The "original language" is a claim made by RCC'ers that
cannot be supported. What we do know, is that we have
the Gospel of Matthew and you have two choices.
1)Believe the Bible.

2) Doubt the words, because a man at a much later time
wanted supreme authority over everyone else.
Of course, #2 means you must also doubt everything else
the Bible says, because the wording may be wrong and
also throw out Matthew 18:18, where Jesus gives the
same authority to all of the disciples.
Your choice.

It wasn't only that though, Paul said to Peter "How is it then, that
you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"
Which suggests that Peter did say that everyone should follow the
Jewish Customs.

This happened only when those from James came around,
which doesn't detract from my point, but rather,
supports it and demonstrates further that Paul was
upset with Peter's hypocrisy.

It was not that Paul said to Peter anything about being under Jewish
law. It was that Peter said that followers of God should be under

laws, and God said to Moses pretty much the same thing, "You must

the same regulations for the alien and the native-born."

You cannot show Peter saying those words. All you can
show, is that Peter was obviously intimidated by James
and that when those from James came around, Peter
started acting like he lived under the Law and got
others to do it as well, because he was intimidated by
James.

This shows clearly, that if an argument could
be made for one person being the head of the church, it
would have been James, not Peter. Otherwise, Peter
wouldn't have cared what James thought and would have
put those who came from him in their place when they
arrived.

Your claim is not accurate and the Scriptures
that you bring up only help defeat your points, not
support them.

Nowhere did Jesus say, "You are given authority to
speak for Me on Earth and you're running the church".
That is a false statement that cannot be supported by
Scripture.

Dear Rhyanon,

It's obvious that you are carrying your own cross and realising that
no one will be celebrating your journey uphill!

Vera Lexi

Dear Rhyanon,

It's obvious that you are carrying your own cross and realising that
no one will be celebrating your journey uphill!

Vera Lexi


"Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com> wrote in message
news:114dg1gcptfa8f3@corp.supernews.com...

COMMENTARY
Dee: Some Christians now admit: Jesus is not risen
James H. Dee, LOCAL CONTRIBUTOR


Thursday, March 24, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------

Once again, Christians retell "The Easter Story," and once again they

remain

blissfully unaware that, like "The Christmas Story," it has disintegrated
under critical scrutiny that began with David Friedrich Strauss in 1835.

One

problem involves the "reality" of the Resurrection and another involves

the

morality of redemption through torture and death - topics few pastors
will
raise in their Sunday sermons.
The problem of historicity emerges with characteristic directness in

Paul's

remark, "If Christ is not risen, your faith is in vain" (Corinthians

1:14).

For most people, this is a simple issue, since the Resurrection - the
central and uniquely defining element in Christianity - is widely
supposed
to be a historical fact. But a growing number of Christian scholars have
come to regard this belief as falsified by the biblical texts themselves.
The clearest sign of trouble is invisible in an ordinary Bible but

glaringly

evident in a "harmony" of the Synoptic Gospels (i.e. Mark and the

partially

derivative Matthew and Luke), where the various episodes, which occur in
disconcertingly different sequences, are brought together, phrase by

phrase,

in triple-column layout. Many events occur in lock-step, with verbatim
repetition, showing that Matthew and Luke had versions of Mark at hand or
memorized.
But this triple attestation vanishes in the Resurrection narratives: the
Bribing of the Guard, the Road to Emmaus, the Appearances to the Eleven
(Jerusalem in Luke; Galilee in Matthew), Doubting Thomas and the
Ascension
are all "isolates" - and even the three tellings of the Easter Morning
stories have irreconcilable contradictions. The 79 Catholic and
Protestant
scholars of the controversial Jesus Seminar concluded that all those
episodes are completely fictional ("The Acts of Jesus" pages 465-95).
They
also declared, using red letters to indicate their high level of

certainty,

"The Resurrection of Jesus did not involve the resuscitation of a corpse.

.

. . The body of Jesus decayed as do other corpses" (pages 461-2).
In his new book, "The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry," the
eminent New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann incisively demolishes the
Resurrection accounts, including the visions of Peter and Paul. He
states,
with remarkable forthrightness, "For 2,000 years an abiding faith in

Jesus'

Resurrection has displayed enormous power, but because of its utter
groundlessness we must now acknowledge that it has all along been a
worldwide historical hoax."
The once-solid façade of conventional belief is crumbling from within,
and
it is increasingly apparent that the founding event of Christianity can
be
defended only through ignorance or dishonesty. And there is an even more
serious problem, independent of historical arguments: What is the moral
sense of using physical torture and death of one person as expiation for
offenses against divinity committed by millions?
It seems obvious that Jesus' comparatively mild and brief suffering
cannot
be enough to compensate for the sins of countless believers, especially
since Christian doctrine has long asserted that only extreme, eternal
torment will suffice if individual sinners choose to be resolutely
ethical
and, in the vogue phrase, "accept personal responsibility" for their
actions.
Those who saw Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" may wonder at the
words
"comparatively mild and brief." But the Gospels offer few details about

the

maltreatment Jesus received, and thousands of unfortunates crucified by
Roman generals and governors (for example, 6,000 prisoners from
Spartacus'
revolt in 71 BC) probably suffered similar preliminary abuse. Also, in

Mark

alone, Pilate is surprised (and presumably disappointed) that Jesus died

so

quickly - the Romans wanted their victims to die after several days of
agony.
However, the deeper issue is not the quantity of discomfort Jesus endured
but the whole concept of a naively anthropomorphic divinity, whose anger

at

human failings can be placated only by raw physical pain and death. The

2002

edition of the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" has a 17-page, theologically
sophisticated article on "Redemption" - which unhesitatingly asserts
that,
because of God's unrelenting hatred for sin, "satisfaction" must be

exacted

corporeally, either from mankind or from Jesus, as if the cosmic deity
had
the mentality of a gang-lord.
This notion deserves to be called primitive, tribal and -perhaps most
embarrassing for a supposedly omniscient, loving and creative entity -
supremely unimaginative in its fixation on brute cruelty.
As Lüdemann says, the fictionality of the Resurrection entails the

falsehood

of Christianity, thus reversing Paul: Jesus is not risen, and his

followers'

faith is in vain. The big question is: When will believers start to read

the

Bible closely enough to discover the unsettling truth for themselves?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dee is a visiting scholar in the classics department at the University of
Texas-Austin.

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 08:16:06 -0600, "Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com>
wrote:

COMMENTARY
Dee: Some Christians now admit: Jesus is not risen
James H. Dee, LOCAL CONTRIBUTOR


Thursday, March 24, 2005

One little problem may have cropped up for those who follow the
Ostara/Eostre story, Rhy

" Fur flies over bunny theory
By SIMON BEVILACQUA
27mar05

IT'S official -- the Easter bunny story is not true.

The fable about the magical rabbit who brings eggs on Easter Sunday is
a fabrication.

Academics have scoured medieval history and found the story is based
on a lie.

They blame a meddling medieval monk for mucking up pagan history.

The mischievous monk literally made up a Saxon goddess who many today
erroneously believe is the basis of the Easter bunny story.

University of Tasmania academic Elizabeth Freeman said German
academics had searched extensively for clues to Easter tradition.

"They found it's all wrong," Dr Freeman, an expert on medieval
history, said.

The commonly believed story about the Easter bunny, as the magical
companion of the Saxon goddess Ostara, is repeated in books, poems and
extensively on websites.

That fallacious story says the Easter bunny's roots are buried in the
mythology of Germanic Saxon tribes.

The Saxons, in the first centuries after the death of Jesus, are said
to have celebrated the arrival of the pagan goddess Ostara.

The Sun King, according to the story, would journey across the sky in
his chariot bringing an end to winter.

Ostara, a beautiful spring maiden, then came to earth with a basket of
coloured eggs.

The goddess, helped by a magical rabbit, brought new life to dying
plants and flowers by hiding eggs under them.

When the Saxons moved into Britain in the fifth century, they took
their pagan ways with them.

Ostara then evolved into the Anglo-Saxon Oestre, goddess of dawn and
spring.

When Anglo-Saxons converted to Christianity and started to celebrate
the resurrection of Jesus, they combined the religious traditions.

The pagan Oestre celebration became today's Easter.

So when modern-day parents hid coloured eggs under plants in the
garden for their children, it was widely thought they had been
unwittingly re-enacting the ancient pagan myth of Ostara and her
rabbit. But this is all wrong, according to modern academic thought.

Dr Freeman said research shows the Ostara and Oestre story is
fundamentally flawed.

The goddess did not exist.

The earliest reference to goddess Ostara or Oestre is by a celebrated
medieval intellectual -- the monk known as the "venerable Bede".

Working in north-east England in 730AD, Bede wrote a book about
calculating time. Bede identified a pagan spring celebration called
Eosturmonath. He said this celebration got its name from a pagan
goddess called Oestre for whom they had a feast.

But when modern-day researchers scoured the history books they could
find no prior reference to the goddess.

Researchers found many references to the spring celebration
Eosturmonath but absolutely no mention of the goddess Bede reckoned
the feast was named after. They suspect Bede fabricated the pagan
goddess to suit his purposes.

"He has definitely made up that goddess," Dr Freeman said. "Bede is
the first one to mention it. German academics have found no evidence
of the spring goddess Oestre anywhere else before Bede."


Ahh well, life goes on I suppose

Cleirach

:}

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 08:16:06 -0600, "Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com>
wrote:

COMMENTARY
Dee: Some Christians now admit: Jesus is not risen
James H. Dee, LOCAL CONTRIBUTOR


Thursday, March 24, 2005

One little problem may have cropped up for those who follow the
Ostara/Eostre story, Rhy



" Fur flies over bunny theory
By SIMON BEVILACQUA
27mar05

IT'S official -- the Easter bunny story is not true.

The fable about the magical rabbit who brings eggs on Easter Sunday is
a fabrication.

Academics have scoured medieval history and found the story is based
on a lie.

They blame a meddling medieval monk for mucking up pagan history.

The mischievous monk literally made up a Saxon goddess who many today
erroneously believe is the basis of the Easter bunny story.

University of Tasmania academic Elizabeth Freeman said German
academics had searched extensively for clues to Easter tradition.

"They found it's all wrong," Dr Freeman, an expert on medieval
history, said.

The commonly believed story about the Easter bunny, as the magical
companion of the Saxon goddess Ostara, is repeated in books, poems and
extensively on websites.

That fallacious story says the Easter bunny's roots are buried in the
mythology of Germanic Saxon tribes.

The Saxons, in the first centuries after the death of Jesus, are said
to have celebrated the arrival of the pagan goddess Ostara.

The Sun King, according to the story, would journey across the sky in
his chariot bringing an end to winter.

Ostara, a beautiful spring maiden, then came to earth with a basket of
coloured eggs.

The goddess, helped by a magical rabbit, brought new life to dying
plants and flowers by hiding eggs under them.

When the Saxons moved into Britain in the fifth century, they took
their pagan ways with them.

Ostara then evolved into the Anglo-Saxon Oestre, goddess of dawn and
spring.

When Anglo-Saxons converted to Christianity and started to celebrate
the resurrection of Jesus, they combined the religious traditions.

The pagan Oestre celebration became today's Easter.

So when modern-day parents hid coloured eggs under plants in the
garden for their children, it was widely thought they had been
unwittingly re-enacting the ancient pagan myth of Ostara and her
rabbit. But this is all wrong, according to modern academic thought.

Dr Freeman said research shows the Ostara and Oestre story is
fundamentally flawed.

The goddess did not exist.

The earliest reference to goddess Ostara or Oestre is by a celebrated
medieval intellectual -- the monk known as the "venerable Bede".

Working in north-east England in 730AD, Bede wrote a book about
calculating time. Bede identified a pagan spring celebration called
Eosturmonath. He said this celebration got its name from a pagan
goddess called Oestre for whom they had a feast.

But when modern-day researchers scoured the history books they could
find no prior reference to the goddess.

Researchers found many references to the spring celebration
Eosturmonath but absolutely no mention of the goddess Bede reckoned
the feast was named after. They suspect Bede fabricated the pagan
goddess to suit his purposes.

"He has definitely made up that goddess," Dr Freeman said. "Bede is
the first one to mention it. German academics have found no evidence
of the spring goddess Oestre anywhere else before Bede."


Ahh well, life goes on I suppose

Cleirach