| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Son of man" |
| Date: |
26 Dec 2004 01:30:03 PM |
| Object: |
The true and holy Father glorified |
http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/h/Christ-Son-of-Buddha/SerpentChained.htm
Or printable version (better) :
http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/h/Christ-Son-of-Buddha/SerpentChained.doc
Some revisions made with better transitions between verse comparisons
for a more logical flow.
John:17:26: And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare
it.
.
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: The true and holy Father glorified |
27 Dec 2004 08:37:19 AM |
|
|
Son of man wrote:
'Son of Man' eh....isn't that what Charlie Manson called himself ?
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
Skype callto://hellward
NFS Underground2.MOH PA And AA
Yeowww
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Riain Y. Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: The true and holy Father glorified |
26 Dec 2004 01:51:59 PM |
|
|
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/john_3_16_begotten.html
JOHN 3:16 – “BEGOTTEN”
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
(KJV)
However, Christians who believe in the Trinity have a problem, a real
problem if they would only think about the situation. Trinitarians claim,
that because of the god-head, Jesus is also God, by way of the Holy Ghost.
John, who Christians claim was one of Jesus’ disciples, who walked with
Jesus and listened to what Jesus was teaching, by his own statement of 3:16
did not believe in the Trinity. But I guess the early church fathers in 325
C.E. knew better than John. Jesus cannot be the Son of God and also God in
human form.
Non-Christians, smiling, realized what John and the Trinitians were
actually saying:
"For God so loved the world that he sacrificed himself to himself to
appease himself so if you believe this story, He will not be forced to
torture you forever."
You can go one better and put it like this:
"For God so loved the world that he created the world in such a way that he
would have to sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself so if you
believe this story, He will not be forced to torture you forever."
If only Christians could really see how others laugh at this idiotic claim
of theirs:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
John 3:16 (KJV)”
A famous quote of most modern translations based on a practically unknown
mistranslation. The underlying Greek is "The son the unique/only one he
gave." Note that the Greek lacks "his." The KJVs "only begotten" could
easily be translated as "unique" and the meaning could be that Jesus was the
only son God gave the world and not the only son God had. Now hearken back
to:
"No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the
bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." John 1:18 (KJV)
Regarding "the only begotten Son" above, the earliest extant manuscripts
indicate it should be "the unique god" rather than "son." A majority of
modern Christian translations here use "son."
Here is another example where Christian translators try to impose a literal
family relationship on the text. Keep in mind that the original "John" was
more than likely heavily edited by the Early Church. If one goes back in
time to the beginning of John in its current form, you will still have
trouble finding support for a literal family relationship between The God
and Jesus.
The only use of "son" in the Prologue is in 1:14, but as you have learned
Christians have mistranslated with the definite article, and with the proper
indefinite article, "as of an only begotten of a Father,"―this becomes a
figurative adjective rather than a literal description. You are then left
with no literal use of "son" in the entire prologue which strengthens the
position that the author intended the "unique" word to refer to kind
(quality) and not kin (quantity).
"John" has many elements of Gnosticism in it, extreme contrasts between
supposed opposing forces such as good/evil, flesh/spirit and
Jesus/non-Jesus, so a Gnostic author would have a problem presenting Jesus
in the flesh and therefore would not want to show Jesus as having a human
type family relationship with The God.
Therefore "John" has no virgin birth, Jesus is only God's figurative son.
The "unique/only" word in 3:16 is the same word previously used in "John"
that the Christians keep translating as "only begotten." But as we've seen
John's Prologue appears to describe as figurative father/son relationship
between Jesus and The Father "unique" is probably the superior translation
to "only" based on context.
Therefore, the literal "The son the unique/only one he gave" (later
manuscripts changed it to "His only son") likely should be translated "the
unique son he gave" with "son" having a figurative meaning.
Now, let's compare the KJV and NRSV translations of John 3:16:
KJV:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
NRSV
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who
believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life."
NRSV is superior to KJV here because KJV is adding a word that's not in the
Greek, but it still has the basic questionable/bad/mistranslation that KJV
has. The textual evidence indicates that "his" is not original and the
context of the Prologue indicates that "unique" is superior to "only".
Obviously NRSV is trying to give a translation that shows a literal
father/son relationship just like KJV. I guess "For God so loved the world
that the son the unique one he gave, so that everyone who believes in him
may not perish but may have eternal life" just doesn't have the same ring to
it.
Perhaps the Christians who bring 3:16 signs to sporting events should put a
footnote explanation at the bottom of their signs in the interest of
intellectual honesty.
This comparison is typical of superior Christian translations such as the
NRSV; even though they are far superior to the KJV they are still full of
intellectual dishonesty or worse based on sometimes translating based more
on theology than textual analysis.
Did John forget that God told David that David was God’s begotten son (Psalm
2:7)?
Did John forget God told the Israelites that they were His firstborn son
(Exodus 4:22)?
Since the Gospels, according to Christianity, were inspired by God – it
again appears that God forgot.
"Son of man" <bcozier@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1104089403.891081.148840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/h/Christ-Son-of-Buddha/SerpentChained.htm
|
| Or printable version (better) :
|
| http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/h/Christ-Son-of-Buddha/SerpentChained.doc
|
|
| Some revisions made with better transitions between verse comparisons
| for a more logical flow.
|
| John:17:26: And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare
| it.
|
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Riain Y. Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: The true and holy Father glorified |
26 Dec 2004 01:46:38 PM |
|
|
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/johnerred.html
JOHN ERRED?
Hugh Fogelman
All over ballparks during sporting events, if you look carefully, you will
see one or two people holding up cards with a simple Christian Bible chapter
and verse on them John 3:16. This is just another way to propaganda their
religion.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
King James Version (KJV)
Every Christian knows this verse by heart―such a warm-hearted catchy
statement―which really brings out the guilt in many Christians. And those
with the all too familiar “bible-intoxicated mentality” just assume this to
be true. Gee, if God sent his ONLY son to die for me, why not believe, and,
in so doing, guarantee that I have everlasting life. Presto–chango, the
“blind-faith”sinner is saved forever! Yeah, uh huh!
But, who is god’s son? The individual Christian has absolutely no idea,
except for the standard “Jesus.”
Christianity admits the Hebrew Bible is directly from God by relying on it,
the SOURCE document, for its authority and validity. So logically, one
should start there to see just what God wrote about His son. God of all
things would surely know who his SON was – don’t you think so?
Let’s now see exactly who God has said is His son!
God says the Jews are His son.
“My son, My firstborn is Israel..." (Exodus 4:22)
“Thus says HaShem. Israel is My son, My firstborn” (Deuteronomy 4:22)
“When Israel was I child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son”
(Hosea 11:1)
”He (Solomon) shall be a son to Me [G-d], and I a Father to him” (1 Chr
22:10)
He has said to me "You (David) are My son. Today I have begotten you. …God’s
begotten son! (Psalm 2:7)
And God repeated “I, too, will make him (David) a firstborn, supreme over
the earth’s kings” (Psalms 89:27-28)
So, I ask, who should Christians believe? God? Or do you keep on with your
blind faith, ignoring the word of God and following some human trying to
push a new religion? Who would have a motive to lie?
Would God lie or would a human lie?
We report – you decide.
"Son of man" <bcozier@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1104089403.891081.148840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/h/Christ-Son-of-Buddha/SerpentChained.htm
|
| Or printable version (better) :
|
| http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/h/Christ-Son-of-Buddha/SerpentChained.doc
|
|
| Some revisions made with better transitions between verse comparisons
| for a more logical flow.
|
| John:17:26: And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare
| it.
|
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The true and holy Father glorified |
26 Dec 2004 02:05:09 PM |
|
|
Riain Y. Barton wrote:
But, who is god's son? The individual Christian has
absolutely no idea,
except for the standard "Jesus."
Let's now see exactly who God has said is His son!
God says the Jews are His son.
So, I ask, who should Christians believe? God? Or do you keep > on
with your
blind faith, ignoring the word of God and following some
human trying to
push a new religion? Who would have a motive to lie?
Would God lie or would a human lie?
We report - you decide.
so its a ***** christian jew conspiracy, what else is new?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Riain Y. Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: The true and holy Father glorified |
26 Dec 2004 06:51:47 PM |
|
|
What a fucking idiot you are!
<wildbluskies@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104091509.631395.276880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
|
| Riain Y. Barton wrote:
| >
| > But, who is god's son? The individual Christian has
| > absolutely no idea,
| > except for the standard "Jesus."
| > Let's now see exactly who God has said is His son!
| > God says the Jews are His son.
| > So, I ask, who should Christians believe? God? Or do you keep > on
| with your
| > blind faith, ignoring the word of God and following some
| > human trying to
| > push a new religion? Who would have a motive to lie?
| > Would God lie or would a human lie?
| > We report - you decide.
| >
|
| so its a ***** christian jew conspiracy, what else is new?
|
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: The true and holy Father glorified |
27 Dec 2004 12:30:12 AM |
|
|
On 26 Dec 2004, Riain Y. Barton dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
<wildbluskies@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104091509.631395.276880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
|
| Riain Y. Barton wrote:
| >
| > But, who is god's son? The individual Christian has
| > absolutely no idea,
| > except for the standard "Jesus."
| > Let's now see exactly who God has said is His son!
| > God says the Jews are His son.
| > So, I ask, who should Christians believe? God? Or do you keep > on
| with your
| > blind faith, ignoring the word of God and following some
| > human trying to
| > push a new religion? Who would have a motive to lie?
| > Would God lie or would a human lie?
| > We report - you decide.
| >
|
| so its a ***** christian jew conspiracy, what else is new?
|
What a fucking idiot you are!
Translation: Your post hit the nail right on the head, and it makes me
so mad that I can't reason like you, so I'll concede the argument and
resort to ad-hom attacks.
Right, you top-posting idiot?
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
--------
Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Riain Y. Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: The true and holy Father glorified |
27 Dec 2004 01:29:59 AM |
|
|
What a fucking idiot you are!
Look closely and see who posted what and who wrote what!
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95CBE52663209vicman@216.148.227.77...
| On 26 Dec 2004, Riain Y. Barton dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
| shouted:
|
|
| > <wildbluskies@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1104091509.631395.276880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| >|
| >| Riain Y. Barton wrote:
| >| >
| >| > But, who is god's son? The individual Christian has
| >| > absolutely no idea,
| >| > except for the standard "Jesus."
| >| > Let's now see exactly who God has said is His son!
| >| > God says the Jews are His son.
| >| > So, I ask, who should Christians believe? God? Or do you keep > on
| >| with your
| >| > blind faith, ignoring the word of God and following some
| >| > human trying to
| >| > push a new religion? Who would have a motive to lie?
| >| > Would God lie or would a human lie?
| >| > We report - you decide.
| >| >
| >|
| >| so its a ***** christian jew conspiracy, what else is new?
| >|
| >
| >
| > What a fucking idiot you are!
| >
| >
|
| Translation: Your post hit the nail right on the head, and it makes me
| so mad that I can't reason like you, so I'll concede the argument and
| resort to ad-hom attacks.
|
| Right, you top-posting idiot?
|
|
|
| --
| Vic Sagerquist
| aa#2011
| Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
| chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
| --------
| Hebrews 11:1
| Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
| seen.
|
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: The true and holy Father glorified |
27 Dec 2004 02:01:16 AM |
|
|
On 26 Dec 2004, Riain Y. Barton dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
What a fucking idiot you are!
I think your keyboard is stuck.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
--------
Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Riain Y. Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: The true and holy Father glorified |
26 Dec 2004 01:49:41 PM |
|
|
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/judas_jew_satan_devil_1.html
JUDAS - JEW - SATAN - DEVIL
Hugh Fogelman
In Christian folklore in the Middle Ages (1100 CE), the Church made great
efforts to reach the masses through popular religious art and literature of
all kinds. These forms of art and church literature were most successful in
fostering anti-Semitism. The Encyclopaedia Judaica tells, For Christians
Judas Iscariot was considered the typical Jew. The dehumanizing of both
Judas and the Jews begins to be found in the art of Central Europe and
Germany in the 13th century. The result was lowering the status of Jews to a
subhuman level. Pictures of Judas bearing unmistakable characteristics of
the medieval Jewish stereotype readily show that Christian art went out of
its way to portray Judas as symbolic of the Jewish people as a whole. Church
art contributed its quota of degraded appearing Jews both in pictorial
representations in churches and popular illustrated Christian Bibles. This
eventually helped pave the way for Adolph Hitler and the Nazi attitude of
the Jews as evil beings.
The Gospel of John is considered the most anti-Semitic book in the New
Testament. The author of John goes over-board to show Judass greed by
making him the corrupt treasurer of Jesus band of disciples. Johns picture
of Judas carrying his money-bag was implanted in Christian thoughts with
tragic results to the Jews as a whole. John turns Judas Iscariot into a man
associated with evil and money. This expansion of Judass money-corruption
was a most fateful development for the history of anti-Semitism as Christian
Europe, later on, associated Jews with money-lending, forcing them, by the
order by the Church, to make this their only permitted occupation.
The Gospel of John tells another tale about the evil Judas in his story of
Martha and Mary. Mary buys very costly perfume and pure oil that she
anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped them with her hair. At this time,
Judas Iscariot, Simons son, said; Why was not this ointment sold for three
hundred pence and given to the poor? Supposedly, not that Judas cared for
the poor, but because he was a thief and wanted the money for himself (John
12:3-6). Notice how John connects Judas with being associated to sharp
business practices (a Jewish image carried forward to this day) while at the
same time being evil and crooked. This association helped to establish the
derogatory meaning of the word Jew in popular usage by meaning people who
extort money ruthlessly, moneylenders, driver of hard bargains, to cheat by
sharp business practices, uncaring for the helpless, and of charging extra
high interest.
Thus, the synonym Jew and money are linked together in semantics and popular
Christian usage. The authors of the Gospels tell a different story in which
an unnamed woman pours costly ointment on Jesus head and was scolded, not
by Judas Iscariot, but by some other disciples (Mark 14:3-9; Matthew
26:6-11; and Luke 7:37) In Lukes version, this woman was a prostitute. And
it was not one of Jesus disciples that scolded her, but a Jewish Pharisee.
Notice how Luke uses his story to drive home the thought of a Jew and his
money, the Jewish Pharisees, even though the story did not originally
concern Pharisees. John transforms the same story into an episode in the
Judas saga, while weaving it together with another quite unrelated story
that of Martha and Mary.
The Gospel of John portrays Judas as the corrupt controller of the
moneybags, a thief whose greed is suggested by the fact that he sells Jesus
for thirty pieces of silver. Which gospel writer is telling the truth? Or
perhaps none, since this is just another in a long line of New Testament
fictions? Perhaps this was just an opportunity to show Rome that Christians
also detest the Jews; that the Jews were enemies common to both of them.
Notice how Luke and John both link Judas with the devil (Luke 22:3 & John
6:70; 13:2 & 27), resulting now an evil triangle of Judas - Jew - devil .
Another synonym for the Jewish hatred found in the New Testament is linking
the words - Pharisees, Jews and your father the devil (John 8:44) -
together with Synagogue and the Devil (Revelation 2:9 & 3:9 [supposedly
written by John, but we do not even know who wrote John]).
By now the Judas legend was being told in the manner of folk-tales. The
infamous Passion Plays sprung up all over Europe. These plays would show
Judas, a Jew and money lender, being associated with the devil. Then other
gospels were written, i.e. The Arabic Gospel of the Saviours Infancy,
written sometime between 500 -1000 C.E., invents some fantastic details of
Judass childhood by saying:
Another woman was living in the same place, whose son was tormented by
Satan. He, Judas by name, as often as Satan seized him, used to bite all who
came near him; and if he found no one near him, used to bite his own hands
and other limbs. The mother of this wretched creature, then, hearing the
fame of the Lady Mary and her son Jesus, rose up and brought her son Judas
with her to the Lady Mary.
In the meantime, James and Joses had taken the child the Lord Jesus with
them to play with the other children; and they had gone out of the house and
sat down, and the Lord Jesus with them. The demoniac Judas came up, and sat
down at Jesus right hand. Being attacked by Satan in the same manner as
usual, he wished to bite the Lord Jesus. But instead, he struck Jesus on the
right side, whereupon He began to weep. Immediately Satan went forth out of
that boy, fleeing like a mad dog. This boy who struck Jesus, and out of whom
Satan went forth in the shape of a dog, was Judas Iscariot. The same boy,
upon becoming a man betrayed him to the Jews. And that same side on which
Judas struck Jesus, the Jews (not the Romans) transfixed with a lance.
This Gospel was translated from Arabic into Latin and published in 1697.
The developers and theorists of Christianity, during the years in which the
Judas saga was being invented, thought that Judas was a great symbol of all
Jews. This is a favorite theme of Saint Jerome (340-420 C.E.), a great
scholar of the catholic church, who translated the Christian bible from
Greek into Latin. The death of Jesus began to be seen not as the unfortunate
failure of another messianic claimant, but instead, it was a victory over
evil. The death of a god demands an antagonist of equal status. This figure,
according to Christianity, could only be Satan. Thus Jews became the
follower and helper of Satan. This identification had already been made in
the Hellenistic world by the Gnostics, who regarded the Jews as people of
the Demiurge, the evil Creator of the material world. All this is tied
perfectly into a tidy package: Jews - Judas - Devil.
The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (Vol. 6, p. 248) says that According to a
number of Christian scholars, such as Bruno Bauer and Volkmar, plus
historians such as Randel Helms, have maintained that the story and person
of Judas are not historical, but were invented in order to explain the ease
with which the capture of Jesus was effected. What a shame that the power
of Christian myth and gospel fiction, demonizing the image of the Jews, have
created an ignorant and errant widespread perception of the Jews as
money-hungry, mean, miserly, traitors and people you can not trust.
Often times when some disaster has occurred - such as the Great Plague, or a
defeat as in the Franco-Prussian War, World War I, WORLD War II or when a
countrys economy lay in ruin - whenever there is a need for a traitor who
can be burdened with the guilt of an intolerable disaster - the Jews are
assigned this role and the name Judas is openly applied to them. In Russia
today, Jews are being blamed for the pathetic Russian economy.
The Christians true feeling towards the Jews was unveiled by Pope Gelasius
I (492 496 C.E.), when his words became current wisdom: In the Bible, the
whole is often named after the part; as Judas was called a devil and the
devils workman, he gives his name to the whole race. This attitude set
the example for over the next 1,400 plus years.
You can see how the name association of Jew - Judas - and the Devil lives
on.
"Son of man" <bcozier@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1104089403.891081.148840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/h/Christ-Son-of-Buddha/SerpentChained.htm
|
| Or printable version (better) :
|
| http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/h/Christ-Son-of-Buddha/SerpentChained.doc
|
|
| Some revisions made with better transitions between verse comparisons
| for a more logical flow.
|
| John:17:26: And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare
| it.
|
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Riain Y. Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: The true and holy Father glorified |
26 Dec 2004 01:48:01 PM |
|
|
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/nicodemusthefirstbornagains.html
NICODEMUS: THE FIRST BORN-AGAINS
Hugh Fogelman
Supposedly―according ONLY by the author of John’s gospel―Nicodemus was a
Pharisee sympathetic to Jesus.
John 3:1-9 {King James Version (KJV)]
1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that
thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou
doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he
enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of
water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the
Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof,
but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one
that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
_________________________
John 3;1-9 [New Living Translation (NLT)]
1 After dark one evening, a Jewish religious leader named Nicodemus, a
Pharisee, 2came to speak with Jesus. "Teacher," he said, "we all know that
God has sent you to teach us. Your miraculous signs are proof enough that
God is with you."
3 Jesus replied, "I assure you, unless you are born again,1 you can never
see the Kingdom of God."
4 "What do you mean?" exclaimed Nicodemus. "How can an old man go back
into his mother's womb and be born again?"
5 Jesus replied, "The truth is, no one can enter the Kingdom of God
without being born of water and the Spirit.2 6Humans can reproduce only
human life, but the Holy Spirit gives new life from heaven. 7So don't be
surprised at my statement that you3 must be born again. 8Just as you can
hear the wind but can't tell where it comes from or where it is going, so
you can't explain how people are born of the Spirit."
9 "What do you mean?" Nicodemus asked.
NLT Footnotes:
1. 3:3 Or born from above; also in 3:7.
2. 3:5 Or spirit. The Greek word for Spirit can also be
translated wind; see 3:8.
3. 3:7 The Greek word for you is plural; also in 3:12.
_________________________
John 19:38-40 (KJV)
38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but
secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the
body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the
body of Jesus.
39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by
night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound
weight.
40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with
the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
“Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews was being taught by Jesus and then attended
to his body after the crucifixion. But, we are supposed to believe that only
John knew this, not Mark, Matthew, Luke or Jesus brother, James. THINK! Does
not the silence of the rest of the Christian Bible regarding Nicodemus seem
mighty strange? Yes, because it is all fiction and therefore impossible to
keep all the loose ends of the Christian stories tied up neatly.
This is why you are asked by your clergy to have blind faith. You are NOT to
think, not to ask questions, just to fall in line and keep the tithe money
coming.
Remember Mark Twain’s famous words,
“A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out
for what he knows."
"Son of man" <bcozier@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1104089403.891081.148840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/h/Christ-Son-of-Buddha/SerpentChained.htm
|
| Or printable version (better) :
|
| http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/h/Christ-Son-of-Buddha/SerpentChained.doc
|
|
| Some revisions made with better transitions between verse comparisons
| for a more logical flow.
|
| John:17:26: And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare
| it.
|
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Riain Y. Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: The true and holy Father glorified |
26 Dec 2004 01:52:33 PM |
|
|
http://jdstone.org/cr/pages/nt.html
"Son of man" <bcozier@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1104089403.891081.148840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/h/Christ-Son-of-Buddha/SerpentChained.htm
|
| Or printable version (better) :
|
| http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/h/Christ-Son-of-Buddha/SerpentChained.doc
|
|
| Some revisions made with better transitions between verse comparisons
| for a more logical flow.
|
| John:17:26: And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare
| it.
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
