knowledge of God. >>>>>
I will make a brief comment to each numeric point. LOL, hopefully brief. >>>>>>
An interesting contradiction occurs with Paul's testimony, which was >>>>>> pointed out by Thomas Paine, one of America's founding fathers. Here it >>>>>> is in outline form:
1) Paul, while being a Jew, claims to have persecuted Christians, a >>>>>> claim also made about him by the author of Acts.
This point shows and gives an understanding of how little attention he >>>>> paid
to the NT.
It is obvious that he was a chief persecutor and he explained why.
2) When someone persecutes another, especially, a strange, it is
because you do not like what that person has done, is saying, and/or >>>>>> certain viewpoints that they, as a group, hold to. (As an example, it >>>>>> is possible for a Jew and a Muslim to hate each other even though they >>>>>> have never met.)
That would describe his agenda for those he persecuted. He took the
attitude
of a Muslim towards the destruction of all those who opposed his religious
mindset, under the authority of the High Priest of his day.
3) As such, Paul, prior to his conversion to Christianity, must have >>>>>> head the accounts of Jesus of Nazareth rising from the dead, which must >>>>>> have included the so-called appearances of Jesus to the "five hundred". >>>>>> In spite of hearing those accounts, Paul continued to persecute
Christians; as such, Paul himself did not find the accounts of Jesus >>>>>> being raised from the dead by God as being convincing.
He may have heard, and was aware of the reports. Especially because he was
chief amongst the Pharisees. Like the typical atheist of today, they hear >>>>> much and deny all, and this was also the mindset of the Jews who
persecuted
their brother Jew who believed in Christ. To them it was heresy. Yet the >>>>> OT
spoke of the Messiah that was to come, when, and where, and what he would >>>>> do.
They had an idea that he was to come and set them up as a ruling Nation >>>>> over
all other nations. And that will happen in the future, but many looked for
it
happening then, even demanding that he be that or else be denied. The NT >>>>> spells it out but few pay attention to it so that they might understand >>>>> the
MO of that day amongst the religious Jew.
4) It was only after Paul's private experience that he converted.
It was only then that he was hit full face with the undeniable truth that >>>>> he
could not ignore. No longer could he deny and put things off and discount >>>>> the
truth without cause. The believer who came to him and healed him of his >>>>> blindness and spoke to him, as commanded by God, was fearful of doing so, >>>>> based on Sauls reputation for killing and torturing believers. Said so to >>>>> God, yet he went to him and ministered to him what God said he should do. >>>>>>
Conclusion: The only evidence that Paul offers for the Risen Christ is >>>>>> his private experience, as he himself discounted all the experiences of >>>>>> all the other Christians who claimed to have experienced the Risen >>>>>> Christ.
Personal experiential knowledge, yes. But it also revealed to him that he >>>>> was persecuting others by believing lies. And that what the other apostles
taught was indeed true.
I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, and any
"appearances" to the contrary after his Passion were purely
physiological in nature.
Dawn
Then by those standards any denials of it are also physiological in nature. >>>
Dead caterpillars turn into Butterflies.
Interesting that you used the word rCLPassionrCY.
Why? "Passion" is defined in Merriam-Webster:
No kidding? And you used it capitalized to emphasize your passionate nature? What exactly was Jesus rCLPassionaterCY about, or did you make a Freudian slip?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/passion
As for "denials" being "physiological", one could make the same claim
about the FSM and/or Orbiting Teapots:
https://russell.humanities.mcmaster.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/11-69.pdf
Ok, so you agreed with me, in that the term could apply across the board, and not as an example of proof of non-existence.
On 9/25/2025 8:36 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 25, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b4fhn$k74m$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/25/2025 5:16 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 25, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b43lk$gl7c$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/24/2025 1:37 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 24, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b16k1$3p0ga$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/24/2025 2:15 AM, None wrote:
On Sep 23, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10ava3e$3agu7$2@dont-email.me>):
On 9/22/2025 7:38 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically
for
Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the
hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian
church,
so
they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they
made
up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the
beginning.
But then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional
rift
between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the
Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good
graces.
Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a false
understanding because it stems from the mind of men who speculate
on
who
God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having full
wisdom
and
knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and for
that
reason
many denominations err and there is separation and not a common
bond.
To say "Christ is risen" is a theological statement in addition to
being an attempt at history.
To whose way of thinking as there were over 500 witnesses of it.
Plus
to
think that someone was trying to create history is foolish, for such
attempts
have been tried similar to that, but were always disproven, and or
been
discredited soon afterwards.
The so-called "500 witnesses" is likely a latter embellishment added
by
some scribe to "beef up" Paul's account, or Paul himself is just
storytelling. Nowhere is this supposed "mass apparition" ever mentioned
anywhere else, either elsewhere in the New Testament or in secular
sources, and none of the 500 are ever named, nor did any of them
leave
any surviving accounts of their own individual experiences, or convey
those experiences to anyone else.
As with the "crucifixion darkness," the appearances to 500 human
beings
lacks contextual credibility, as it only gets mentioned in one single
source, when, in fact, it should have been mentioned in dozens of
independent sources if, in fact, it had happened.
It was. It is mentioned by others in the NT. Most notable John, Matthew
Luke,
Mark.
Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus at that time. Paul saw him for the
first
time on the road to Damascus
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also
received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day
according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at
once;
of
whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen
asleep.
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of
due
time.
Jesus then taught Paul in the desert for during a time of three years.
Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached
of
me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taughtit, but
by
the
revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the
Jews'
religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and
wasted
it:
***
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles
before
me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter,
and
abode with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's
brother.
Gal 1:20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I
lie
not.
This was an interesting read. At first I thought you were writing a synopsis
of one of his writings, but such does not appear to be the case. I have
not
studied his works, but I briefly reviewed some of the comments made by
others
who have their own views of what he wrote. Sadly it is difficult to comment
on them since I would have to study up on Paine in order to know something
about him, and it would have to be mainly the things written by his hand,
not
based on the comments of others, unless they were peer friends of his,
personally.
What little I read this morning, was a whole lot of things supposedly of
what
he said and thought, but it was clear that people cherry picked phrases
that
lent themselves to support their personal agendas. According to what you
outlined it would seem that Paine had at best a shallow and limited understanding of the Bible, and virtually no personal knowledge of God.
I will make a brief comment to each numeric point. LOL, hopefully brief.
An interesting contradiction occurs with Paul's testimony, which was
pointed out by Thomas Paine, one of America's founding fathers. Here it
is in outline form:
1) Paul, while being a Jew, claims to have persecuted Christians, a
claim also made about him by the author of Acts.
This point shows and gives an understanding of how little attention he
paid
to the NT.
It is obvious that he was a chief persecutor and he explained why.
2) When someone persecutes another, especially, a strange, it is because you do not like what that person has done, is saying, and/or
certain viewpoints that they, as a group, hold to. (As an example, it
is possible for a Jew and a Muslim to hate each other even though they
have never met.)
That would describe his agenda for those he persecuted. He took the attitude
of a Muslim towards the destruction of all those who opposed his religious
mindset, under the authority of the High Priest of his day.
3) As such, Paul, prior to his conversion to Christianity, must have
head the accounts of Jesus of Nazareth rising from the dead, which must
have included the so-called appearances of Jesus to the "five hundred".
In spite of hearing those accounts, Paul continued to persecute Christians; as such, Paul himself did not find the accounts of Jesus
being raised from the dead by God as being convincing.
He may have heard, and was aware of the reports. Especially because he
was
chief amongst the Pharisees. Like the typical atheist of today, they
hear
much and deny all, and this was also the mindset of the Jews who persecuted
their brother Jew who believed in Christ. To them it was heresy. Yet the
OT
spoke of the Messiah that was to come, when, and where, and what he would
do.
They had an idea that he was to come and set them up as a ruling Nation
over
all other nations. And that will happen in the future, but many looked
for
it
happening then, even demanding that he be that or else be denied. The NT
spells it out but few pay attention to it so that they might understand
the
MO of that day amongst the religious Jew.
4) It was only after Paul's private experience that he converted.
It was only then that he was hit full face with the undeniable truth
that
he
could not ignore. No longer could he deny and put things off and discount
the
truth without cause. The believer who came to him and healed him of his
blindness and spoke to him, as commanded by God, was fearful of doing
so,
based on Sauls reputation for killing and torturing believers. Said so
to
God, yet he went to him and ministered to him what God said he should
do.
Conclusion: The only evidence that Paul offers for the Risen Christ is
his private experience, as he himself discounted all the experiences of
all the other Christians who claimed to have experienced the Risen
Christ.
Personal experiential knowledge, yes. But it also revealed to him that
he
was persecuting others by believing lies. And that what the other apostles
taught was indeed true.
I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, and any "appearances" to the contrary after his Passion were purely physiological in nature.
Dawn
Then by those standards any denials of it are also physiological in nature.
Dead caterpillars turn into Butterflies.
Interesting that you used the word rCLPassionrCY.
Why? "Passion" is defined in Merriam-Webster:
No kidding? And you used it capitalized to emphasize your passionate nature?
What exactly was Jesus rCLPassionaterCY about, or did you make a Freudian slip?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/passion
As for "denials" being "physiological", one could make the same claim about the FSM and/or Orbiting Teapots:
https://russell.humanities.mcmaster.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/11-69.pdf
Ok, so you agreed with me, in that the term could apply across the board, and
not as an example of proof of non-existence.
Did you even read the Merriam-Webster entry ("often capitalized")??
I suppose that, yes, ultimately, everything that we do is "physiological", but as for Jesus' alleged "apparitions," such did not happen, except in
the heads of some of his followers.
On Sep 25, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b5635$ou51$2@dont-email.me>):
On 9/25/2025 8:36 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 25, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b4fhn$k74m$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/25/2025 5:16 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 25, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b43lk$gl7c$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/24/2025 1:37 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 24, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b16k1$3p0ga$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/24/2025 2:15 AM, None wrote:
On Sep 23, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10ava3e$3agu7$2@dont-email.me>):
On 9/22/2025 7:38 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@4ax.com>): >>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>): >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew wrote:Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> church,
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, specifically
for
Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
so
they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when they
made
up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning.
But then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rift
between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good >>>>>>>>>>>>>> graces.
Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a false >>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding because it stems from the mind of men who speculate >>>>>>>>>>>>> on
who
God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having full >>>>>>>>>>>>> wisdom
and
knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and for >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
reason
many denominations err and there is separation and not a common >>>>>>>>>>>>> bond.
To say "Christ is risen" is a theological statement in addition to >>>>>>>>>>>> being an attempt at history.
To whose way of thinking as there were over 500 witnesses of it. >>>>>>>>>>> Plus
to
think that someone was trying to create history is foolish, for such
attempts
have been tried similar to that, but were always disproven, and or >>>>>>>>>>> been
discredited soon afterwards.
The so-called "500 witnesses" is likely a latter embellishment added >>>>>>>>>> by
some scribe to "beef up" Paul's account, or Paul himself is just >>>>>>>>>> storytelling. Nowhere is this supposed "mass apparition" ever >>>>>>>>>> mentioned
anywhere else, either elsewhere in the New Testament or in secular >>>>>>>>>> sources, and none of the 500 are ever named, nor did any of them >>>>>>>>>> leave
any surviving accounts of their own individual experiences, or convey
those experiences to anyone else.
As with the "crucifixion darkness," the appearances to 500 human >>>>>>>>>> beings
lacks contextual credibility, as it only gets mentioned in one single
source, when, in fact, it should have been mentioned in dozens of >>>>>>>>>> independent sources if, in fact, it had happened.
It was. It is mentioned by others in the NT. Most notable John, >>>>>>>>> Matthew
Luke,
Mark.
Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus at that time. Paul saw him for the
first
time on the road to Damascus
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also >>>>>>>>> received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; >>>>>>>>>
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day >>>>>>>>> according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: >>>>>>>>>
1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at >>>>>>>>> once;
of
whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen >>>>>>>>> asleep.
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. >>>>>>>>>
1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of
due
time.
Jesus then taught Paul in the desert for during a time of three years.
Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was >>>>>>>>> preached
of
me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taughtit, but
by
the
revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the >>>>>>>>> Jews'
religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and >>>>>>>>> wasted
it:
***
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles >>>>>>>>> before
me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. >>>>>>>>>
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, >>>>>>>>> and
abode with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's >>>>>>>>> brother.
Gal 1:20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I >>>>>>>>> lie
not.
This was an interesting read. At first I thought you were writing a >>>>>>> synopsis
of one of his writings, but such does not appear to be the case. I have >>>>>>> not
studied his works, but I briefly reviewed some of the comments made by >>>>>>> others
who have their own views of what he wrote. Sadly it is difficult to >>>>>>> comment
on them since I would have to study up on Paine in order to know >>>>>>> something
about him, and it would have to be mainly the things written by his >>>>>>> hand,
not
based on the comments of others, unless they were peer friends of his, >>>>>>> personally.
What little I read this morning, was a whole lot of things supposedly of
what
he said and thought, but it was clear that people cherry picked phrases >>>>>>> that
lent themselves to support their personal agendas. According to what you
outlined it would seem that Paine had at best a shallow and limited >>>>>>> understanding of the Bible, and virtually no personal knowledge of God. >>>>>>>
I will make a brief comment to each numeric point. LOL, hopefully brief.
An interesting contradiction occurs with Paul's testimony, which was >>>>>>>> pointed out by Thomas Paine, one of America's founding fathers. Here it
is in outline form:
1) Paul, while being a Jew, claims to have persecuted Christians, a >>>>>>>> claim also made about him by the author of Acts.
This point shows and gives an understanding of how little attention he >>>>>>> paid
to the NT.
It is obvious that he was a chief persecutor and he explained why. >>>>>>>
2) When someone persecutes another, especially, a strange, it is >>>>>>>> because you do not like what that person has done, is saying, and/or >>>>>>>> certain viewpoints that they, as a group, hold to. (As an example, it >>>>>>>> is possible for a Jew and a Muslim to hate each other even though they >>>>>>>> have never met.)
That would describe his agenda for those he persecuted. He took the >>>>>>> attitude
of a Muslim towards the destruction of all those who opposed his >>>>>>> religious
mindset, under the authority of the High Priest of his day.
3) As such, Paul, prior to his conversion to Christianity, must have >>>>>>>> head the accounts of Jesus of Nazareth rising from the dead, which must
have included the so-called appearances of Jesus to the "five hundred".
In spite of hearing those accounts, Paul continued to persecute >>>>>>>> Christians; as such, Paul himself did not find the accounts of Jesus >>>>>>>> being raised from the dead by God as being convincing.
He may have heard, and was aware of the reports. Especially because he >>>>>>> was
chief amongst the Pharisees. Like the typical atheist of today, they >>>>>>> hear
much and deny all, and this was also the mindset of the Jews who >>>>>>> persecuted
their brother Jew who believed in Christ. To them it was heresy. Yet the
OT
spoke of the Messiah that was to come, when, and where, and what he >>>>>>> would
do.
They had an idea that he was to come and set them up as a ruling Nation >>>>>>> over
all other nations. And that will happen in the future, but many looked >>>>>>> for
it
happening then, even demanding that he be that or else be denied. The NT
spells it out but few pay attention to it so that they might understand >>>>>>> the
MO of that day amongst the religious Jew.
It was only then that he was hit full face with the undeniable truth >>>>>>> that
4) It was only after Paul's private experience that he converted. >>>>>>>
he
could not ignore. No longer could he deny and put things off and >>>>>>> discount
the
truth without cause. The believer who came to him and healed him of his >>>>>>> blindness and spoke to him, as commanded by God, was fearful of doing >>>>>>> so,
based on Sauls reputation for killing and torturing believers. Said so >>>>>>> to
God, yet he went to him and ministered to him what God said he should >>>>>>> do.
Conclusion: The only evidence that Paul offers for the Risen Christ is >>>>>>>> his private experience, as he himself discounted all the experiences of
all the other Christians who claimed to have experienced the Risen >>>>>>>> Christ.
Personal experiential knowledge, yes. But it also revealed to him that >>>>>>> he
was persecuting others by believing lies. And that what the other >>>>>>> apostles
taught was indeed true.
I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, and any >>>>>> "appearances" to the contrary after his Passion were purely
physiological in nature.
Dawn
Then by those standards any denials of it are also physiological in
nature.
Dead caterpillars turn into Butterflies.
Interesting that you used the word rCLPassionrCY.
Why? "Passion" is defined in Merriam-Webster:
No kidding? And you used it capitalized to emphasize your passionate nature?
What exactly was Jesus rCLPassionaterCY about, or did you make a Freudian >>> slip?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/passion
As for "denials" being "physiological", one could make the same claim
about the FSM and/or Orbiting Teapots:
https://russell.humanities.mcmaster.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/11-69.pdf
Ok, so you agreed with me, in that the term could apply across the board, >>> and
not as an example of proof of non-existence.
Did you even read the Merriam-Webster entry ("often capitalized")??
Dawn, you know why I asked you the question. A the word is capitalized at the beginning of a sentence, or when used in respect to a religious phrase. Which reflects a bit of your background.
As a person, that is not a word I have ever used to describe things that have to due with Easter, etc. In fact in never enters my mind except when someone uses it with that sense of association. I am sure you know what I am talking about or referencing.
I suppose that, yes, ultimately, everything that we do is "physiological", >> but as for Jesus' alleged "apparitions," such did not happen, except in
the heads of some of his followers.
No one in those days spoke of it as an apparition. If they were to have then it would have been an acknowledgement of a reality. One not of this realm.
That you seek to reject it, I get.
But God is not done caring about you.
On 9/26/2025 1:09 AM, None wrote:
On Sep 25, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b5635$ou51$2@dont-email.me>):
On 9/25/2025 8:36 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 25, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b4fhn$k74m$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/25/2025 5:16 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 25, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b43lk$gl7c$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/24/2025 1:37 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 24, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b16k1$3p0ga$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/24/2025 2:15 AM, None wrote:
On Sep 23, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10ava3e$3agu7$2@dont-email.me>):
On 9/22/2025 7:38 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate,
specifically
for
Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the
hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian
church,
so
they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when
they
made
up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the
beginning.
But then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional
rift
between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the
Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good
graces.
Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a
false
understanding because it stems from the mind of men who
speculate
on
who
God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having full
wisdom
and
knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and for
that
reason
many denominations err and there is separation and not a common
bond.
To say "Christ is risen" is a theological statement in addition
to
being an attempt at history.
To whose way of thinking as there were over 500 witnesses of it.
Plus
to
think that someone was trying to create history is foolish, for
such
attempts
have been tried similar to that, but were always disproven, and or
been
discredited soon afterwards.
The so-called "500 witnesses" is likely a latter embellishment
added
by
some scribe to "beef up" Paul's account, or Paul himself is just
storytelling. Nowhere is this supposed "mass apparition" ever
mentioned
anywhere else, either elsewhere in the New Testament or in secular
sources, and none of the 500 are ever named, nor did any of them
leave
any surviving accounts of their own individual experiences, or
convey
those experiences to anyone else.
As with the "crucifixion darkness," the appearances to 500 human
beings
lacks contextual credibility, as it only gets mentioned in one
single
source, when, in fact, it should have been mentioned in dozens of
independent sources if, in fact, it had happened.
It was. It is mentioned by others in the NT. Most notable John,
Matthew
Luke,
Mark.
Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus at that time. Paul saw him for
the
first
time on the road to Damascus
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also
received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third
day
according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at
once;
of
whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen
asleep.
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out
of
due
time.
Jesus then taught Paul in the desert for during a time of three
years.
Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was
preached
of
me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taughtit,
but
by
the
revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the
Jews'
religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God,
and
wasted
it:
***
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles
before
me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter,
and
abode with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's
brother.
Gal 1:20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God,
I
lie
not.
This was an interesting read. At first I thought you were writing a
synopsis
of one of his writings, but such does not appear to be the case. I
have
not
studied his works, but I briefly reviewed some of the comments made by
others
who have their own views of what he wrote. Sadly it is difficult to
comment
on them since I would have to study up on Paine in order to know
something
about him, and it would have to be mainly the things written by his
hand,
not
based on the comments of others, unless they were peer friends of his,
personally.
What little I read this morning, was a whole lot of things supposedly
of
what
he said and thought, but it was clear that people cherry picked phrases
that
lent themselves to support their personal agendas. According to what
you
outlined it would seem that Paine had at best a shallow and limited
understanding of the Bible, and virtually no personal knowledge of
God.
I will make a brief comment to each numeric point. LOL, hopefully
brief.
An interesting contradiction occurs with Paul's testimony, which was
pointed out by Thomas Paine, one of America's founding fathers. Here
it
is in outline form:
1) Paul, while being a Jew, claims to have persecuted Christians, a
claim also made about him by the author of Acts.
This point shows and gives an understanding of how little attention he
paid
to the NT.
It is obvious that he was a chief persecutor and he explained why.
2) When someone persecutes another, especially, a strange, it is
because you do not like what that person has done, is saying, and/or
certain viewpoints that they, as a group, hold to. (As an example, it
is possible for a Jew and a Muslim to hate each other even though
they
have never met.)
That would describe his agenda for those he persecuted. He took the
attitude
of a Muslim towards the destruction of all those who opposed his
religious
mindset, under the authority of the High Priest of his day.
3) As such, Paul, prior to his conversion to Christianity, must have
head the accounts of Jesus of Nazareth rising from the dead, which
must
have included the so-called appearances of Jesus to the "five hundred".
In spite of hearing those accounts, Paul continued to persecute
Christians; as such, Paul himself did not find the accounts of Jesus
being raised from the dead by God as being convincing.
He may have heard, and was aware of the reports. Especially because he
was
chief amongst the Pharisees. Like the typical atheist of today, they
hear
much and deny all, and this was also the mindset of the Jews who
persecuted
their brother Jew who believed in Christ. To them it was heresy. Yet
the
OT
spoke of the Messiah that was to come, when, and where, and what he
would
do.
They had an idea that he was to come and set them up as a ruling
Nation
over
all other nations. And that will happen in the future, but many looked
for
it
happening then, even demanding that he be that or else be denied. The
NT
spells it out but few pay attention to it so that they might understand
the
MO of that day amongst the religious Jew.
4) It was only after Paul's private experience that he converted.
It was only then that he was hit full face with the undeniable truth
that
he
could not ignore. No longer could he deny and put things off and
discount
the
truth without cause. The believer who came to him and healed him of
his
blindness and spoke to him, as commanded by God, was fearful of doing
so,
based on Sauls reputation for killing and torturing believers. Said so
to
God, yet he went to him and ministered to him what God said he should
do.
Conclusion: The only evidence that Paul offers for the Risen Christ
is
his private experience, as he himself discounted all the experiences
of
all the other Christians who claimed to have experienced the Risen
Christ.
Personal experiential knowledge, yes. But it also revealed to him that
he
was persecuting others by believing lies. And that what the other
apostles
taught was indeed true.
I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, and any
"appearances" to the contrary after his Passion were purely physiological in nature.
Dawn
Then by those standards any denials of it are also physiological in nature.
Dead caterpillars turn into Butterflies.
Interesting that you used the word rCLPassionrCY.
Why? "Passion" is defined in Merriam-Webster:
No kidding? And you used it capitalized to emphasize your passionate nature?
What exactly was Jesus rCLPassionaterCY about, or did you make a Freudian
slip?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/passion
As for "denials" being "physiological", one could make the same claim about the FSM and/or Orbiting Teapots:
https://russell.humanities.mcmaster.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/11-69.p
df
Ok, so you agreed with me, in that the term could apply across the board,
and
not as an example of proof of non-existence.
Did you even read the Merriam-Webster entry ("often capitalized")??
Dawn, you know why I asked you the question. A the word is capitalized at the
beginning of a sentence, or when used in respect to a religious phrase. Which
reflects a bit of your background.
As a person, that is not a word I have ever used to describe things that have
to due with Easter, etc. In fact in never enters my mind except when someone
uses it with that sense of association. I am sure you know what I am talking
about or referencing.
I suppose that, yes, ultimately, everything that we do is "physiological",
but as for Jesus' alleged "apparitions," such did not happen, except in the heads of some of his followers.
No one in those days spoke of it as an apparition. If they were to have then
it would have been an acknowledgement of a reality. One not of this realm.
That you seek to reject it, I get.
But God is not done caring about you.
The people who wrote the Bible believed that our World was flat:
https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/Appendix_
A.html
Please do not say that it was all "symbolic" for these people took the
Bible at its word:
https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/Appendix_
C.html
On Sep 26, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b6v56$19ttv$2@dont-email.me>):
On 9/26/2025 1:09 AM, None wrote:
On Sep 25, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b5635$ou51$2@dont-email.me>):
On 9/25/2025 8:36 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 25, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b4fhn$k74m$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/25/2025 5:16 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 25, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b43lk$gl7c$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/24/2025 1:37 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 24, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b16k1$3p0ga$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/24/2025 2:15 AM, None wrote:
On Sep 23, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10ava3e$3agu7$2@dont-email.me>):
On 9/22/2025 7:38 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@4ax.com>): >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in messageJudaism was the main competition for the early Christian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> church,
news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically
for
Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
so
they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
made
up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning.
But then they branched off, theologically, leaving an emotional
rift
between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as the
Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> graces.
Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false
understanding because it stems from the mind of men who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speculate
on
who
God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having full >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wisdom
and
knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and for
that
reason
many denominations err and there is separation and not a common >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bond.
To say "Christ is risen" is a theological statement in addition >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
being an attempt at history.
To whose way of thinking as there were over 500 witnesses of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus
to
think that someone was trying to create history is foolish, for >>>>>>>>>>>>> such
attempts
have been tried similar to that, but were always disproven, and or
been
discredited soon afterwards.
The so-called "500 witnesses" is likely a latter embellishment >>>>>>>>>>>> added
by
some scribe to "beef up" Paul's account, or Paul himself is just >>>>>>>>>>>> storytelling. Nowhere is this supposed "mass apparition" ever >>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
anywhere else, either elsewhere in the New Testament or in secular >>>>>>>>>>>> sources, and none of the 500 are ever named, nor did any of them >>>>>>>>>>>> leave
any surviving accounts of their own individual experiences, or >>>>>>>>>>>> convey
those experiences to anyone else.
As with the "crucifixion darkness," the appearances to 500 human >>>>>>>>>>>> beings
lacks contextual credibility, as it only gets mentioned in one >>>>>>>>>>>> single
source, when, in fact, it should have been mentioned in dozens of >>>>>>>>>>>> independent sources if, in fact, it had happened.
It was. It is mentioned by others in the NT. Most notable John, >>>>>>>>>>> Matthew
Luke,
Mark.
Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus at that time. Paul saw him for >>>>>>>>>>> the
first
time on the road to Damascus
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also >>>>>>>>>>> received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; >>>>>>>>>>>
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third >>>>>>>>>>> day
according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: >>>>>>>>>>>
1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at >>>>>>>>>>> once;
of
whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen >>>>>>>>>>> asleep.
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out >>>>>>>>>>> of
due
time.
Jesus then taught Paul in the desert for during a time of three >>>>>>>>>>> years.
Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was >>>>>>>>>>> preached
of
me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taughtit, >>>>>>>>>>> but
by
the
revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the >>>>>>>>>>> Jews'
religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, >>>>>>>>>>> and
wasted
it:
***
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles >>>>>>>>>>> before
me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. >>>>>>>>>>>
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter,
and
abode with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's
brother.
Gal 1:20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, >>>>>>>>>>> I
lie
not.
This was an interesting read. At first I thought you were writing a >>>>>>>>> synopsis
of one of his writings, but such does not appear to be the case. I >>>>>>>>> have
not
studied his works, but I briefly reviewed some of the comments made by
others
who have their own views of what he wrote. Sadly it is difficult to >>>>>>>>> comment
on them since I would have to study up on Paine in order to know >>>>>>>>> something
about him, and it would have to be mainly the things written by his >>>>>>>>> hand,
not
based on the comments of others, unless they were peer friends of his,
personally.
What little I read this morning, was a whole lot of things supposedly >>>>>>>>> of
what
he said and thought, but it was clear that people cherry picked >>>>>>>>> phrases
that
lent themselves to support their personal agendas. According to what >>>>>>>>> you
outlined it would seem that Paine had at best a shallow and limited >>>>>>>>> understanding of the Bible, and virtually no personal knowledge of >>>>>>>>> God.
I will make a brief comment to each numeric point. LOL, hopefully >>>>>>>>> brief.
An interesting contradiction occurs with Paul's testimony, which was >>>>>>>>>> pointed out by Thomas Paine, one of America's founding fathers. Here >>>>>>>>>> it
is in outline form:
1) Paul, while being a Jew, claims to have persecuted Christians, a >>>>>>>>>> claim also made about him by the author of Acts.
This point shows and gives an understanding of how little attention he
paid
to the NT.
It is obvious that he was a chief persecutor and he explained why. >>>>>>>>>
2) When someone persecutes another, especially, a strange, it is >>>>>>>>>> because you do not like what that person has done, is saying, and/or >>>>>>>>>> certain viewpoints that they, as a group, hold to. (As an example, it
is possible for a Jew and a Muslim to hate each other even though >>>>>>>>>> they
have never met.)
That would describe his agenda for those he persecuted. He took the >>>>>>>>> attitude
of a Muslim towards the destruction of all those who opposed his >>>>>>>>> religious
mindset, under the authority of the High Priest of his day. >>>>>>>>>>
3) As such, Paul, prior to his conversion to Christianity, must have >>>>>>>>>> head the accounts of Jesus of Nazareth rising from the dead, which >>>>>>>>>> must
have included the so-called appearances of Jesus to the "five >>>>>>>>>> hundred".
In spite of hearing those accounts, Paul continued to persecute >>>>>>>>>> Christians; as such, Paul himself did not find the accounts of Jesus >>>>>>>>>> being raised from the dead by God as being convincing.
He may have heard, and was aware of the reports. Especially because he
was
chief amongst the Pharisees. Like the typical atheist of today, they >>>>>>>>> hear
much and deny all, and this was also the mindset of the Jews who >>>>>>>>> persecuted
their brother Jew who believed in Christ. To them it was heresy. Yet >>>>>>>>> the
OT
spoke of the Messiah that was to come, when, and where, and what he >>>>>>>>> would
do.
They had an idea that he was to come and set them up as a ruling >>>>>>>>> Nation
over
all other nations. And that will happen in the future, but many looked
for
it
happening then, even demanding that he be that or else be denied. The >>>>>>>>> NT
spells it out but few pay attention to it so that they might >>>>>>>>> understand
the
MO of that day amongst the religious Jew.
It was only then that he was hit full face with the undeniable truth >>>>>>>>> that
4) It was only after Paul's private experience that he converted. >>>>>>>>>
he
could not ignore. No longer could he deny and put things off and >>>>>>>>> discount
the
truth without cause. The believer who came to him and healed him of >>>>>>>>> his
blindness and spoke to him, as commanded by God, was fearful of doing >>>>>>>>> so,
based on Sauls reputation for killing and torturing believers. Said so
to
God, yet he went to him and ministered to him what God said he should >>>>>>>>> do.
Conclusion: The only evidence that Paul offers for the Risen Christ >>>>>>>>>> is
his private experience, as he himself discounted all the experiences >>>>>>>>>> of
all the other Christians who claimed to have experienced the Risen >>>>>>>>>> Christ.
Personal experiential knowledge, yes. But it also revealed to him that
he
was persecuting others by believing lies. And that what the other >>>>>>>>> apostles
taught was indeed true.
I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, and any >>>>>>>> "appearances" to the contrary after his Passion were purely
physiological in nature.
Dawn
Then by those standards any denials of it are also physiological in >>>>>>> nature.
Dead caterpillars turn into Butterflies.
Interesting that you used the word rCLPassionrCY.
Why? "Passion" is defined in Merriam-Webster:
No kidding? And you used it capitalized to emphasize your passionate >>>>> nature?
What exactly was Jesus rCLPassionaterCY about, or did you make a Freudian >>>>> slip?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/passion
As for "denials" being "physiological", one could make the same claim >>>>>> about the FSM and/or Orbiting Teapots:
https://russell.humanities.mcmaster.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/11-69.p
df
Ok, so you agreed with me, in that the term could apply across the board, >>>>> and
not as an example of proof of non-existence.
Did you even read the Merriam-Webster entry ("often capitalized")??
Dawn, you know why I asked you the question. A the word is capitalized at >>> the
beginning of a sentence, or when used in respect to a religious phrase.
Which
reflects a bit of your background.
As a person, that is not a word I have ever used to describe things that >>> have
to due with Easter, etc. In fact in never enters my mind except when someone
uses it with that sense of association. I am sure you know what I am talking
about or referencing.
I suppose that, yes, ultimately, everything that we do is "physiological", >>>> but as for Jesus' alleged "apparitions," such did not happen, except in >>>> the heads of some of his followers.
No one in those days spoke of it as an apparition. If they were to have then
it would have been an acknowledgement of a reality. One not of this realm. >>>
That you seek to reject it, I get.
But God is not done caring about you.
The people who wrote the Bible believed that our World was flat:
You should check out the scriptures for yourself. The bible describes a sphere. It was the RCC that declared it flat, just like the flat earthrCOers. It proved to be a major source of embarrassment to them unto this day.
https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/Appendix_
A.html
Please do not say that it was all "symbolic" for these people took the
Bible at its word:
They were and are ignorant of the scriptures, void of understanding. There is nothing symbolic about them. The seven stars of the Pleiades are noted as being fixed in the skies, which was hotly contested as well, and by rCOsciencerCO. A few years ago it was decided by the same people that yes, they are fixed. As the bible determined them to be. They used a different term for their positioning lest them fall into the religious trap. The North Star has been used for navigation both on land and on water for that reason.
On 9/26/2025 4:55 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 26, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b6v56$19ttv$2@dont-email.me>):
On 9/26/2025 1:09 AM, None wrote:
On Sep 25, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b5635$ou51$2@dont-email.me>):
On 9/25/2025 8:36 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 25, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b4fhn$k74m$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/25/2025 5:16 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 25, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b43lk$gl7c$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/24/2025 1:37 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 24, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b16k1$3p0ga$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/24/2025 2:15 AM, None wrote:
On Sep 23, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10ava3e$3agu7$2@dont-email.me>):
On 9/22/2025 7:38 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpbeuc@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700, None<none@none.non>
wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote (Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk488q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
"JTEM" wrote in message news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently petitioned Pilate,
specifically
for
Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who invented the story, cast
the
hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who wrote what happened..
Judaism was the main competition for the early Christian
church,
so
they tried to make "the Jews" look as bad as possible when
they
made
up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah were all Jews in the
beginning.
But then they branched off, theologically, leaving an
emotional
rift
between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal to follow Jesus as
the
Messiah did not leave first-century Jews in Christians' good
graces.
Theology is not of God, but of mans understandings. It is a
false
understanding because it stems from the mind of men who
speculate
on
who
God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend on it as having
full
wisdom
and
knowledge. It is often misleading and serves to confuse, and
for
that
reason
many denominations err and there is separation and not a
common
bond.
To say "Christ is risen" is a theological statement in addition
to
being an attempt at history.
To whose way of thinking as there were over 500 witnesses of it.
Plus
to
think that someone was trying to create history is foolish, for
such
attempts
have been tried similar to that, but were always disproven, and
or
been
discredited soon afterwards.
The so-called "500 witnesses" is likely a latter embellishment
added
by
some scribe to "beef up" Paul's account, or Paul himself is just
storytelling. Nowhere is this supposed "mass apparition" ever
mentioned
anywhere else, either elsewhere in the New Testament or in
secular
sources, and none of the 500 are ever named, nor did any of them
leave
any surviving accounts of their own individual experiences, or
convey
those experiences to anyone else.
As with the "crucifixion darkness," the appearances to 500 human
beings
lacks contextual credibility, as it only gets mentioned in one
single
source, when, in fact, it should have been mentioned in dozens of
independent sources if, in fact, it had happened.
It was. It is mentioned by others in the NT. Most notable John,
Matthew
Luke,
Mark.
Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus at that time. Paul saw him for
the
first
time on the road to Damascus
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also
received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third
day
according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at
once;
of
whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are
fallen
asleep.
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the
apostles.
1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born
out
of
due
time.
Jesus then taught Paul in the desert for during a time of three
years.
Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was
preached
of
me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taughtit,
but
by
the
revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the
Jews'
religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God,
and
wasted
it:
***
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were
apostles
before
me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see
Peter,
and
abode with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the
Lord's
brother.
Gal 1:20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before
God,
I
lie
not.
This was an interesting read. At first I thought you were writing a
synopsis
of one of his writings, but such does not appear to be the case. I
have
not
studied his works, but I briefly reviewed some of the comments made
by
others
who have their own views of what he wrote. Sadly it is difficult to
comment
on them since I would have to study up on Paine in order to know
something
about him, and it would have to be mainly the things written by his
hand,
not
based on the comments of others, unless they were peer friends of
his,
personally.
What little I read this morning, was a whole lot of things supposedly
of
what
he said and thought, but it was clear that people cherry picked
phrases
that
lent themselves to support their personal agendas. According to what
you
outlined it would seem that Paine had at best a shallow and limited
understanding of the Bible, and virtually no personal knowledge of
God.
I will make a brief comment to each numeric point. LOL, hopefully
brief.
An interesting contradiction occurs with Paul's testimony, which
was
pointed out by Thomas Paine, one of America's founding fathers.
Here
it
is in outline form:
1) Paul, while being a Jew, claims to have persecuted Christians, a
claim also made about him by the author of Acts.
This point shows and gives an understanding of how little attention
he
paid
to the NT.
It is obvious that he was a chief persecutor and he explained why.
2) When someone persecutes another, especially, a strange, it is
because you do not like what that person has done, is saying,
and/or
certain viewpoints that they, as a group, hold to. (As an example,
it
is possible for a Jew and a Muslim to hate each other even though
they
have never met.)
That would describe his agenda for those he persecuted. He took the
attitude
of a Muslim towards the destruction of all those who opposed his
religious
mindset, under the authority of the High Priest of his day.
3) As such, Paul, prior to his conversion to Christianity, must
have
head the accounts of Jesus of Nazareth rising from the dead, which
must
have included the so-called appearances of Jesus to the "five
hundred".
In spite of hearing those accounts, Paul continued to persecute
Christians; as such, Paul himself did not find the accounts of
Jesus
being raised from the dead by God as being convincing.
He may have heard, and was aware of the reports. Especially because
he
was
chief amongst the Pharisees. Like the typical atheist of today, they
hear
much and deny all, and this was also the mindset of the Jews who
persecuted
their brother Jew who believed in Christ. To them it was heresy. Yet
the
OT
spoke of the Messiah that was to come, when, and where, and what he
would
do.
They had an idea that he was to come and set them up as a ruling
Nation
over
all other nations. And that will happen in the future, but many
looked
for
it
happening then, even demanding that he be that or else be denied.
The
NT
spells it out but few pay attention to it so that they might
understand
the
MO of that day amongst the religious Jew.
4) It was only after Paul's private experience that he converted.
It was only then that he was hit full face with the undeniable truth
that
he
could not ignore. No longer could he deny and put things off and
discount
the
truth without cause. The believer who came to him and healed him of
his
blindness and spoke to him, as commanded by God, was fearful of
doing
so,
based on Sauls reputation for killing and torturing believers. Said
so
to
God, yet he went to him and ministered to him what God said he
should
do.
Conclusion: The only evidence that Paul offers for the Risen Christ
is
his private experience, as he himself discounted all the experiences
of
all the other Christians who claimed to have experienced the Risen
Christ.
Personal experiential knowledge, yes. But it also revealed to him
that
he
was persecuting others by believing lies. And that what the other
apostles
taught was indeed true.
I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, and any
"appearances" to the contrary after his Passion were purely physiological in nature.
Dawn
Then by those standards any denials of it are also physiological in
nature.
Dead caterpillars turn into Butterflies.
Interesting that you used the word rCLPassionrCY.
Why? "Passion" is defined in Merriam-Webster:
No kidding? And you used it capitalized to emphasize your passionate
nature?
What exactly was Jesus rCLPassionaterCY about, or did you make a Freudian
slip?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/passion
As for "denials" being "physiological", one could make the same claim
about the FSM and/or Orbiting Teapots:
https://russell.humanities.mcmaster.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/11-69
.p
df
Ok, so you agreed with me, in that the term could apply across the board,
and
not as an example of proof of non-existence.
Did you even read the Merriam-Webster entry ("often capitalized")??
Dawn, you know why I asked you the question. A the word is capitalized at
the
beginning of a sentence, or when used in respect to a religious phrase. Which
reflects a bit of your background.
As a person, that is not a word I have ever used to describe things that
have
to due with Easter, etc. In fact in never enters my mind except when someone
uses it with that sense of association. I am sure you know what I am talking
about or referencing.
I suppose that, yes, ultimately, everything that we do is "physiological",
but as for Jesus' alleged "apparitions," such did not happen, except in
the heads of some of his followers.
No one in those days spoke of it as an apparition. If they were to have then
it would have been an acknowledgement of a reality. One not of this realm.
That you seek to reject it, I get.
But God is not done caring about you.
The people who wrote the Bible believed that our World was flat:
You should check out the scriptures for yourself. The bible describes a sphere. It was the RCC that declared it flat, just like the flat earthrCOers.
It proved to be a major source of embarrassment to them unto this day.
https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/Append
ix_
A.html
Please do not say that it was all "symbolic" for these people took the Bible at its word:
They were and are ignorant of the scriptures, void of understanding. There is
nothing symbolic about them. The seven stars of the Pleiades are noted as being fixed in the skies, which was hotly contested as well, and by rCOsciencerCO. A few years ago it was decided by the same people that yes, they are fixed. As the bible determined them to be. They used a different term for their positioning lest them fall into the religious trap. The North
Star has been used for navigation both on land and on water for that reason.
No, the Pleiades are mostly certainly NOT fixed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiades#Age_and_future_evolution
On Sep 26, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b6v56$19ttv$2@dont-email.me>):
The people who wrote the Bible believed that our World was flat:
You should check out the scriptures for yourself. The bible describes
a sphere.
On Sep 26, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b6v56$19ttv$2@dont-email.me>):
On 9/26/2025 1:09 AM, None wrote:
On Sep 25, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b5635$ou51$2@dont-email.me>):
On 9/25/2025 8:36 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 25, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b4fhn$k74m$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/25/2025 5:16 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 25, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b43lk$gl7c$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/24/2025 1:37 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 24, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b16k1$3p0ga$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/24/2025 2:15 AM, None wrote:
On Sep 23, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10ava3e$3agu7$2@dont-email.me>):
On 9/22/2025 7:38 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<gli3dklum284n6ien0cu1scc82e0fm622t@
4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:46:08 -0700,
None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<vr23dklnb0f35br25uualnl6ktdgjpb
euc@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:47:38 -0700,
None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(Message-ID:<51k2dkp25k552cd68ir6p4luk48
8q1qia2@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:12:45 -0700,"Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:news:10apq31$1vqea$1@dont-email.me...
"JTEM" wrote in message
petitioned Pilate,Andrew wrote:
Yes, but the Jews vehemently
invented the story, cast thespecifically
for
Him
to
be crucified.
I don't believe it.
It seems that the Romans, who
wrote what happened..hated
Jews as the bad guys.
But they were Jews themselves who
the early Christian
Judaism was the main competition for
church,bad as possible when
so
they tried to make "the Jews" look as
they
made
up their stories about Jesus.
In whose mind? Yours?
The believers in Jesus as the Messiah
were all Jews in the
beginning.
But then they branched off,
theologically, leaving an emotional
rift
between Jews and Messianic Jews. Refusal
to follow Jesus as the
Messiah did not leave first-century Jews
in Christians' good
graces.
Theology is not of God, but of mans
understandings. It is a
false
understanding because it stems from the
mind of men who
speculate
on
who
God
is, and it is NOT definitive. Never depend
on it as having full
wisdom
and
knowledge. It is often misleading and
serves to confuse, and for
that
reason
many denominations err and there is
separation and not a common
bond.
To say "Christ is risen" is a theological
statement in addition
to
being an attempt at history.
To whose way of thinking as there were over 500
witnesses of it. Plus
to
think that someone was trying to create history
is foolish, for such
attempts
have been tried similar to that, but were
always disproven, and or
been
discredited soon afterwards.
The so-called "500 witnesses" is likely a latter
embellishment added
by
some scribe to "beef up" Paul's account, or Paul
himself is just storytelling. Nowhere is this
supposed "mass apparition" ever
mentioned
anywhere else, either elsewhere in the New
Testament or in secular sources, and none of the
500 are ever named, nor did any of them
leave
any surviving accounts of their own individual
experiences, or convey
those experiences to anyone else.
As with the "crucifixion darkness," the
appearances to 500 human beings
lacks contextual credibility, as it only gets
mentioned in one single
source, when, in fact, it should have been
mentioned in dozens of independent sources if, in
fact, it had happened.
It was. It is mentioned by others in the NT. Most
notable John, Matthew
Luke,
Mark.
Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus at that time.
Paul saw him for the
first
time on the road to Damascus
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that
which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the
scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose
again the third day
according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of
the twelve:
1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five
hundred brethren at once;
of
whom the greater part remain unto this present, but
some are fallen asleep.
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of
all the apostles.
1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as
of one born out of
due
time.
Jesus then taught Paul in the desert for during a
time of three years.
Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the
gospel which was preached
of
me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither
was I taughtit, but
by
the
revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in
time past in the Jews'
religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the
church of God, and
wasted
it:
***
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them
which were apostles before
me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto
Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to
Jerusalem to see Peter, and
abode with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save
James the Lord's brother.
Gal 1:20 Now the things which I write unto you,
behold, before God, I
lie
not.
This was an interesting read. At first I thought you
were writing a synopsis
of one of his writings, but such does not appear to be
the case. I have
not
studied his works, but I briefly reviewed some of the
comments made by others
who have their own views of what he wrote. Sadly it is
difficult to comment
on them since I would have to study up on Paine in
order to know something
about him, and it would have to be mainly the things
written by his hand,
not
based on the comments of others, unless they were peer
friends of his, personally.
What little I read this morning, was a whole lot of
things supposedly of
what
he said and thought, but it was clear that people
cherry picked phrases
that
lent themselves to support their personal agendas.
According to what you
outlined it would seem that Paine had at best a shallow
and limited understanding of the Bible, and virtually
no personal knowledge of God.
I will make a brief comment to each numeric point. LOL,
hopefully brief.
An interesting contradiction occurs with Paul's
testimony, which was pointed out by Thomas Paine, one
of America's founding fathers. Here
it
is in outline form:
1) Paul, while being a Jew, claims to have persecuted
Christians, a claim also made about him by the author
of Acts.
This point shows and gives an understanding of how
little attention he paid
to the NT.
It is obvious that he was a chief persecutor and he
explained why.
2) When someone persecutes another, especially, a
strange, it is because you do not like what that
person has done, is saying, and/or
certain viewpoints that they, as a group, hold to.
(As an example, it is possible for a Jew and a Muslim
to hate each other even though they
have never met.)
That would describe his agenda for those he persecuted.
He took the attitude
of a Muslim towards the destruction of all those who
opposed his religious
mindset, under the authority of the High Priest of his
day.
3) As such, Paul, prior to his conversion to
Christianity, must have head the accounts of Jesus of
Nazareth rising from the dead, which
must
have included the so-called appearances of Jesus to
the "five hundred".
In spite of hearing those accounts, Paul continued to
persecute Christians; as such, Paul himself did not
find the accounts of Jesus being raised from the dead
by God as being convincing.
He may have heard, and was aware of the reports.
Especially because he was
chief amongst the Pharisees. Like the typical atheist
of today, they hear
much and deny all, and this was also the mindset of the
Jews who persecuted
their brother Jew who believed in Christ. To them it
was heresy. Yet the
OT
spoke of the Messiah that was to come, when, and where,
and what he would
do.
They had an idea that he was to come and set them up as
a ruling Nation
over
all other nations. And that will happen in the future,
but many looked for
it
happening then, even demanding that he be that or else
be denied. The NT
spells it out but few pay attention to it so that they
might understand
the
MO of that day amongst the religious Jew.
4) It was only after Paul's private experience that
he converted.
It was only then that he was hit full face with the
undeniable truth that
he
could not ignore. No longer could he deny and put
things off and discount
the
truth without cause. The believer who came to him and
healed him of his
blindness and spoke to him, as commanded by God, was
fearful of doing so,
based on Sauls reputation for killing and torturing
believers. Said so to
God, yet he went to him and ministered to him what God
said he should do.
Conclusion: The only evidence that Paul offers for
the Risen Christ is
his private experience, as he himself discounted all
the experiences of
all the other Christians who claimed to have
experienced the Risen Christ.
Personal experiential knowledge, yes. But it also
revealed to him that he
was persecuting others by believing lies. And that what
the other apostles
taught was indeed true.
I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the
dead, and any "appearances" to the contrary after his
Passion were purely physiological in nature.
Dawn
Then by those standards any denials of it are also
physiological in nature.
Dead caterpillars turn into Butterflies.
Interesting that you used the word rCLPassionrCY.
Why? "Passion" is defined in Merriam-Webster:
No kidding? And you used it capitalized to emphasize your
passionate nature?
What exactly was Jesus rCLPassionaterCY about, or did you make
a Freudian slip?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/passion
As for "denials" being "physiological", one could make the
same claim about the FSM and/or Orbiting Teapots:
https://russell.humanities.mcmaster.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025
/04/11-69.p df
Ok, so you agreed with me, in that the term could apply across
the board, and
not as an example of proof of non-existence.
Did you even read the Merriam-Webster entry ("often
capitalized")??
Dawn, you know why I asked you the question. A the word is
capitalized at the
beginning of a sentence, or when used in respect to a religious
phrase. Which
reflects a bit of your background.
As a person, that is not a word I have ever used to describe things
that have
to due with Easter, etc. In fact in never enters my mind except
when someone uses it with that sense of association. I am sure you
know what I am talking about or referencing.
I suppose that, yes, ultimately, everything that we do is
"physiological", but as for Jesus' alleged "apparitions," such
did not happen, except in the heads of some of his followers.
No one in those days spoke of it as an apparition. If they were to
have then it would have been an acknowledgement of a reality. One
not of this realm.
That you seek to reject it, I get.
But God is not done caring about you.
The people who wrote the Bible believed that our World was flat:
You should check out the scriptures for yourself. The bible describes
a sphere. It was the RCC that declared it flat, just like the flat earthrCOers. It proved to be a major source of embarrassment to them
unto this day.
https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/A
ppendix_ A.html
Please do not say that it was all "symbolic" for these people took
the Bible at its word:
They were and are ignorant of the scriptures, void of understanding.
There is nothing symbolic about them. The seven stars of the Pleiades
are noted as being fixed in the skies, which was hotly contested as
well, and by rCOsciencerCO. A few years ago it was decided by the same
people that yes, they are fixed. As the bible determined them to be.
They used a different term for their positioning lest them fall into
the religious trap. The North Star has been used for navigation both
on land and on water for that reason.
None <none@none.non> wrote in news:10b723u$19pd6$3@dont-email.me:
On Sep 26, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b6v56$19ttv$2@dont-email.me>):
The people who wrote the Bible believed that our World was flat:
Correct.
You should check out the scriptures for yourself. The bible describes
a sphere.
Incorrect.
Daniel 4:10-11.
...the king saw a tree of great height at the
centre of the earth...reaching with its top to
the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds
(Only possible on a flat surface)
The seven stars of the Pleiades
are noted as being fixed in the skies, which was hotly contested as
well, and by |ore4raoscience|ore4rao. A few years ago it was decided by the same
people that yes, they are fixed. As the bible determined them to be.
They used a different term for their positioning lest them fall into
the religious trap. The North Star has been used for navigation both
on land and on water for that reason.
Wrong.
No stars are "fixed" in the sky. The
solar system is moving around the center
of the galaxy at 518,000 mph. In addition
it moves vertcally within the galactic
plane. Ergo all the stars we see are moving
relative to our position. Just because our
lifetimes are too short to notice it does
not mean it is not happening.
On Sep 28, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote
(Message-ID: <XnsB368D2F78B8B629555@69.80.101.16>):
The seven stars of the Pleiades
are noted as being fixed in the skies, which was hotly contested as
well, and by |ore4raoscience|ore4rao. A few years ago it was decided by the same
people that yes, they are fixed. As the bible determined them to be.
They used a different term for their positioning lest them fall into
the religious trap. The North Star has been used for navigation both
on land and on water for that reason.
Wrong.
No stars are "fixed" in the sky. The
solar system is moving around the center
of the galaxy at 518,000 mph. In addition
it moves vertcally within the galactic
plane. Ergo all the stars we see are moving
relative to our position. Just because our
lifetimes are too short to notice it does
not mean it is not happening.
Not only do I accept and believe the word of God above Man as well as over the evil one, I also have done a certain amount of research on the subject as to astronomy and the sciences, keep abreast of things that go one and the discoveries, and while the wording of the scientists did not match the bible word of word, what they discovered they said exonerated what the bible said, but with scientific evidences, say like their positions remained consistent with the placement of the earth. Which, as a matter of fact inspire of the megaflow's of tsunamis which far exceeded any nuclear group of forces. Yet while it changed the axis of the earth the earth remained fixed in its orbit. Forces like that would knock most planets off their positions.
On 9/28/2025 11:37 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 28, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote
(Message-ID: <XnsB368D2F78B8B629555@69.80.101.16>):
The seven stars of the Pleiades
are noted as being fixed in the skies, which was hotly contested as well, and by |ore4raoscience|ore4rao. A few years ago it was decided by the same
people that yes, they are fixed. As the bible determined them to be. They used a different term for their positioning lest them fall into the religious trap. The North Star has been used for navigation both
on land and on water for that reason.
Wrong.
No stars are "fixed" in the sky. The
solar system is moving around the center
of the galaxy at 518,000 mph. In addition
it moves vertcally within the galactic
plane. Ergo all the stars we see are moving
relative to our position. Just because our
lifetimes are too short to notice it does
not mean it is not happening.
Not only do I accept and believe the word of God above Man as well as over the evil one, I also have done a certain amount of research on the subject as
to astronomy and the sciences, keep abreast of things that go one and the discoveries, and while the wording of the scientists did not match the bible
word of word, what they discovered they said exonerated what the bible said,
but with scientific evidences, say like their positions remained consistent with the placement of the earth. Which, as a matter of fact inspire of the megaflow's of tsunamis which far exceeded any nuclear group of forces. Yet while it changed the axis of the earth the earth remained fixed in its orbit.
Forces like that would knock most planets off their positions.
How do you know that the Bible was not being symbolic (again)?
On Sep 28, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote
(Message-ID: <XnsB368D039EFC25629555@69.80.101.13>):
None <none@none.non> wrote in news:10b723u$19pd6$3@dont-email.me:
On Sep 26, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b6v56$19ttv$2@dont-email.me>):
The people who wrote the Bible believed that our World was flat:
Correct.
In correct and you know it as we have had this discussion before.
You should check out the scriptures for yourself. The bible
describes a sphere.
Incorrect.
Lost your memory?
There is no teaching in scripture of a flat earth. Not even once.
Even in ancient times the horizon was limited because of the same
curvature that we currently see.
A scientist disproved the conjecture of ignorant men as to its
flatness and they called him evil and kicked him out of the church and condemned him to hell. Later when other scientists also proved the
earth was a sphere that church had to chant him put of hell to place
him into heaven, as if they had that authority, lol, they have never
lived that down.
Yet here you are making all sorts of conjectures about the bible and
you are even more ignorant of the scriptures then were they. Here you
are making conclusions you cannot support. For instance all the world
knows of the four corners of this earth, North, South, East, and West.
They also know that no mater how far you travel west you will never
meet east. They also all realized that the oceans did not drain off
the edge of the world, and they were never sucked into any current of
water rushing off the edge of the world.
People always knew the Sun rose in the East, etc. They could see
clouds coming in from one direction or another. Recognized the types
of cloud and incoming weather.
And here below, a story you know well, yet you allowed yourself to
disbelieve what you know was recorded in the bible.
Daniel 4:10-11.
...the king saw a tree of great height at the
centre of the earth...reaching with its top to
the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds
(Only possible on a flat surface)
Dan 4:10Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and
behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was
great.
Dan 4:11The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached
unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:
Dan 4:12The leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and
in it was meat for all: the beasts of the field had shadow under it,
and the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all flesh
was fed of it.
Dan 4:13I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a
watcher and an holy one came down from heaven;
It was a vision. To be interpreted. Yet you pretend not to know of
such things.
On Sep 28, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote
(Message-ID: <XnsB368D2F78B8B629555@69.80.101.16>):
The seven stars of the Pleiades
are noted as being fixed in the skies, which was hotly contested as
well, and by |ore4raoscience|ore4rao. A few years ago it was
decided by the same people that yes, they are fixed. As the bible
determined them to be. They used a different term for their
positioning lest them fall into the religious trap. The North Star
has been used for navigation both on land and on water for that
reason.
Wrong.
No stars are "fixed" in the sky. The
solar system is moving around the center
of the galaxy at 518,000 mph. In addition
it moves vertcally within the galactic
plane. Ergo all the stars we see are moving
relative to our position. Just because our
lifetimes are too short to notice it does
not mean it is not happening.
Not only do I accept and believe the word of God above Man as well as
over the evil one,
I also have done a certain amount of research on
the subject as to astronomy and the sciences, keep abreast of things
that go one and the discoveries, and while the wording of the
scientists did not match the bible word of word, what they discovered
they said exonerated what the bible said, but with scientific
evidences, say like their positions remained consistent with the
placement of the earth. Which, as a matter of fact inspire of the
megaflow's of tsunamis which far exceeded any nuclear group of forces.
Yet while it changed the axis of the earth the earth remained fixed in
its orbit.
God, who created the earth and all upon it, did it for a purpose, and
the people upon it as well as all forms of life he is deeply involved
with it, so much that he offered up his son as a sacrifice to save all
the images created in his likeness. Those who willing to accept his
personal great sacrifice, that his Son was likewise willing to go
through what he did out of his great love for us. Those who refuse
Christ Jesus and chose to follow Lucifer, and dwell with the same
pride as did he, will suffer just like Satan and all his angels who
believed his con job and flim flam that he fed them. Which he tries to
do with man who he knows was made in the image of God, whom he hates.
We, are the apple of Gods eye, he created everything in this world for
us, with the intention that everything here would support our physical
needs while he supplies our spiritual needs. Yet like all his
creatures including the Angelic hosts he gave us free will, and in the
case of this world he gave us dominion over it and the creatures
therein. What a wonderful God, that helps those that are willing to
receive it.
On Sep 28, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10bd4bd$2pve1$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/28/2025 11:37 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 28, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote
(Message-ID: <XnsB368D2F78B8B629555@69.80.101.16>):
The seven stars of the Pleiades
are noted as being fixed in the skies, which was hotly
contested as well, and by |ore4raoscience|ore4rao. A few years
ago it was decided by the same
people that yes, they are fixed. As the bible determined them
to be. They used a different term for their positioning lest
them fall into the religious trap. The North Star has been used
for navigation both on land and on water for that reason.
Wrong.
No stars are "fixed" in the sky. The
solar system is moving around the center
of the galaxy at 518,000 mph. In addition
it moves vertcally within the galactic
plane. Ergo all the stars we see are moving
relative to our position. Just because our
lifetimes are too short to notice it does
not mean it is not happening.
Not only do I accept and believe the word of God above Man as well
as over the evil one, I also have done a certain amount of research
on the subject as
to astronomy and the sciences, keep abreast of things that go one
and the discoveries, and while the wording of the scientists did
not match the bible word of word, what they discovered they said
exonerated what the bible said, but with scientific evidences, say
like their positions remained consistent with the placement of the
earth. Which, as a matter of fact inspire of the megaflow's of
tsunamis which far exceeded any nuclear group of forces. Yet while
it changed the axis of the earth the earth remained fixed in its
orbit.
Forces like that would knock most planets off their positions.
How do you know that the Bible was not being symbolic (again)?
There is and was no reason for symbolism.
In verse after verse the Bible describes
None <none@none.non> wrote in news:10bd61d$2qa7f$1@dont-email.me:
On Sep 28, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10bd4bd$2pve1$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/28/2025 11:37 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 28, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote
(Message-ID: <XnsB368D2F78B8B629555@69.80.101.16>):
The seven stars of the Pleiades
are noted as being fixed in the skies, which was hotly
contested as well, and by |ore4raoscience|ore4rao. A few years
ago it was decided by the same
people that yes, they are fixed. As the bible determined them
to be. They used a different term for their positioning lest
them fall into the religious trap. The North Star has been used
for navigation both on land and on water for that reason.
Wrong.
No stars are "fixed" in the sky. The
solar system is moving around the center
of the galaxy at 518,000 mph. In addition
it moves vertcally within the galactic
plane. Ergo all the stars we see are moving
relative to our position. Just because our
lifetimes are too short to notice it does
not mean it is not happening.
Not only do I accept and believe the word of God above Man as well
as over the evil one, I also have done a certain amount of research
on the subject as
to astronomy and the sciences, keep abreast of things that go one
and the discoveries, and while the wording of the scientists did
not match the bible word of word, what they discovered they said
exonerated what the bible said, but with scientific evidences, say
like their positions remained consistent with the placement of the
earth. Which, as a matter of fact inspire of the megaflow's of
tsunamis which far exceeded any nuclear group of forces. Yet while
it changed the axis of the earth the earth remained fixed in its
orbit.
Forces like that would knock most planets off their positions.
How do you know that the Bible was not being symbolic (again)?
There is and was no reason for symbolism.
That is a refreshing change from
Artie/Joe and his "That nonsensical
story is just a metaphor" and "That
passage was just written as symbolism"
On 9/29/25 2:03 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
-a-a-a-a In verse after verse the Bible describes
Well you fundies always take the bible so literally....
And speaking of entirely faith-based stupid ideas that
you lick up as if they were ice cream:
You believe that Darwin "Discovered" and/or "understood"
and/or "Agree with" evolution, despite his spelling out
precisely what he believed in, and it matched exactly
what those who OUTLAWED evolution believed.
You believe that abiogenesis is science, despite it first
being falsified, what? Back in the 1950s? And it's been
continuously falsified since?
You believe SETI is science despite it having experienced
decades of falsification, by it's own reckoning, before
the current organization was even formed...
You think that paleo anthropology is science!
You just BELIEVE. You're faith based.
None <none@none.non> wrote in news:10bcv17$2p0v1$1@dont-email.me:
On Sep 28, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote
(Message-ID: <XnsB368D039EFC25629555@69.80.101.13>):
None <none@none.non> wrote in news:10b723u$19pd6$3@dont-email.me:
On Sep 26, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b6v56$19ttv$2@dont-email.me>):
The people who wrote the Bible believed that our World was flat:
Correct.
In correct and you know it as we have had this discussion before.
You should check out the scriptures for yourself. The bible
describes a sphere.
Incorrect.
Lost your memory?
There is no teaching in scripture of a flat earth. Not even once.
Even in ancient times the horizon was limited because of the same
curvature that we currently see.
A scientist disproved the conjecture of ignorant men as to its
flatness and they called him evil and kicked him out of the church and condemned him to hell. Later when other scientists also proved the
earth was a sphere that church had to chant him put of hell to place
him into heaven, as if they had that authority, lol, they have never
lived that down.
Yet here you are making all sorts of conjectures about the bible and
you are even more ignorant of the scriptures then were they. Here you
are making conclusions you cannot support. For instance all the world
knows of the four corners of this earth, North, South, East, and West.
They also know that no mater how far you travel west you will never
meet east. They also all realized that the oceans did not drain off
the edge of the world, and they were never sucked into any current of
water rushing off the edge of the world.
People always knew the Sun rose in the East, etc. They could see
clouds coming in from one direction or another. Recognized the types
of cloud and incoming weather.
And here below, a story you know well, yet you allowed yourself to disbelieve what you know was recorded in the bible.
Daniel 4:10-11.
...the king saw a tree of great height at the
centre of the earth...reaching with its top to
the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds
(Only possible on a flat surface)
Dan 4:10Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and
behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was
great.
Dan 4:11The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached
unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:
Dan 4:12The leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and
in it was meat for all: the beasts of the field had shadow under it,
and the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all flesh
was fed of it.
Dan 4:13I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a
watcher and an holy one came down from heaven;
It was a vision. To be interpreted. Yet you pretend not to know of
such things.
It was a vision of the world as he knew
it to be.
FLAT.
In verse after verse the Bible describes
things only possible on a FLAT earth.
But let us return to your original claim.
"The bible describes a sphere."
And your proof of that is.........?
None <none@none.non> wrote in news:10bd61d$2qa7f$1@dont-email.me:I was speaking in reference to your point. There are some things that are symbolic, that cannot be understood or comprehended by the unwashed. But that is no excuse for being ignorant of the scriptures.
On Sep 28, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10bd4bd$2pve1$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/28/2025 11:37 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 28, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote
(Message-ID: <XnsB368D2F78B8B629555@69.80.101.16>):
The seven stars of the Pleiades
are noted as being fixed in the skies, which was hotly
contested as well, and by |ore4raoscience|ore4rao. A few years
ago it was decided by the same
people that yes, they are fixed. As the bible determined them
to be. They used a different term for their positioning lest
them fall into the religious trap. The North Star has been used
for navigation both on land and on water for that reason.
Wrong.
No stars are "fixed" in the sky. The
solar system is moving around the center
of the galaxy at 518,000 mph. In addition
it moves vertcally within the galactic
plane. Ergo all the stars we see are moving
relative to our position. Just because our
lifetimes are too short to notice it does
not mean it is not happening.
Not only do I accept and believe the word of God above Man as well
as over the evil one, I also have done a certain amount of research
on the subject as
to astronomy and the sciences, keep abreast of things that go one
and the discoveries, and while the wording of the scientists did
not match the bible word of word, what they discovered they said exonerated what the bible said, but with scientific evidences, say
like their positions remained consistent with the placement of the earth. Which, as a matter of fact inspire of the megaflow's of
tsunamis which far exceeded any nuclear group of forces. Yet while
it changed the axis of the earth the earth remained fixed in its
orbit.
Forces like that would knock most planets off their positions.
How do you know that the Bible was not being symbolic (again)?
There is and was no reason for symbolism.
That is a refreshing change from
Artie/Joe and his "That nonsensical
story is just a metaphor" and "That
passage was just written as symbolismrCY
On 9/29/2025 1:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
None <none@none.non> wrote in news:10bd61d$2qa7f$1@dont-email.me:
On Sep 28, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10bd4bd$2pve1$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/28/2025 11:37 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 28, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote
(Message-ID: <XnsB368D2F78B8B629555@69.80.101.16>):
The seven stars of the Pleiades
are noted as being fixed in the skies, which was hotly
contested as well, and by |ore4raoscience|ore4rao. A few years ago it was decided by the same
people that yes, they are fixed. As the bible determined them
to be. They used a different term for their positioning lest
them fall into the religious trap. The North Star has been used for navigation both on land and on water for that reason.
Wrong.
No stars are "fixed" in the sky. The
solar system is moving around the center
of the galaxy at 518,000 mph. In addition
it moves vertcally within the galactic
plane. Ergo all the stars we see are moving
relative to our position. Just because our
lifetimes are too short to notice it does
not mean it is not happening.
Not only do I accept and believe the word of God above Man as well
as over the evil one, I also have done a certain amount of research on the subject as
to astronomy and the sciences, keep abreast of things that go one
and the discoveries, and while the wording of the scientists did
not match the bible word of word, what they discovered they said exonerated what the bible said, but with scientific evidences, say like their positions remained consistent with the placement of the earth. Which, as a matter of fact inspire of the megaflow's of tsunamis which far exceeded any nuclear group of forces. Yet while
it changed the axis of the earth the earth remained fixed in its orbit.
Forces like that would knock most planets off their positions.
How do you know that the Bible was not being symbolic (again)?
There is and was no reason for symbolism.
That is a refreshing change from
Artie/Joe and his "That nonsensical
story is just a metaphor" and "That
passage was just written as symbolism"
It goes to show you that the Bible is incapable of providing its own self-evident interpretation; instead, human beings must decide such
things, and they (we) cannot agree. I have better things to do with my
time!
On Sep 29, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote
(Message-ID: <XnsB369832FA1EB4629555@69.80.101.13>):
None <none@none.non> wrote in news:10bcv17$2p0v1$1@dont-email.me:
On Sep 28, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote
(Message-ID: <XnsB368D039EFC25629555@69.80.101.13>):
None <none@none.non> wrote in
news:10b723u$19pd6$3@dont-email.me:
On Sep 26, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10b6v56$19ttv$2@dont-email.me>):
The people who wrote the Bible believed that our World was
flat:
Correct.
In correct and you know it as we have had this discussion before.
You should check out the scriptures for yourself. The bible
describes a sphere.
Incorrect.
Lost your memory?
There is no teaching in scripture of a flat earth. Not even once.
Even in ancient times the horizon was limited because of the same
curvature that we currently see.
A scientist disproved the conjecture of ignorant men as to its
flatness and they called him evil and kicked him out of the church
and condemned him to hell. Later when other scientists also proved
the earth was a sphere that church had to chant him put of hell to
place him into heaven, as if they had that authority, lol, they
have never lived that down.
Yet here you are making all sorts of conjectures about the bible
and you are even more ignorant of the scriptures then were they.
Here you are making conclusions you cannot support. For instance
all the world knows of the four corners of this earth, North,
South, East, and West. They also know that no mater how far you
travel west you will never meet east. They also all realized that
the oceans did not drain off the edge of the world, and they were
never sucked into any current of water rushing off the edge of the
world.
People always knew the Sun rose in the East, etc. They could see
clouds coming in from one direction or another. Recognized the
types of cloud and incoming weather.
And here below, a story you know well, yet you allowed yourself to
disbelieve what you know was recorded in the bible.
Daniel 4:10-11.
...the king saw a tree of great height at the
centre of the earth...reaching with its top to
the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds
(Only possible on a flat surface)
Dan 4:10Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and
behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was
great.
Dan 4:11The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof
reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the
earth:
Dan 4:12The leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much,
and in it was meat for all: the beasts of the field had shadow
under it, and the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof,
and all flesh was fed of it.
Dan 4:13I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a
watcher and an holy one came down from heaven;
It was a vision. To be interpreted. Yet you pretend not to know of
such things.
It was a vision of the world as he knew
it to be.
FLAT.
In verse after verse the Bible describes
things only possible on a FLAT earth.
Guess you never traveled had any instruct in any of the sciences, or
even flew at high altitude an looked out a window or even had basic
geometry
But let us return to your original claim.
"The bible describes a sphere."
And your proof of that is.........?
And repeat to you what you have read from my posts before?
Would the results be any different this time then the last couple
times?
On Sep 29, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote
(Message-ID: <XnsB369864562DD8629555@69.80.102.14>):
None <none@none.non> wrote in news:10bd61d$2qa7f$1@dont-email.me:I was speaking in reference to your point. There are some things that
On Sep 28, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10bd4bd$2pve1$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/28/2025 11:37 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 28, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote
(Message-ID: <XnsB368D2F78B8B629555@69.80.101.16>):
The seven stars of the Pleiades
are noted as being fixed in the skies, which was hotly
contested as well, and by |ore4raoscience|ore4rao. A few
years ago it was decided by the same
people that yes, they are fixed. As the bible determined
them to be. They used a different term for their
positioning lest them fall into the religious trap. The
North Star has been used for navigation both on land and on
water for that reason.
Wrong.
No stars are "fixed" in the sky. The
solar system is moving around the center
of the galaxy at 518,000 mph. In addition
it moves vertcally within the galactic
plane. Ergo all the stars we see are moving
relative to our position. Just because our
lifetimes are too short to notice it does
not mean it is not happening.
Not only do I accept and believe the word of God above Man as
well as over the evil one, I also have done a certain amount of
research on the subject as
to astronomy and the sciences, keep abreast of things that go
one and the discoveries, and while the wording of the
scientists did not match the bible word of word, what they
discovered they said exonerated what the bible said, but with
scientific evidences, say like their positions remained
consistent with the placement of the earth. Which, as a matter
of fact inspire of the megaflow's of tsunamis which far
exceeded any nuclear group of forces. Yet while it changed the
axis of the earth the earth remained fixed in its orbit.
Forces like that would knock most planets off their positions.
How do you know that the Bible was not being symbolic (again)?
There is and was no reason for symbolism.
That is a refreshing change from
Artie/Joe and his "That nonsensical
story is just a metaphor" and "That
passage was just written as symbolismrCY
are symbolic, that cannot be understood or comprehended by the
unwashed.
But that is no excuse for being ignorant of the scriptures.
None <none@none.non> wrote in news:10bd2dd$2plol$1@dont-email.me:
On Sep 28, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote
(Message-ID: <XnsB368D2F78B8B629555@69.80.101.16>):
The seven stars of the Pleiades
are noted as being fixed in the skies, which was hotly contested as well, and by |ore4raoscience|ore4rao. A few years ago it was
decided by the same people that yes, they are fixed. As the bible determined them to be. They used a different term for their
positioning lest them fall into the religious trap. The North Star
has been used for navigation both on land and on water for that
reason.
Wrong.
No stars are "fixed" in the sky. The
solar system is moving around the center
of the galaxy at 518,000 mph. In addition
it moves vertcally within the galactic
plane. Ergo all the stars we see are moving
relative to our position. Just because our
lifetimes are too short to notice it does
not mean it is not happening.
Not only do I accept and believe the word of God above Man as well as
over the evil one,
Astronomy is "the evil one"?
I also have done a certain amount of research on
the subject as to astronomy and the sciences, keep abreast of things
that go one and the discoveries, and while the wording of the
scientists did not match the bible word of word, what they discovered
they said exonerated what the bible said, but with scientific
evidences, say like their positions remained consistent with the
placement of the earth. Which, as a matter of fact inspire of the megaflow's of tsunamis which far exceeded any nuclear group of forces.
Yet while it changed the axis of the earth the earth remained fixed in
its orbit.
The Bible doesn't say the earth is
"fixed in its orbit". The word "orbit" isn't
in the Bible. It says the Earth is fixed.
As in immovable. As in doesn't orbit or
rotate at all.
1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation
so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned
it, and himself fixed it fast..."
Is the Bible right, or is science right?
God, who created the earth and all upon it, did it for a purpose, and
the people upon it as well as all forms of life he is deeply involved
with it, so much that he offered up his son as a sacrifice to save all
the images created in his likeness. Those who willing to accept his personal great sacrifice, that his Son was likewise willing to go
through what he did out of his great love for us. Those who refuse
Christ Jesus and chose to follow Lucifer, and dwell with the same
pride as did he, will suffer just like Satan and all his angels who believed his con job and flim flam that he fed them. Which he tries to
do with man who he knows was made in the image of God, whom he hates.
We, are the apple of Gods eye, he created everything in this world for
us, with the intention that everything here would support our physical needs while he supplies our spiritual needs. Yet like all his
creatures including the Angelic hosts he gave us free will, and in the
case of this world he gave us dominion over it and the creatures
therein. What a wonderful God, that helps those that are willing to
receive it.
On Sep 29, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10bf1p4$3a98e$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/29/2025 1:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
None <none@none.non> wrote in news:10bd61d$2qa7f$1@dont-email.me:
On Sep 28, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10bd4bd$2pve1$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/28/2025 11:37 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 28, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote
(Message-ID: <XnsB368D2F78B8B629555@69.80.101.16>):
The seven stars of the Pleiades
are noted as being fixed in the skies, which was hotly
contested as well, and by |ore4raoscience|ore4rao. A few years >>>>>>>> ago it was decided by the same
people that yes, they are fixed. As the bible determined them
to be. They used a different term for their positioning lest
them fall into the religious trap. The North Star has been used >>>>>>>> for navigation both on land and on water for that reason.
Wrong.
No stars are "fixed" in the sky. The
solar system is moving around the center
of the galaxy at 518,000 mph. In addition
it moves vertcally within the galactic
plane. Ergo all the stars we see are moving
relative to our position. Just because our
lifetimes are too short to notice it does
not mean it is not happening.
Not only do I accept and believe the word of God above Man as well >>>>>> as over the evil one, I also have done a certain amount of research >>>>>> on the subject as
to astronomy and the sciences, keep abreast of things that go one
and the discoveries, and while the wording of the scientists did
not match the bible word of word, what they discovered they said
exonerated what the bible said, but with scientific evidences, say >>>>>> like their positions remained consistent with the placement of the >>>>>> earth. Which, as a matter of fact inspire of the megaflow's of
tsunamis which far exceeded any nuclear group of forces. Yet while >>>>>> it changed the axis of the earth the earth remained fixed in its
orbit.
Forces like that would knock most planets off their positions.
How do you know that the Bible was not being symbolic (again)?
There is and was no reason for symbolism.
That is a refreshing change from
Artie/Joe and his "That nonsensical
story is just a metaphor" and "That
passage was just written as symbolism"
It goes to show you that the Bible is incapable of providing its own
self-evident interpretation; instead, human beings must decide such
things, and they (we) cannot agree. I have better things to do with my
time!
rCLHowbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.rCY (Jhn 16:13)
If you should be interested read the first part of that Chapter for those that believe in and upon him, for these were the words of Jesus
None <none@none.non> wrote in news:10bfb1b$3c42b$3@dont-email.me:
On Sep 29, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote
(Message-ID: <XnsB369864562DD8629555@69.80.102.14>):
None <none@none.non> wrote in news:10bd61d$2qa7f$1@dont-email.me:I was speaking in reference to your point. There are some things that
On Sep 28, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote
(Message-ID: <10bd4bd$2pve1$1@dont-email.me>):
On 9/28/2025 11:37 PM, None wrote:
On Sep 28, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote
(Message-ID: <XnsB368D2F78B8B629555@69.80.101.16>):
The seven stars of the Pleiades
are noted as being fixed in the skies, which was hotly
contested as well, and by |ore4raoscience|ore4rao. A few
years ago it was decided by the same
people that yes, they are fixed. As the bible determined
them to be. They used a different term for their
positioning lest them fall into the religious trap. The
North Star has been used for navigation both on land and on
water for that reason.
Wrong.
No stars are "fixed" in the sky. The
solar system is moving around the center
of the galaxy at 518,000 mph. In addition
it moves vertcally within the galactic
plane. Ergo all the stars we see are moving
relative to our position. Just because our
lifetimes are too short to notice it does
not mean it is not happening.
Not only do I accept and believe the word of God above Man as
well as over the evil one, I also have done a certain amount of
research on the subject as
to astronomy and the sciences, keep abreast of things that go
one and the discoveries, and while the wording of the
scientists did not match the bible word of word, what they
discovered they said exonerated what the bible said, but with
scientific evidences, say like their positions remained
consistent with the placement of the earth. Which, as a matter
of fact inspire of the megaflow's of tsunamis which far
exceeded any nuclear group of forces. Yet while it changed the
axis of the earth the earth remained fixed in its orbit.
Forces like that would knock most planets off their positions.
How do you know that the Bible was not being symbolic (again)?
There is and was no reason for symbolism.
That is a refreshing change from
Artie/Joe and his "That nonsensical
story is just a metaphor" and "That
passage was just written as symbolismrC?
are symbolic, that cannot be understood or comprehended by the
unwashed.
Why would God create a meassage
of Divine Truth that humanity cannot
understand?
But that is no excuse for being ignorant of the scriptures.
Just back up your claim that the
describes the Earth as a sphere
"The bible describes a sphere."
"None", Sept 29 2025
Luke 17, in which Jesus is talking about the rapture:
34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one
shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other
left.
V34 happens at night. In v35 and v36, people are presumably engaged in daytime work. If the Rapture happened everywhere at the same time, it implies a spherical world. We do note that v34 infers that gayness
doesn't disqualify one from being enraptured.
It was a vision. To be interpreted. Yet you pretend not to know of
such things.
It was a vision of the world as he knew
it to be.
FLAT.
In verse after verse the Bible describes
things only possible on a FLAT earth.
But let us return to your original claim.
"The bible describes a sphere."
And your proof of that is.........?
None <none@none.non> wrote in news:10bd2dd$2plol$1@dont-email.me:
On Sep 28, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote
(Message-ID: <XnsB368D2F78B8B629555@69.80.101.16>):
The seven stars of the Pleiades
are noted as being fixed in the skies, which was hotly contested as
well, and by |ore4raoscience|ore4rao. A few years ago it was
decided by the same people that yes, they are fixed. As the bible
determined them to be. They used a different term for their
positioning lest them fall into the religious trap. The North Star
has been used for navigation both on land and on water for that
reason.
Wrong.
No stars are "fixed" in the sky. The
solar system is moving around the center
of the galaxy at 518,000 mph. In addition
it moves vertcally within the galactic
plane. Ergo all the stars we see are moving
relative to our position. Just because our
lifetimes are too short to notice it does
not mean it is not happening.
Not only do I accept and believe the word of God above Man as well as
over the evil one,
Astronomy is "the evil one"?
I also have done a certain amount of research on
the subject as to astronomy and the sciences, keep abreast of things
that go one and the discoveries, and while the wording of the
scientists did not match the bible word of word, what they discovered
they said exonerated what the bible said, but with scientific
evidences, say like their positions remained consistent with the
placement of the earth. Which, as a matter of fact inspire of the
megaflow's of tsunamis which far exceeded any nuclear group of forces.
Yet while it changed the axis of the earth the earth remained fixed in
its orbit.
The Bible doesn't say the earth is
"fixed in its orbit". The word "orbit" isn't
in the Bible. It says the Earth is fixed.
As in immovable. As in doesn't orbit or
rotate at all.
1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation
so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned
it, and himself fixed it fast..."
Is the Bible right, or is science right?
On 9/29/25 2:03 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
In verse after verse the Bible describes
Well you fundies always take the bible so literally....
It was a vision. To be interpreted. Yet you pretend not to know of
such things.
It was a vision of the world as he knew
it to be.
FLAT.
In verse after verse the Bible describes
things only possible on a FLAT earth.
Guess you never traveled had any instruct in any of the sciences, or even >flew at high altitude an looked out a window or even had basic geometry
But let us return to your original claim.
"The bible describes a sphere."
And your proof of that is.........?
And repeat to you what you have read from my posts before?
Would the results be any different this time then the last couple times?
Let's assume that you are correct
Is theYou believe in myths. You hold a religious belief in stupid
On 9/29/25 6:40 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Let's assume that you are correct
You are faith based. You BELIEVE stupid things without support,
only a religious faith.
Then that's my decision.-a If the Academy is promulgating lies
On 9/30/25 1:33 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Then that's my decision.-a If the Academy is promulgating lies
You're insisting that you're a mindless idiot who obediently
regurgitates whatever some imaginary "Academy" orders you to
believe, and that this makes you "Science" or whatever the
hell it is you think you are.
On 9/30/2025 2:54 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 9/30/25 1:33 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Then that's my decision.-a If the Academy is promulgating lies
You're insisting that you're a mindless idiot who obediently
regurgitates whatever some imaginary "Academy" orders you to
believe, and that this makes you "Science" or whatever the
hell it is you think you are.
Okay, derive the Kerr metric to General Relativity, and, no cheating!!
Kenito Benito wrote:
You believe in myths. You hold a religious belief in stupidWell you fundies always take the bible so literally....
Is the Bible just tall tales?
myths. You do.
On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 06:04:08 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
You believe in myths. You hold a religious belief in stupid
myths. You do.
I do NOT believe in the Bible. And
On 9/30/25 4:06 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/30/2025 2:54 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 9/30/25 1:33 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Then that's my decision.-a If the Academy is promulgating lies
You're insisting that you're a mindless idiot who obediently
regurgitates whatever some imaginary "Academy" orders you to
believe, and that this makes you "Science" or whatever the
hell it is you think you are.
Okay, derive the Kerr metric to General Relativity, and, no cheating!!
Not saying you just proved that you're a fucking idiot once again
(You did) but did you ever notice the subject line?
You're incapable of following even your own half of an exchange!
Well, feel free to ignore me
On 10/1/25 6:59 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Well, feel free to ignore me
It's more important that I point out your idiocy, in case
someone other than one of your alters actually peers in
here.
And, so, you're a
On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 06:04:08 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Kenito Benito wrote:
You believe in myths. You hold a religious belief in stupidWell you fundies always take the bible so literally....
Is the Bible just tall tales?
myths. You do.
I do NOT believe in the Bible. And, as you PROVE, you also
believe the Bible is a work of fiction.
I'm glad we found a point upon which we agree.
It will be interesting to see how you try to divert from your
openly and freely admitting you see the Bible as bunk.
That's not what I said. So, you believe in myths, religiously
On 10/1/25 10:46 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
=
And, so, you're a
I'm a guy in a discussion group swatting at idiots who can't and
won't discuss anything, and don't even seem to know how!
No, you're a far-right gaslighting
Again, and I will type real slow so you can keep up, I do NOT
believe the Bible
On 10/2/25 10:12 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
No, you're a far-right gaslighting
I got Bil Clinton's autograph backstage at the 2004 Democratic
convention.
You're utterly insane so you have no clue how to perform rudimentary searches, but I was deeply opposed to everything Dubya Buah, here
on usenet.
I was a big Hillary supporter in 2008 and 2016 which, again, is
archived online.
My views, my values never changed. The left was staunchly AGAINST
the 1% smuggling in illegal aliens in order to undercut the wages
of working Americans. I'm still pro labor, I'm still pro American
family. It's the rest of you gullible pieces of shit that abandoned
your values because the media -- owned by the 1% -- told you to.
You lap at the ass crack of the corporate media with your hungry
tongue, and pretend you're thinking....
On 10/2/25 4:03 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 11:20:30 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:Again, you're fucking STUPID
Kenito Benito wrote:
You believe in myths. You hold a religious belief in stupidWell you fundies always take the bible so literally....
Is the Bible just tall tales?
myths. You do.
I do NOT believe in the Bible. And, as you PROVE, you also
believe the Bible is a work of fiction.
I'm glad we found a point upon which we agree.
It will be interesting to see how you try to divert from your >>>>openly and freely admitting you see the Bible as bunk.
That's not what I said. So, you believe in myths, religiously
Again, and I will type real slow so you can keep up, I do NOT
believe the Bible to be true. As such, I do NOT believe in myths in
any way.
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 11:18:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/2/25 4:03 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 11:20:30 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:Again, you're fucking STUPID
Kenito Benito wrote:
You believe in myths. You hold a religious belief in stupidWell you fundies always take the bible so literally....
Is the Bible just tall tales?
myths. You do.
I do NOT believe in the Bible. And, as you PROVE, you also
believe the Bible is a work of fiction.
I'm glad we found a point upon which we agree.
It will be interesting to see how you try to divert from your
openly and freely admitting you see the Bible as bunk.
That's not what I said. So, you believe in myths, religiously
Again, and I will type real slow so you can keep up, I do NOT
believe the Bible to be true. As such, I do NOT believe in myths in
any way.
Yet you consistently PROVE I am your intellectual superior. As
stump stupid as you PROVE you are, this isn't really saying much.
Or are you telling everyone reading that you DO believe the Bible
is reality?
Now run away/divert from reality. You will because I command it.
Yet you
As I have posted before, JTEM's behavior
And, your point is?
No, you're a far-right
On 10/3/2025 3:05 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 11:18:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/2/25 4:03 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 11:20:30 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:Again, you're fucking STUPID
Kenito Benito wrote:
You believe in myths. You hold a religious belief in stupidWell you fundies always take the bible so literally....
Is the Bible just tall tales?
myths. You do.
I do NOT believe in the Bible. And, as you PROVE, you also
believe the Bible is a work of fiction.
I'm glad we found a point upon which we agree.
It will be interesting to see how you try to divert from your >>>>>> openly and freely admitting you see the Bible as bunk.
That's not what I said. So, you believe in myths, religiously
Again, and I will type real slow so you can keep up, I do NOT
believe the Bible to be true. As such, I do NOT believe in myths in
any way.
Yet you consistently PROVE I am your intellectual superior. As
stump stupid as you PROVE you are, this isn't really saying much.
Or are you telling everyone reading that you DO believe the Bible
is reality?
Now run away/divert from reality. You will because I command it.
As I have posted before, JTEM's behavior is anecdotal evidence that for
some misbehaving children 2 or 3 firm swats with a wooden discipline
paddle can be therapeutic. Of course, "rinse & repeat" as often as is >necessary!
Dawn
On 10/3/25 4:05 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 11:18:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/2/25 4:03 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 11:20:30 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:Again, you're fucking STUPID
Kenito Benito wrote:
You believe in myths. You hold a religious belief in stupid >>>>>>>myths. You do.Well you fundies always take the bible so literally....
Is the Bible just tall tales?
I do NOT believe in the Bible. And, as you PROVE, you also >>>>>>believe the Bible is a work of fiction.
I'm glad we found a point upon which we agree.
It will be interesting to see how you try to divert from your >>>>>>openly and freely admitting you see the Bible as bunk.
That's not what I said. So, you believe in myths, religiously
Again, and I will type real slow so you can keep up, I do NOT >>>>believe the Bible to be true. As such, I do NOT believe in myths in
any way.
Yet you consistently PROVE I am your intellectual superior. As
stump stupid as you PROVE you are, this isn't really saying much.
Or are you telling everyone reading that you DO believe the Bible
is reality?
Now run away/divert from reality. You will because I command it.
It's not about me
On 10/2/25 7:11 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
And, your point is?
*Zoooooooooooooom!*
On 10/2/25 10:12 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
No, you're a far-right
I'm a liberal Democrat. You? You're retarded.
You're a multiple personality rotating between alters, all of them
fucking idiots.
Thank you
Z DoubleFascinating, but as you clearly have nothing to say on
YouIt's not about me. Your narcissism is founded on your knowledge
On 10/3/25 9:32 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
As I have posted before, JTEM's behavior
Instead of agreeing with yourself, why don't you seek treatment?
Right at this moment you are "Agreeing" with your sock puppet that
purely coincidentally lacks any reading comprehension, exactly
like you, and is also retarded, exactly like you. You I mean it
has been "Arguing" that it's not religious because belief in the
bible is required of all religious people everywhere, and you I
mean it thinks you I mean it doesn't believe it.
INobody cares. If they did you wouldn't need the sock puppets!
On 10/4/25 1:00 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
INobody cares. If they did you wouldn't need the sock puppets!
DNA "Evidence" sucks eggs through a straw. It really doesn't
tell us *Anything* about the past. It's interpreted. And it's
interpreted WRONG.
I've given example, such as the LM3/y-chromosome insert that's
far, Far, FAR older than any "Out of Africa" so called "Eve."
Interpreted under the rules of the fake "Science" you worship,
it means that humanity began in Eursia is not Melanesia.
On 10/4/25 2:18 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:40:36 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/3/25 4:05 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 11:18:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/2/25 4:03 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 11:20:30 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:Again, you're fucking STUPID
Kenito Benito wrote:
You believe in myths. You hold a religious belief in stupid >>>>>>>>>myths. You do.Well you fundies always take the bible so literally....
Is the Bible just tall tales?
I do NOT believe in the Bible. And, as you PROVE, you also >>>>>>>>believe the Bible is a work of fiction.
I'm glad we found a point upon which we agree.
It will be interesting to see how you try to divert from your >>>>>>>>openly and freely admitting you see the Bible as bunk.
That's not what I said. So, you believe in myths, religiously
Again, and I will type real slow so you can keep up, I do NOT >>>>>>believe the Bible to be true. As such, I do NOT believe in myths in >>>>>>any way.
Yet you consistently PROVE I am your intellectual superior. As >>>>stump stupid as you PROVE you are, this isn't really saying much.
Or are you telling everyone reading that you DO believe the Bible >>>>is reality?
Now run away/divert from reality. You will because I command it.
It's not about me
Thank you for doing as I command without question or pause. You
are hereby commanded to continue. Since you have NO will of your own,
you will do as I have commanded.
Again, you worthless spazz
On 10/4/25 2:18 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:44:56 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:Fascinating
On 10/2/25 7:11 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
And, your point is?
*Zoooooooooooooom!*
Z Double O M, Box 354, Boston Mass, 02134
Send it to ZOOM!
On 10/4/25 2:18 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:47:37 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/2/25 10:12 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
No, you're a far-right
I'm a liberal Democrat. You? You're retarded.
You're a multiple personality rotating between alters, all of them >>>fucking idiots.
You still think there are only two people on Usenet? You and only
one other person you insists socks up to post?
How does this other person find the time? Or, as is really the
case, are you trying to delude yourself into thinking only one person
could ever PROVE you the immature, uneducated, dullard you are?
It's not about me.
On 10/3/2025 10:44 AM, JTEM wrote:
On 10/3/25 9:32 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
As I have posted before, JTEM's behavior
Instead of agreeing with yourself, why don't you seek treatment?
Right at this moment you are "Agreeing" with your sock puppet that
purely coincidentally lacks any reading comprehension, exactly
like you, and is also retarded, exactly like you. You I mean it
has been "Arguing" that it's not religious because belief in the
bible is required of all religious people everywhere, and you I
mean it thinks you I mean it doesn't believe it.
I don't have any sock puppets.
On 10/4/2025 1:15 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 10/4/25 1:00 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
INobody cares. If they did you wouldn't need the sock puppets!
DNA "Evidence" sucks eggs through a straw. It really doesn't
tell us *Anything* about the past. It's interpreted. And it's
interpreted WRONG.
I've given example, such as the LM3/y-chromosome insert that's
far, Far, FAR older than any "Out of Africa" so called "Eve."
Interpreted under the rules of the fake "Science" you worship,
it means that humanity began in Eursia is not Melanesia.
Assuming that you are correct, why do no experts agree with you? Have
you considered going to graduate school, say, in molecular genetics and
then presenting & defending this as your PhD dissertation?
You
Not really. It's fine if you
Why do you
According to JTEMYour narcissism was born from your utter certainty in your
Let himYou have been frequently challenged to identify precisely what
On 10/5/25 3:20 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 10:49:09 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/4/25 2:18 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:40:36 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/3/25 4:05 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 11:18:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:It's not about me
On 10/2/25 4:03 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 11:20:30 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>Again, you're fucking STUPID
Kenito Benito wrote:
You believe in myths. You hold a religious belief in stupid >>>>>>>>>>>myths. You do.Well you fundies always take the bible so literally.... >>>>>>>>>>>>Is the Bible just tall tales?
I do NOT believe in the Bible. And, as you PROVE, you also >>>>>>>>>>believe the Bible is a work of fiction.
I'm glad we found a point upon which we agree.
It will be interesting to see how you try to divert from your >>>>>>>>>>openly and freely admitting you see the Bible as bunk.
That's not what I said. So, you believe in myths, religiously
Again, and I will type real slow so you can keep up, I do NOT >>>>>>>>believe the Bible to be true. As such, I do NOT believe in myths in >>>>>>>>any way.
Yet you consistently PROVE I am your intellectual superior. As >>>>>>stump stupid as you PROVE you are, this isn't really saying much.
Or are you telling everyone reading that you DO believe the Bible >>>>>>is reality?
Now run away/divert from reality. You will because I command it. >>>>>
Thank you for doing as I command without question or pause. You >>>>are hereby commanded to continue. Since you have NO will of your own, >>>>you will do as I have commanded.
Again, you worthless spazz
You do as I command without question or pause. You have no will
of your own. You MUST do as I command.
I command you to continue. You will because you must.
It's not about me.
On 10/5/25 3:21 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 10:50:55 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/4/25 2:18 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:44:56 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:Fascinating
On 10/2/25 7:11 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
And, your point is?
*Zoooooooooooooom!*
Z Double O M, Box 354, Boston Mass, 02134
Send it to ZOOM!
Not really. It's fine if you think so, but you will be in the >>minority.
The show probably ceased airing when you would be its target >>demographic. Given that, based on your posts, you are nine to 10 years
of age, this is understandable.
I have children, so I got to see it with them when they were
young. I was NOT the target demographic, but the kids always liked the >>show.
Still not about me.
On 10/5/25 3:21 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 10:55:10 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/4/25 2:18 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:47:37 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/2/25 10:12 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
No, you're a far-right
I'm a liberal Democrat. You? You're retarded.
You're a multiple personality rotating between alters, all of them >>>>>fucking idiots.
You still think there are only two people on Usenet? You and only >>>>one other person you insists socks up to post?
How does this other person find the time? Or, as is really the >>>>case, are you trying to delude yourself into thinking only one person >>>>could ever PROVE you the immature, uneducated, dullard you are?
It's not about me.
Why do you insist on commenting about your delusion that you and
one other person are the only people on Usenet?
Will you answer the questions I asked of you, or will you
continue to PROVE you lack the intellect necessary to do so? Time will >>tell.
It's not about me.
On 10/5/25 3:21 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 12:00:34 -0500, Dawn Flood
<Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/3/2025 10:44 AM, JTEM wrote:
On 10/3/25 9:32 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
As I have posted before, JTEM's behavior
Instead of agreeing with yourself, why don't you seek treatment?
Right at this moment you are "Agreeing" with your sock puppet that
purely coincidentally lacks any reading comprehension, exactly
like you, and is also retarded, exactly like you. You I mean it
has been "Arguing" that it's not religious because belief in the
bible is required of all religious people everywhere, and you I
mean it thinks you I mean it doesn't believe it.
I don't have any sock puppets.
According to JTEM, he and one other are the only two people on
the whole of Usenet.
Your narcissism
On 10/5/25 3:27 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 22:48:43 -0500, Dawn Flood
<Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/4/2025 1:15 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 10/4/25 1:00 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
INobody cares. If they did you wouldn't need the sock puppets!
DNA "Evidence" sucks eggs through a straw. It really doesn't
tell us *Anything* about the past. It's interpreted. And it's
interpreted WRONG.
I've given example, such as the LM3/y-chromosome insert that's
far, Far, FAR older than any "Out of Africa" so called "Eve."
Interpreted under the rules of the fake "Science" you worship,
it means that humanity began in Eursia is not Melanesia.
Assuming that you are correct, why do no experts agree with you? Have >>>you considered going to graduate school, say, in molecular genetics and >>>then presenting & defending this as your PhD dissertation?
Let him attend and graduate High School first. His posts prove
him to be in elementary school at this time.
You have been frequently challenged to identify precisely what
you are pretending is unestablished:
Dimethyl sulfide.
ContinueYour disorder, this off the charts narcissism you keep displaying,
Hence my comment that
Your
Now I am youIt's not about me.
I didn't comment about Dimethyl sulfide.
On 10/6/25 3:54 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:26:49 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/5/25 3:20 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 10:49:09 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/4/25 2:18 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:40:36 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/3/25 4:05 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 11:18:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>It's not about me
On 10/2/25 4:03 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 11:20:30 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>Again, you're fucking STUPID
Again, and I will type real slow so you can keep up, I do NOT >>>>>>>>>>believe the Bible to be true. As such, I do NOT believe in myths in >>>>>>>>>>any way.Kenito Benito wrote:
You believe in myths. You hold a religious belief in stupid >>>>>>>>>>>>>myths. You do.Well you fundies always take the bible so literally.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is the Bible just tall tales?
I do NOT believe in the Bible. And, as you PROVE, you also >>>>>>>>>>>>believe the Bible is a work of fiction.
I'm glad we found a point upon which we agree.
It will be interesting to see how you try to divert from your >>>>>>>>>>>>openly and freely admitting you see the Bible as bunk.
That's not what I said. So, you believe in myths, religiously >>>>>>>>>>
Yet you consistently PROVE I am your intellectual superior. As >>>>>>>>stump stupid as you PROVE you are, this isn't really saying much. >>>>>>>> Or are you telling everyone reading that you DO believe the Bible >>>>>>>>is reality?
Now run away/divert from reality. You will because I command it. >>>>>>>
Thank you for doing as I command without question or pause. You >>>>>>are hereby commanded to continue. Since you have NO will of your own, >>>>>>you will do as I have commanded.
Again, you worthless spazz
You do as I command without question or pause. You have no will
of your own. You MUST do as I command.
I command you to continue. You will because you must.
It's not about me.
Continue doing as I have commanded.
Your disorder
On 10/6/25 3:54 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:29:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/5/25 3:21 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 10:50:55 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/4/25 2:18 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:44:56 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:Fascinating
On 10/2/25 7:11 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
And, your point is?
*Zoooooooooooooom!*
Z Double O M, Box 354, Boston Mass, 02134
Send it to ZOOM!
Not really. It's fine if you think so, but you will be in the >>>>minority.
The show probably ceased airing when you would be its target >>>>demographic. Given that, based on your posts, you are nine to 10 years >>>>of age, this is understandable.
I have children, so I got to see it with them when they were >>>>young. I was NOT the target demographic, but the kids always liked the >>>>show.
Still not about me.
Hence my comment that *I* was not the target demographic.
You're a moron
On 10/6/25 3:55 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:33:28 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/5/25 3:21 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 10:55:10 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/4/25 2:18 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:47:37 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/2/25 10:12 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
No, you're a far-right
I'm a liberal Democrat. You? You're retarded.
You're a multiple personality rotating between alters, all of them >>>>>>>fucking idiots.
You still think there are only two people on Usenet? You and only >>>>>>one other person you insists socks up to post?
How does this other person find the time? Or, as is really the >>>>>>case, are you trying to delude yourself into thinking only one person >>>>>>could ever PROVE you the immature, uneducated, dullard you are?
It's not about me.
Why do you insist on commenting about your delusion that you and >>>>one other person are the only people on Usenet?
Will you answer the questions I asked of you, or will you
continue to PROVE you lack the intellect necessary to do so? Time will >>>>tell.
It's not about me.
Time has told.
Your open admission you lack the intellect necessary to answer
the questions I asked of you is appreciated. Such a level of honesty
cannot have been easy.
Now try to divert from your honesty. I command you do so, which
means you will. You have no choice but to do as I command without
question or pause.
It's not about me.
On 10/6/25 3:55 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:37:58 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/5/25 3:21 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 12:00:34 -0500, Dawn Flood >>>><Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/3/2025 10:44 AM, JTEM wrote:
On 10/3/25 9:32 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
As I have posted before, JTEM's behavior
Instead of agreeing with yourself, why don't you seek treatment?
Right at this moment you are "Agreeing" with your sock puppet that >>>>>> purely coincidentally lacks any reading comprehension, exactly
like you, and is also retarded, exactly like you. You I mean it
has been "Arguing" that it's not religious because belief in the
bible is required of all religious people everywhere, and you I
mean it thinks you I mean it doesn't believe it.
I don't have any sock puppets.
According to JTEM, he and one other are the only two people on
the whole of Usenet.
Your narcissism
Now I am you? Wow. You really are seriously mentally unstable.
Try to divert from the TRUTH you've exposed about yourself. You
will because I have commanded you to do so. And you MUST do as I
command, as you will prove in your reply.
It's not about me.
On 10/6/25 3:56 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:39:58 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/5/25 3:27 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 22:48:43 -0500, Dawn Flood >>>><Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/4/2025 1:15 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 10/4/25 1:00 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
INobody cares. If they did you wouldn't need the sock puppets!
DNA "Evidence" sucks eggs through a straw. It really doesn't
tell us *Anything* about the past. It's interpreted. And it's
interpreted WRONG.
I've given example, such as the LM3/y-chromosome insert that's
far, Far, FAR older than any "Out of Africa" so called "Eve."
Interpreted under the rules of the fake "Science" you worship,
it means that humanity began in Eursia is not Melanesia.
Assuming that you are correct, why do no experts agree with you? Have >>>>>you considered going to graduate school, say, in molecular genetics and >>>>>then presenting & defending this as your PhD dissertation?
Let him attend and graduate High School first. His posts prove
him to be in elementary school at this time.
You have been frequently challenged to identify precisely what
you are pretending is unestablished:
Dimethyl sulfide.
My comment is on your not having yet made it to High School,
making your presenting and defending your PhD dissertation impossible. >>Again you've done as I previously commanded. You will continue. I
command you, and you PROVE you MUST do as I command without question
or pause.
You didn't comment
Continue
Continue
Continue
ContinueSo Lee, and Chrissy and whatever else you call yourself: Get help.
On 10/7/25 3:23 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 20:36:34 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/6/25 3:56 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:39:58 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/5/25 3:27 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 22:48:43 -0500, Dawn Flood >>>>>><Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/4/2025 1:15 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 10/4/25 1:00 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
INobody cares. If they did you wouldn't need the sock puppets!
DNA "Evidence" sucks eggs through a straw. It really doesn't
tell us *Anything* about the past. It's interpreted. And it's
interpreted WRONG.
I've given example, such as the LM3/y-chromosome insert that's >>>>>>>> far, Far, FAR older than any "Out of Africa" so called "Eve."
Interpreted under the rules of the fake "Science" you worship, >>>>>>>> it means that humanity began in Eursia is not Melanesia.
Assuming that you are correct, why do no experts agree with you? Have >>>>>>>you considered going to graduate school, say, in molecular genetics and >>>>>>>then presenting & defending this as your PhD dissertation?
Let him attend and graduate High School first. His posts prove >>>>>>him to be in elementary school at this time.
You have been frequently challenged to identify precisely what
you are pretending is unestablished:
Dimethyl sulfide.
My comment is on your not having yet made it to High School, >>>>making your presenting and defending your PhD dissertation impossible. >>>>Again you've done as I previously commanded. You will continue. I >>>>command you, and you PROVE you MUST do as I command without question
or pause.
You didn't comment
Continue to do as I command without question or pause.
You keep hitting "Reply" but you never say anything!
On 10/7/25 3:22 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 20:29:18 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/6/25 3:54 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:26:49 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/5/25 3:20 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 10:49:09 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/4/25 2:18 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:40:36 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 10/3/25 4:05 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 11:18:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>It's not about me
On 10/2/25 4:03 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 11:20:30 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>Again, you're fucking STUPID
Again, and I will type real slow so you can keep up, I do NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>believe the Bible to be true. As such, I do NOT believe in myths in >>>>>>>>>>>>any way.Kenito Benito wrote:That's not what I said. So, you believe in myths, religiously >>>>>>>>>>>>
You believe in myths. You hold a religious belief in stupid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>myths. You do.Well you fundies always take the bible so literally.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is the Bible just tall tales?
I do NOT believe in the Bible. And, as you PROVE, you also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe the Bible is a work of fiction.
I'm glad we found a point upon which we agree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will be interesting to see how you try to divert from your
openly and freely admitting you see the Bible as bunk. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yet you consistently PROVE I am your intellectual superior. As >>>>>>>>>>stump stupid as you PROVE you are, this isn't really saying much. >>>>>>>>>> Or are you telling everyone reading that you DO believe the Bible
is reality?
Now run away/divert from reality. You will because I command it. >>>>>>>>>
Thank you for doing as I command without question or pause. You >>>>>>>>are hereby commanded to continue. Since you have NO will of your own, >>>>>>>>you will do as I have commanded.
Again, you worthless spazz
You do as I command without question or pause. You have no will >>>>>>of your own. You MUST do as I command.
I command you to continue. You will because you must.
It's not about me.
Continue doing as I have commanded.
Your disorder
Continue doing as I have commanded.
Omg you're that psycho!
Kenito Benito wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 20:31:15 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/6/25 3:54 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:29:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/5/25 3:21 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 10:50:55 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/4/25 2:18 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:44:56 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>Fascinating
On 10/2/25 7:11 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
And, your point is?
*Zoooooooooooooom!*
Z Double O M, Box 354, Boston Mass, 02134
Send it to ZOOM!
Not really. It's fine if you think so, but you will be in the >>>>>>minority.
The show probably ceased airing when you would be its target >>>>>>demographic. Given that, based on your posts, you are nine to 10 years >>>>>>of age, this is understandable.
I have children, so I got to see it with them when they were >>>>>>young. I was NOT the target demographic, but the kids always liked the >>>>>>show.
Still not about me.
Hence my comment that *I* was not the target demographic.
You're a moron
Continue doing as I command.
I'm not even going to try to discuss DNA with you
Kenito Benito wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 20:35:35 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/6/25 3:55 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:37:58 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/5/25 3:21 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 12:00:34 -0500, Dawn Flood >>>>>><Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/3/2025 10:44 AM, JTEM wrote:
On 10/3/25 9:32 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
As I have posted before, JTEM's behavior
Instead of agreeing with yourself, why don't you seek treatment? >>>>>>>>
Right at this moment you are "Agreeing" with your sock puppet that >>>>>>>> purely coincidentally lacks any reading comprehension, exactly >>>>>>>> like you, and is also retarded, exactly like you. You I mean it >>>>>>>> has been "Arguing" that it's not religious because belief in the >>>>>>>> bible is required of all religious people everywhere, and you I >>>>>>>> mean it thinks you I mean it doesn't believe it.
I don't have any sock puppets.
According to JTEM, he and one other are the only two people on >>>>>>the whole of Usenet.
Your narcissism
Now I am you? Wow. You really are seriously mentally unstable.
Try to divert from the TRUTH you've exposed about yourself. You >>>>will because I have commanded you to do so. And you MUST do as I >>>>command, as you will prove in your reply.
It's not about me.
Continue to do as I command without question or pause.
So Lee, and Chrissy and whatever else you call yourself: Get help.
On 10/7/25 3:23 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 20:33:56 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/6/25 3:55 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:33:28 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/5/25 3:21 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 10:55:10 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/4/25 2:18 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:47:37 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 10/2/25 10:12 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
No, you're a far-right
I'm a liberal Democrat. You? You're retarded.
You're a multiple personality rotating between alters, all of them >>>>>>>>>fucking idiots.
You still think there are only two people on Usenet? You and only >>>>>>>>one other person you insists socks up to post?
How does this other person find the time? Or, as is really the >>>>>>>>case, are you trying to delude yourself into thinking only one person >>>>>>>>could ever PROVE you the immature, uneducated, dullard you are?
It's not about me.
Why do you insist on commenting about your delusion that you and >>>>>>one other person are the only people on Usenet?
Will you answer the questions I asked of you, or will you >>>>>>continue to PROVE you lack the intellect necessary to do so? Time will >>>>>>tell.
It's not about me.
Time has told.
Your open admission you lack the intellect necessary to answer
the questions I asked of you is appreciated. Such a level of honesty >>>>cannot have been easy.
Now try to divert from your honesty. I command you do so, which >>>>means you will. You have no choice but to do as I command without >>>>question or pause.
It's not about me.
Your doing as I command without question or pause is acknowledged
and appreciated. You will continue because I command you do so. And
you can't resist doing as I command.
You used to post as Lee Olson, right?
ContinueSTILL waiting for you to respond with something other than
ContinueLol! You're incapable of anything but this insane control-freak
YourIt's not about me. You were *Very* mentally ill before I ever
You
No. You
On 10/8/25 3:23 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 11:41:21 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/7/25 3:23 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 20:36:34 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/6/25 3:56 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:39:58 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/5/25 3:27 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 22:48:43 -0500, Dawn Flood >>>>>>>><Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/4/2025 1:15 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 10/4/25 1:00 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
INobody cares. If they did you wouldn't need the sock puppets! >>>>>>>>>>
DNA "Evidence" sucks eggs through a straw. It really doesn't >>>>>>>>>> tell us *Anything* about the past. It's interpreted. And it's >>>>>>>>>> interpreted WRONG.
I've given example, such as the LM3/y-chromosome insert that's >>>>>>>>>> far, Far, FAR older than any "Out of Africa" so called "Eve." >>>>>>>>>>
Interpreted under the rules of the fake "Science" you worship, >>>>>>>>>> it means that humanity began in Eursia is not Melanesia.
Assuming that you are correct, why do no experts agree with you? Have
you considered going to graduate school, say, in molecular genetics and
then presenting & defending this as your PhD dissertation?
Let him attend and graduate High School first. His posts prove >>>>>>>>him to be in elementary school at this time.
You have been frequently challenged to identify precisely what >>>>>>>you are pretending is unestablished:
Dimethyl sulfide.
My comment is on your not having yet made it to High School, >>>>>>making your presenting and defending your PhD dissertation impossible. >>>>>>Again you've done as I previously commanded. You will continue. I >>>>>>command you, and you PROVE you MUST do as I command without question >>>>>>or pause.
You didn't comment
Continue to do as I command without question or pause.
You keep hitting "Reply" but you never say anything!
Continue to do as I command without question or pause.
STILL waiting for you to respond
On 10/8/25 3:24 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 11:42:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/7/25 3:22 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 20:29:18 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/6/25 3:54 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:26:49 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/5/25 3:20 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 10:49:09 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 10/4/25 2:18 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:40:36 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
On 10/3/25 4:05 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 11:18:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 10/2/25 4:03 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 11:20:30 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Again, you're fucking STUPID
Again, and I will type real slow so you can keep up, I do NOTKenito Benito wrote:That's not what I said. So, you believe in myths, religiously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You believe in myths. You hold a religious belief in stupid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>myths. You do.Well you fundies always take the bible so literally.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is the Bible just tall tales?
I do NOT believe in the Bible. And, as you PROVE, you also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe the Bible is a work of fiction.
I'm glad we found a point upon which we agree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will be interesting to see how you try to divert from your
openly and freely admitting you see the Bible as bunk. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
believe the Bible to be true. As such, I do NOT believe in myths in
any way.
Yet you consistently PROVE I am your intellectual superior. As >>>>>>>>>>>>stump stupid as you PROVE you are, this isn't really saying much. >>>>>>>>>>>> Or are you telling everyone reading that you DO believe the Bible
is reality?
Now run away/divert from reality. You will because I command it.
It's not about me
Thank you for doing as I command without question or pause. You >>>>>>>>>>are hereby commanded to continue. Since you have NO will of your own, >>>>>>>>>>you will do as I have commanded.
Again, you worthless spazz
You do as I command without question or pause. You have no will >>>>>>>>of your own. You MUST do as I command.
I command you to continue. You will because you must.
It's not about me.
Continue doing as I have commanded.
Your disorder
Continue doing as I have commanded.
Omg you're that psycho!
Continue doing as I have commanded.
Lol!
On 10/8/25 3:24 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 11:44:01 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Kenito Benito wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 20:31:15 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/6/25 3:54 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:29:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/5/25 3:21 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 10:50:55 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 10/4/25 2:18 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:44:56 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>Fascinating
On 10/2/25 7:11 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
And, your point is?
*Zoooooooooooooom!*
Z Double O M, Box 354, Boston Mass, 02134
Send it to ZOOM!
Not really. It's fine if you think so, but you will be in the >>>>>>>>minority.
The show probably ceased airing when you would be its target >>>>>>>>demographic. Given that, based on your posts, you are nine to 10 years >>>>>>>>of age, this is understandable.
I have children, so I got to see it with them when they were >>>>>>>>young. I was NOT the target demographic, but the kids always liked the >>>>>>>>show.
Still not about me.
Hence my comment that *I* was not the target demographic.
You're a moron
Continue doing as I command.
I'm not even going to try to discuss DNA with you
Your admitting to your total defeat is acknowledged and accepted.
It's not about me
On 10/8/25 3:24 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 11:53:46 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Kenito Benito wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 20:35:35 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/6/25 3:55 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:37:58 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/5/25 3:21 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 12:00:34 -0500, Dawn Flood >>>>>>>><Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/3/2025 10:44 AM, JTEM wrote:
On 10/3/25 9:32 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
As I have posted before, JTEM's behavior
Instead of agreeing with yourself, why don't you seek treatment? >>>>>>>>>>
Right at this moment you are "Agreeing" with your sock puppet that >>>>>>>>>> purely coincidentally lacks any reading comprehension, exactly >>>>>>>>>> like you, and is also retarded, exactly like you. You I mean it >>>>>>>>>> has been "Arguing" that it's not religious because belief in the >>>>>>>>>> bible is required of all religious people everywhere, and you I >>>>>>>>>> mean it thinks you I mean it doesn't believe it.
I don't have any sock puppets.
According to JTEM, he and one other are the only two people on >>>>>>>>the whole of Usenet.
Your narcissism
Now I am you? Wow. You really are seriously mentally unstable. >>>>>> Try to divert from the TRUTH you've exposed about yourself. You >>>>>>will because I have commanded you to do so. And you MUST do as I >>>>>>command, as you will prove in your reply.
It's not about me.
Continue to do as I command without question or pause.
So Lee, and Chrissy and whatever else you call yourself: Get help.
You hold the delusion you and only one other person are on
Usenet, and suggest *I* get help?
Continue to divert from the truth. You will because I command you
to do so. And, as you will prove again, you MUST do as I command
without question or pause.
Not about me
On 10/8/25 3:24 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 11:50:50 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/7/25 3:23 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 20:33:56 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/6/25 3:55 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:33:28 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/5/25 3:21 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 10:55:10 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 10/4/25 2:18 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:47:37 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>It's not about me.
On 10/2/25 10:12 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
No, you're a far-right
I'm a liberal Democrat. You? You're retarded.
You're a multiple personality rotating between alters, all of them >>>>>>>>>>>fucking idiots.
You still think there are only two people on Usenet? You and only
one other person you insists socks up to post?
How does this other person find the time? Or, as is really the >>>>>>>>>>case, are you trying to delude yourself into thinking only one person >>>>>>>>>>could ever PROVE you the immature, uneducated, dullard you are? >>>>>>>>>
Why do you insist on commenting about your delusion that you and >>>>>>>>one other person are the only people on Usenet?
Will you answer the questions I asked of you, or will you >>>>>>>>continue to PROVE you lack the intellect necessary to do so? Time will >>>>>>>>tell.
It's not about me.
Time has told.
Your open admission you lack the intellect necessary to answer >>>>>>the questions I asked of you is appreciated. Such a level of honesty >>>>>>cannot have been easy.
Now try to divert from your honesty. I command you do so, which >>>>>>means you will. You have no choice but to do as I command without >>>>>>question or pause.
It's not about me.
Your doing as I command without question or pause is acknowledged >>>>and appreciated. You will continue because I command you do so. And
you can't resist doing as I command.
You used to post as Lee Olson, right?
No. You firmly believe you and only one other person post to
Usenet. This is simply not true. But you're so unable to deal with
reality, it's all you can do to come to terms with your being PROVED
wrong by so many. Your mind has decide only one person could ever
PROVE you wrong, so everyone posting, except you, is that person.
You would benefit from seeing a professional mental health care >>worker. I'm being serious.
It's not about me
You
I did.
Continue doing as I have commanded.
Continue doing as I have commanded.
Your
Your
On 10/9/25 4:10 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 17:16:28 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/8/25 3:24 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 11:50:50 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/7/25 3:23 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 20:33:56 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/6/25 3:55 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:33:28 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 10/5/25 3:21 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 10:55:10 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
On 10/4/25 2:18 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:47:37 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>It's not about me.
On 10/2/25 10:12 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
No, you're a far-right
I'm a liberal Democrat. You? You're retarded.
You're a multiple personality rotating between alters, all of them >>>>>>>>>>>>>fucking idiots.
You still think there are only two people on Usenet? You and only
one other person you insists socks up to post?
How does this other person find the time? Or, as is really the >>>>>>>>>>>>case, are you trying to delude yourself into thinking only one person
could ever PROVE you the immature, uneducated, dullard you are? >>>>>>>>>>>
Why do you insist on commenting about your delusion that you and >>>>>>>>>>one other person are the only people on Usenet?
Will you answer the questions I asked of you, or will you >>>>>>>>>>continue to PROVE you lack the intellect necessary to do so? Time will
tell.
It's not about me.
Time has told.
Your open admission you lack the intellect necessary to answer >>>>>>>>the questions I asked of you is appreciated. Such a level of honesty >>>>>>>>cannot have been easy.
Now try to divert from your honesty. I command you do so, which >>>>>>>>means you will. You have no choice but to do as I command without >>>>>>>>question or pause.
It's not about me.
Your doing as I command without question or pause is acknowledged >>>>>>and appreciated. You will continue because I command you do so. And >>>>>>you can't resist doing as I command.
You used to post as Lee Olson, right?
No. You firmly believe you and only one other person post to >>>>Usenet. This is simply not true. But you're so unable to deal with >>>>reality, it's all you can do to come to terms with your being PROVED >>>>wrong by so many. Your mind has decide only one person could ever
PROVE you wrong, so everyone posting, except you, is that person.
You would benefit from seeing a professional mental health care >>>>worker. I'm being serious.
It's not about me
You are the one with the mental illness that makes you believe
you and only one other person are on Usenet. While not as populous as
it once was, there are surely thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands,
or even millions, of users the world over.
Since you cannot accept the reality that there are more than just
you and one other person on Usenet, you would benefit from
professional mental health care. Your issues are not just from being,
at most, 11 years old.
It's not about me.
On 10/9/25 4:08 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 17:03:32 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/8/25 3:23 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 11:41:21 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/7/25 3:23 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 20:36:34 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/6/25 3:56 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:39:58 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 10/5/25 3:27 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 22:48:43 -0500, Dawn Flood >>>>>>>>>><Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/4/2025 1:15 PM, JTEM wrote:Let him attend and graduate High School first. His posts prove >>>>>>>>>>him to be in elementary school at this time.
On 10/4/25 1:00 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:Assuming that you are correct, why do no experts agree with you? Have
INobody cares. If they did you wouldn't need the sock puppets! >>>>>>>>>>>>
DNA "Evidence" sucks eggs through a straw. It really doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>> tell us *Anything* about the past. It's interpreted. And it's >>>>>>>>>>>> interpreted WRONG.
I've given example, such as the LM3/y-chromosome insert that's >>>>>>>>>>>> far, Far, FAR older than any "Out of Africa" so called "Eve." >>>>>>>>>>>>
Interpreted under the rules of the fake "Science" you worship, >>>>>>>>>>>> it means that humanity began in Eursia is not Melanesia. >>>>>>>>>>>
you considered going to graduate school, say, in molecular genetics and
then presenting & defending this as your PhD dissertation? >>>>>>>>>>
You have been frequently challenged to identify precisely what >>>>>>>>>you are pretending is unestablished:
Dimethyl sulfide.
My comment is on your not having yet made it to High School, >>>>>>>>making your presenting and defending your PhD dissertation impossible. >>>>>>>>Again you've done as I previously commanded. You will continue. I >>>>>>>>command you, and you PROVE you MUST do as I command without question >>>>>>>>or pause.
You didn't comment
Continue to do as I command without question or pause.
You keep hitting "Reply" but you never say anything!
Continue to do as I command without question or pause.
STILL waiting for you to respond
I did. You quoted me.
Continue to do as I command without question or pause.
Wet your bed again?
On 10/9/25 4:08 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 17:08:46 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/8/25 3:24 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 11:42:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/7/25 3:22 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 20:29:18 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/6/25 3:54 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:26:49 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 10/5/25 3:20 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 10:49:09 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
On 10/4/25 2:18 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:40:36 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 10/3/25 4:05 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 11:18:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 10/2/25 4:03 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 11:20:30 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:Again, you're fucking STUPID
Again, and I will type real slow so you can keep up, I do NOTKenito Benito wrote:That's not what I said. So, you believe in myths, religiously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well you fundies always take the bible so literally.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is the Bible just tall tales? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You believe in myths. You hold a religious belief in stupid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>myths. You do.
I do NOT believe in the Bible. And, as you PROVE, you also
believe the Bible is a work of fiction.
I'm glad we found a point upon which we agree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will be interesting to see how you try to divert from your
openly and freely admitting you see the Bible as bunk. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
believe the Bible to be true. As such, I do NOT believe in myths in
any way.
Yet you consistently PROVE I am your intellectual superior. As
stump stupid as you PROVE you are, this isn't really saying much. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or are you telling everyone reading that you DO believe the Bible
is reality?
Now run away/divert from reality. You will because I command it.
It's not about me
Thank you for doing as I command without question or pause. You
are hereby commanded to continue. Since you have NO will of your own,
you will do as I have commanded.
Again, you worthless spazz
You do as I command without question or pause. You have no will >>>>>>>>>>of your own. You MUST do as I command.
I command you to continue. You will because you must.
It's not about me.
Continue doing as I have commanded.
Your disorder
Continue doing as I have commanded.
Omg you're that psycho!
Continue doing as I have commanded.
Lol!
Continue doing as I have commanded.
It's okay to cheat
On 10/9/25 4:08 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 17:08:46 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/8/25 3:24 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 11:42:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/7/25 3:22 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 20:29:18 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/6/25 3:54 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:26:49 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 10/5/25 3:20 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 10:49:09 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
On 10/4/25 2:18 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:40:36 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 10/3/25 4:05 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 11:18:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 10/2/25 4:03 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 11:20:30 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:Again, you're fucking STUPID
Again, and I will type real slow so you can keep up, I do NOTKenito Benito wrote:That's not what I said. So, you believe in myths, religiously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well you fundies always take the bible so literally.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is the Bible just tall tales? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You believe in myths. You hold a religious belief in stupid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>myths. You do.
I do NOT believe in the Bible. And, as you PROVE, you also
believe the Bible is a work of fiction.
I'm glad we found a point upon which we agree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will be interesting to see how you try to divert from your
openly and freely admitting you see the Bible as bunk. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
believe the Bible to be true. As such, I do NOT believe in myths in
any way.
Yet you consistently PROVE I am your intellectual superior. As
stump stupid as you PROVE you are, this isn't really saying much. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or are you telling everyone reading that you DO believe the Bible
is reality?
Now run away/divert from reality. You will because I command it.
It's not about me
Thank you for doing as I command without question or pause. You
are hereby commanded to continue. Since you have NO will of your own,
you will do as I have commanded.
Again, you worthless spazz
You do as I command without question or pause. You have no will >>>>>>>>>>of your own. You MUST do as I command.
I command you to continue. You will because you must.
It's not about me.
Continue doing as I have commanded.
Your disorder
Continue doing as I have commanded.
Omg you're that psycho!
Continue doing as I have commanded.
Lol!
Continue doing as I have commanded.
It's okay to cheat, you know.
Kenito Benito wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 17:11:24 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/8/25 3:24 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 11:44:01 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Kenito Benito wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 20:31:15 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/6/25 3:54 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:29:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 10/5/25 3:21 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 10:50:55 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
On 10/4/25 2:18 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:44:56 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>Fascinating
On 10/2/25 7:11 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
And, your point is?
*Zoooooooooooooom!*
Z Double O M, Box 354, Boston Mass, 02134
Send it to ZOOM!
Not really. It's fine if you think so, but you will be in the >>>>>>>>>>minority.
The show probably ceased airing when you would be its target >>>>>>>>>>demographic. Given that, based on your posts, you are nine to 10 years
of age, this is understandable.
I have children, so I got to see it with them when they were >>>>>>>>>>young. I was NOT the target demographic, but the kids always liked the
show.
Still not about me.
Hence my comment that *I* was not the target demographic.
You're a moron
Continue doing as I command.
I'm not even going to try to discuss DNA with you
Your admitting to your total defeat is acknowledged and accepted.
It's not about me
Your attempt to divert from your admitting to your total defeat
has failed. In fact, you've drawn more attention to it.
Continue to do so. I command it, so you will. You MUST do as I >>command.
I am not responsible
Kenito Benito wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 17:14:55 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/8/25 3:24 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 11:53:46 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Kenito Benito wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 20:35:35 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/6/25 3:55 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:37:58 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 10/5/25 3:21 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 12:00:34 -0500, Dawn Flood >>>>>>>>>><Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/3/2025 10:44 AM, JTEM wrote:
On 10/3/25 9:32 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
As I have posted before, JTEM's behavior
Instead of agreeing with yourself, why don't you seek treatment? >>>>>>>>>>>>
Right at this moment you are "Agreeing" with your sock puppet that >>>>>>>>>>>> purely coincidentally lacks any reading comprehension, exactly >>>>>>>>>>>> like you, and is also retarded, exactly like you. You I mean it >>>>>>>>>>>> has been "Arguing" that it's not religious because belief in the >>>>>>>>>>>> bible is required of all religious people everywhere, and you I >>>>>>>>>>>> mean it thinks you I mean it doesn't believe it.
I don't have any sock puppets.
According to JTEM, he and one other are the only two people on >>>>>>>>>>the whole of Usenet.
Your narcissism
Now I am you? Wow. You really are seriously mentally unstable. >>>>>>>> Try to divert from the TRUTH you've exposed about yourself. You >>>>>>>>will because I have commanded you to do so. And you MUST do as I >>>>>>>>command, as you will prove in your reply.
It's not about me.
Continue to do as I command without question or pause.
So Lee, and Chrissy and whatever else you call yourself: Get help.
You hold the delusion you and only one other person are on
Usenet, and suggest *I* get help?
Continue to divert from the truth. You will because I command you >>>>to do so. And, as you will prove again, you MUST do as I command >>>>without question or pause.
Not about me
Your doing as I commanded without question or pause is
acknowledged. Continue following my command(s). You will because you
have no choice.
You are
That
On 10/10/25 4:01 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 07:38:50 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/9/25 4:08 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 17:08:46 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/8/25 3:24 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 11:42:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/7/25 3:22 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 20:29:18 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 10/6/25 3:54 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:26:49 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
On 10/5/25 3:20 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 10:49:09 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>It's not about me.
On 10/4/25 2:18 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:40:36 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 10/3/25 4:05 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 11:18:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/2/25 4:03 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 11:20:30 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:Again, you're fucking STUPID
Kenito Benito wrote:That's not what I said. So, you believe in myths, religiously
myths. You do.Well you fundies always take the bible so literally.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is the Bible just tall tales? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You believe in myths. You hold a religious belief in stupid
I do NOT believe in the Bible. And, as you PROVE, you also
believe the Bible is a work of fiction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm glad we found a point upon which we agree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will be interesting to see how you try to divert from your
openly and freely admitting you see the Bible as bunk. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again, and I will type real slow so you can keep up, I do NOT
believe the Bible to be true. As such, I do NOT believe in myths in
any way.
Yet you consistently PROVE I am your intellectual superior. As
stump stupid as you PROVE you are, this isn't really saying much.
Or are you telling everyone reading that you DO believe the Bible
is reality?
Now run away/divert from reality. You will because I command it.
It's not about me
Thank you for doing as I command without question or pause. You
are hereby commanded to continue. Since you have NO will of your own,
you will do as I have commanded.
Again, you worthless spazz
You do as I command without question or pause. You have no will
of your own. You MUST do as I command.
I command you to continue. You will because you must. >>>>>>>>>>>
Continue doing as I have commanded.
Your disorder
Continue doing as I have commanded.
Omg you're that psycho!
Continue doing as I have commanded.
Lol!
Continue doing as I have commanded.
It's okay to cheat
Continue doing as I have commanded.
Not that your real name is "Kenito Benito." It's not.
On 10/10/25 4:02 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 07:45:32 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Kenito Benito wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 17:14:55 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/8/25 3:24 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 11:53:46 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Kenito Benito wrote:You hold the delusion you and only one other person are on >>>>>>Usenet, and suggest *I* get help?
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 20:35:35 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 10/6/25 3:55 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:37:58 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
On 10/5/25 3:21 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 12:00:34 -0500, Dawn Flood >>>>>>>>>>>><Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/3/2025 10:44 AM, JTEM wrote:
On 10/3/25 9:32 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
As I have posted before, JTEM's behavior
Instead of agreeing with yourself, why don't you seek treatment? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right at this moment you are "Agreeing" with your sock puppet that
purely coincidentally lacks any reading comprehension, exactly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like you, and is also retarded, exactly like you. You I mean it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has been "Arguing" that it's not religious because belief in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bible is required of all religious people everywhere, and you I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean it thinks you I mean it doesn't believe it.
I don't have any sock puppets.
According to JTEM, he and one other are the only two people on >>>>>>>>>>>>the whole of Usenet.
Your narcissism
Now I am you? Wow. You really are seriously mentally unstable. >>>>>>>>>> Try to divert from the TRUTH you've exposed about yourself. You >>>>>>>>>>will because I have commanded you to do so. And you MUST do as I >>>>>>>>>>command, as you will prove in your reply.
It's not about me.
Continue to do as I command without question or pause.
So Lee, and Chrissy and whatever else you call yourself: Get help. >>>>>>
Continue to divert from the truth. You will because I command you >>>>>>to do so. And, as you will prove again, you MUST do as I command >>>>>>without question or pause.
Not about me
Your doing as I commanded without question or pause is >>>>acknowledged. Continue following my command(s). You will because you >>>>have no choice.
You are
That would be "you're."
I'm surprised your fifth grade class, presuming you have not been
held back, hasn't educated you in the difference.
You will continue to do as I have commanded without question or
pause. You have no choice.
Hey!
On 10/10/25 4:01 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 07:41:56 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Kenito Benito wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 17:11:24 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/8/25 3:24 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 11:44:01 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:It's not about me
Kenito Benito wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 20:31:15 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 10/6/25 3:54 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 20:29:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>You're a moron
On 10/5/25 3:21 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 10:50:55 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 10/4/25 2:18 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:44:56 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Fascinating
On 10/2/25 7:11 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
And, your point is?
*Zoooooooooooooom!*
Z Double O M, Box 354, Boston Mass, 02134
Send it to ZOOM!
Not really. It's fine if you think so, but you will be in the >>>>>>>>>>>>minority.
The show probably ceased airing when you would be its target >>>>>>>>>>>>demographic. Given that, based on your posts, you are nine to 10 years
of age, this is understandable.
I have children, so I got to see it with them when they were >>>>>>>>>>>>young. I was NOT the target demographic, but the kids always liked the
show.
Still not about me.
Hence my comment that *I* was not the target demographic. >>>>>>>>>
Continue doing as I command.
I'm not even going to try to discuss DNA with you
Your admitting to your total defeat is acknowledged and accepted. >>>>>
Your attempt to divert from your admitting to your total defeat >>>>has failed. In fact, you've drawn more attention to it.
Continue to do so. I command it, so you will. You MUST do as I >>>>command.
I am not responsible
Whereas you are 11 years old, at the oldest, you have diminished >>responsibility. But you still admitted to total defeat, as seen above.
Continue to try, and fail, to divert from reality. You will
because I command it.
Turns out
Benito is not my last name
Hello.
On 10/11/25 3:18 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
Not that your real name is "Kenito Benito." It's not.
Benito is not my last name. Duh. And no one has ever claimed it
is.
Continue doing as I have commanded.
You're a pussy cowering behind soak puppets
On 10/11/25 3:19 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
That would be "you're."
I'm surprised your fifth grade class, presuming you have not been >>>>held back, hasn't educated you in the difference.
You will continue to do as I have commanded without question or >>>>pause. You have no choice.
Hey!
Hello.
You're severely mentally ill
On 10/11/25 3:19 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
It's not about meContinue doing as I command.
I'm not even going to try to discuss DNA with you
Your admitting to your total defeat is acknowledged and accepted. >>>>>>>
Your attempt to divert from your admitting to your total defeat >>>>>>has failed. In fact, you've drawn more attention to it.
Continue to do so. I command it, so you will. You MUST do as I >>>>>>command.
I am not responsible
Whereas you are 11 years old, at the oldest, you have diminished >>>>responsibility. But you still admitted to total defeat, as seen above.
Continue to try, and fail, to divert from reality. You will >>>>because I command it.
Turns out
Continue to try to divert from reality. I command you, so you
will. You MUST do as I command.
I guess the Canadian government is after you, too.
You
By returning your
You
On 10/12/25 8:33 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
You
It's not about me, and your name isn't "Kenito Benito." You're insane,
you make up fake identities to hide behind and it's not working. They
know who you really are and always have.
On 10/12/25 8:29 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 22:18:20 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/11/25 3:18 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
[...]
Not that your real name is "Kenito Benito." It's not.
Benito is not my last name. Duh. And no one has ever claimed it >>>>is.
Continue doing as I have commanded.
You're a pussy cowering behind soak puppets
You follow my command to try and divert from reality so well, you >>claim I'm cowering behind something called a "soak puppet." Is this >>mythical puppet soaking in Palmolive? It's said to soften hands while
you do the dishes.
Continue doing as I have commanded and try to divert from
reality. You will because you cannot resist doing as I command.
It's not about me.
On 10/12/25 8:30 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 22:20:32 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/11/25 3:19 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
[...]
That would be "you're."
I'm surprised your fifth grade class, presuming you have not been >>>>>>held back, hasn't educated you in the difference.
You will continue to do as I have commanded without question or >>>>>>pause. You have no choice.
Hey!
Hello.
You're severely mentally ill
By returning your greeting? Claiming this is a product of mental >>illness is an odd way to try to divert from reality. But I did leave
the way in which you follow my command up to you.
Continue to try, and fail, to divert from reality. You will
because you MUST do as I command without question or pause.
It's not about me.
On 10/12/25 8:33 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 22:23:01 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/11/25 3:19 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
[...]
Continue doing as I command.
I'm not even going to try to discuss DNA with you
Your admitting to your total defeat is acknowledged and accepted.
It's not about me
Your attempt to divert from your admitting to your total defeat >>>>>>>>has failed. In fact, you've drawn more attention to it.
Continue to do so. I command it, so you will. You MUST do as I >>>>>>>>command.
I am not responsible
Whereas you are 11 years old, at the oldest, you have diminished >>>>>>responsibility. But you still admitted to total defeat, as seen above. >>>>>> Continue to try, and fail, to divert from reality. You will >>>>>>because I command it.
Turns out
Continue to try to divert from reality. I command you, so you >>>>will. You MUST do as I command.
I guess the Canadian government is after you, too.
You guessed wrong. As often as I visit Canada, especially
Vancouver and Toronto, though I do enjoy Victoria, BC, a lot, the >>government would have gotten me already. Either the government isn't
after me, or it's really incompetent. Which is the one you're going to >>claim to ensure you continue to follow my command?
Continue to try and divert from the reality that you admitted to
total defeat. You will because you MUST do as I command without
question or pause.
It's not about me,
and your name isn't "Kenito Benito."
Wherever we find information and we trace it
back to its source, we always come to a mind.
https://tinyurl.com/yc6hwb52
Therefore the prime origin of the DNA that
exists in all living things was an intelligent
mind
DNA and genetics might be the biggest lies in science! :)
On 10/13/25 4:07 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 22:03:03 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/12/25 8:33 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 22:23:01 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/11/25 3:19 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
[...]
Continue doing as I command.
I'm not even going to try to discuss DNA with you
Your admitting to your total defeat is acknowledged and accepted.
It's not about me
Your attempt to divert from your admitting to your total defeat >>>>>>>>>>has failed. In fact, you've drawn more attention to it.
Continue to do so. I command it, so you will. You MUST do as I >>>>>>>>>>command.
I am not responsible
Whereas you are 11 years old, at the oldest, you have diminished >>>>>>>>responsibility. But you still admitted to total defeat, as seen above. >>>>>>>> Continue to try, and fail, to divert from reality. You will >>>>>>>>because I command it.
Turns out
Continue to try to divert from reality. I command you, so you >>>>>>will. You MUST do as I command.
I guess the Canadian government is after you, too.
You guessed wrong. As often as I visit Canada, especially >>>>Vancouver and Toronto, though I do enjoy Victoria, BC, a lot, the >>>>government would have gotten me already. Either the government isn't >>>>after me, or it's really incompetent. Which is the one you're going to >>>>claim to ensure you continue to follow my command?
Continue to try and divert from the reality that you admitted to >>>>total defeat. You will because you MUST do as I command without >>>>question or pause.
It's not about me,
You are the one who is unable to resist doing as I command. You >>continue to try and divert from the reality that you've openly and
freely admitted to having been defeated by me.
Continue. It allows me to point out that you openly and freely >>admitted I defeated you.
and your name isn't "Kenito Benito."
When, outside of your well documented mental illness, has ANYONE >>claimed my last name is Benito?
Continue to try and divert from reality. You will because you
MUST do as I command without question or pause.
It has nothing to do with me, the fact that you are a danger to
yourself and others...
The FBI already knew all about you, even before I talked to them.
ExplainLol! You can't even "Explain" what you want to object to in
It's not DNA. It's how people interpret it, misunderstand it.
For years it was claimed that Neanderthals and so called "Moderns"
never interbred, and DNA tests were pointed to as proof. But it
was mtDNA, not nuclear DNA, and other scientific studies operated
on the exact OPPOSITE assumptions -- that mtDNA can't exclude
interbreeding. Yes, these two OPPOSING assumptions were promoted simultaneously by "Science," and they did so for years.
On 14/10/2025 10:24 am, JTEM wrote:
It's not DNA. It's how people interpret it, misunderstand it.
For years it was claimed that Neanderthals and so called "Moderns"
never interbred, and DNA tests were pointed to as proof. But it
was mtDNA, not nuclear DNA, and other scientific studies operated
on the exact OPPOSITE assumptions -- that mtDNA can't exclude
interbreeding. Yes, these two OPPOSING assumptions were promoted
simultaneously by "Science," and they did so for years.
You challenging the theory that Africans' penis and vagina being the one
and only one origin of all human races? :)
On 10/13/25 4:06 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 22:00:49 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/12/25 8:30 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 22:20:32 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/11/25 3:19 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
[...]
That would be "you're."
I'm surprised your fifth grade class, presuming you have not been >>>>>>>>held back, hasn't educated you in the difference.
You will continue to do as I have commanded without question or >>>>>>>>pause. You have no choice.
Hey!
Hello.
You're severely mentally ill
By returning your greeting? Claiming this is a product of mental >>>>illness is an odd way to try to divert from reality. But I did leave >>>>the way in which you follow my command up to you.
Continue to try, and fail, to divert from reality. You will >>>>because you MUST do as I command without question or pause.
It's not about me.
Explain how my returning your greeting is a product of mental
illness.
If you wish to admit, by default, that you merely projected your >>failing mental health on me, you will either run away from the
request, or attempt to divert from it.
Lol!