| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 54:29:56 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
27 files (19,977K bytes) |
| Messages: | 178,946 |
On Sep 24, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote >(Message-ID:<kmd8dk96b6828rbihf7lr0dvc2uj9abagp@4ax.com>):
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.
No proof of that exists.
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.
Where do you come off with that info? It is absurd by any definition.
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)?
In the Gospels and in the book of Acts.
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.
Which is why the followers of Jesus wrote it down, and mention others who >were also witnesses to the 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 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.
No, the blame belongs with God, not people's parents.
How do you come up with that conclusion?
You have a choice, once you reach the age of accountability of withWhat would be the point of choosing curses over blessings?
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. >> > >
Without Jesus that is the default.
But who would choose such a default? What would be the point?
A drowning person that refuses to accept a lifesaver to save them by their >choice choose the default. Death by drowning.
Snipped irrelevant items.
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.
You know full well that Moses negotiated with God regarding the covenant and >that the people voted on it, the entire nation as it is noted in scripture. >As well as the celebratory feast with God, afterwards on the side of the >mountains.
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?
He was speaking of their sins against their brothers, not the sin against >God.
And legal laws of men still apply.
There is no carte blanche given to sin at any time. Plus very few know or >understand the meaning of the word asinA as various words have been >interpreted as that one word. Similar to the usage of the word aevilA.
snip
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?
Do you really want reams of papers on the topic?
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.
Whoosh!
someone. HenceYou must be bored to death, and desire to be recognized by
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 have debunked nothing. You chose the words of others that you think suit >your cause, but even then you err, lacking understanding of what they wrote, >and in most cases not even reading all that you quoted.
The simple fact is that you cannot debunk what you do not know and are >familiar with.
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.
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.
You cannot raise a aChristianA. No man can. That idea is absurd as those >that have their babies baptized in the belief that it will save them.
No. What do you mean by "dining in that manner"?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. >>
Unfortunately I cannot think of the word I meant to use when I wrote that. >This new updated AI is throwing words into my typing as if it is trying to >outguess my thoughts. It is far worse not than it was on the last >incantation. I am running OS 26 and it is quite buggy and super irritating. >The first day of its final release I had two critical errors come up and sent >the reports of them to Apple, it is more like a beta release. It consumes far >more memory and puts a lot of foo foo in it for appearances sake, and whole >lot more. I told everyone I know in my family that uses it, NOT TO install >it, just update to the 16.7 and then turn off auto updates until they get bug >fixes out there. Several of them. It screwed up most all of by default >settings, file system order of it, photos and a host of other issues.
Who in the world cares about bubbles and bubbly things in graphics? Airheads? >Rant off.....
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.
Belief systems of men is generally flawed. From such comes dogmas, creeds, >and the doctrines of men.
For that reason I always suggest going directly to the source.
There are many better versed with the word of God than I. But what I doThere's no reason to believe the Lord is leading you.
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. >> > > > >
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.
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.
Yes, and the President still has a lot to learn. It is natural for man to >think like that, especially initially.
Mrs. Kirk overcame that with great difficulty. Such is the case for most >instinctive reactions of men.
What she described as to what she went to and through I fully understand. The >depths of that pain, is even painful to consider. That is why I understood >what Trump said and why as well.
All of America is in a turmoil and going through a tumultuous time. I just >pray that America gets through it safely and all corrupted people get their >just desert as well as what is to be revealed politically will open the eyes >of all that have been conned.
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!
I would have recognized that when I reread it. :)
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?
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.
You really should reread the birth story of Christ, why they were there in >the first place. Where Herod actually was, an why he ordered the killing of >all children under the age of two, and that within a certain defined >perimeter.
Understand those things and you just might see how flawed your reasoning is >as well as that WIKI notation.
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.
Do you really mean and intend to say that the concept used in that saying >escapes you?
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!
You donAt, you are far too lazy. a)
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.
That is not an "example."
So all your words mean nothing?
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.
Your
Whereas youTurns out you're already on the FBI's radar. They told me not
DoesSo I'm laughing at you, everyone who can see this is
Continue doing as I have commanded.
You're
I did
Continue
You
YourIt has nothing to do with me. You were an idiot, a coward
Maybe
Thank you
Thank you