Consulting the dead.

Religions > Bible > Consulting the dead.

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 25 of 43

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Streamer"
Date:	14 Dec 2004 08:43:09 PM
Object:	Consulting the dead.

The Bible condemns necromancy (consulting the dead).
Prayers to "saints" who have died are sinful.
-----------------------
Let there not be found among you anyone who immolates his son or daughter in
the fire, nor a fortune-teller, soothsayer, charmer, diviner, or caster of
spells, nor one who consults ghosts and spirits or seeks oracles from the
dead. (Deuteronomy 18:10-11)
-----------------------
When Jesus' disciples asked him how they were to pray, Jesus didn't tell
them to consult dead "saints." He told them to pray directly to God, their
Father (Luke 11:1-4).
.

User: "RS"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	20 Dec 2004 01:40:31 AM

<romath@romath.net> wrote in message
news:grfcs09jjbo7u5kr7sqsibbstpnt9aikdf@4ax.com...

So- what about that thief on the cross next to Jesus. Was Jesus lying
when He assured him that THAT DAY HE WOULD BE WITH JESUS IN PARADISE
????
The thief was not baptized.

In this case, my friend, Jesus was the water and the Spirit :) This is the
common teaching of the Church called baptism by desire. St. Dismas (the
good thief) held this baptism by desire so God provided both the water and
the Spirit (water of life and Spirit of truth).
(I should have been a little clearer in that, and for that I apologize)
The first half of your question was in response to something JW wrote, not
myself. I was baptized as an infant and my parents upheld their promise
very well ;)
-RS
.

User: "Doc Watson -- the \Usenet GHOST!\ :O"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	20 Dec 2004 03:25:57 PM

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 02:40:31 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> spoke the
following words of wisdom:

<romath@romath.net> wrote in message
news:grfcs09jjbo7u5kr7sqsibbstpnt9aikdf@4ax.com...

So- what about that thief on the cross next to Jesus. Was Jesus

lying

when He assured him that THAT DAY HE WOULD BE WITH JESUS IN

PARADISE

????
The thief was not baptized.

In this case, my friend, Jesus was the water and the Spirit :) This

is the

common teaching of the Church called baptism by desire. St. Dismas

(the

good thief) held this baptism by desire so God provided both the

water and

the Spirit (water of life and Spirit of truth).

(I should have been a little clearer in that, and for that I

apologize)

The first half of your question was in response to something JW

wrote, not

myself. I was baptized as an infant and my parents upheld their

promise

very well ;)

-RS

I am aware of the baptism by desire.......... and have at times spoken
concerning it .
Thank you for your explanation on this matter.
--
The official Usenet GHOST....
haunting romanists EVERYWHERE!
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA! BOO!
.

User: "Doc Watson -- the \Usenet GHOST!\ :O"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	20 Dec 2004 03:25:54 PM

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 15:16:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> spoke the
following words of wisdom:

"Doc Watson -- the "Usenet GHOST!" :O)" <me@you.net> wrote in message
news:34abs0to4bikaqnqus0brvcb737laf3g5o@4ax.com...

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:00:40 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> spoke the
following words of wisdom:

The papacy isn't mammon. Mammon is a pagan god of riches. The

Vatican

isn't a pagan god, it is the "government" of the Roman Catholic

Church.

But Rob, we MUST take into consideration that the roman catholic
religion IS the most wealthy in the world.

we know many gorgeous, expensive things were given to it-------
however, many, many personal possessions, lands, etc were also

STOLEN

from people who refused to accept certain teachings of the faith.

Can you find many passages where Jesus was actually baptizing by

water?

John the baptist stated outright that he baptized with water, yet

Jesus

baptized by the holy spirit. In fact, in the gospel of John, Jesus

didn't

baptize at all, but His followers did.

That is correct, Rob. Clearly you are in the right in this, and the
other person is incorrect.

Jesus never baptized anyone by immersion, but was Himself so

immersed

by John the Baptist.

We cannot even agree on that, for it isn't shown whether or not Jesus

was

really fully immersed. The origanization of the grammer states

simply that

he was baptized and then he came up out of the water and was visited

by the

Holy Spirit. In this, Jesus was up to his waste in water (if not

less) and

was baptized by John the Baptist, which could very well have been

scooping

the water up in his hands and pouring it over Jesus' head.

All misspelling aside, the word BAPTIZE is derived from the Greek
"baptizo" -- which is translated 'to immerse'.........
But I will not bother arguing.
--
The official Usenet GHOST....
haunting romanists EVERYWHERE!
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA! BOO!
.

User: "CB"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	19 Dec 2004 07:37:42 PM

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 15:16:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:

"Doc Watson -- the "Usenet GHOST!" :O)" <me@you.net> wrote in message
news:34abs0to4bikaqnqus0brvcb737laf3g5o@4ax.com...

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:00:40 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> spoke the
following words of wisdom:

The papacy isn't mammon. Mammon is a pagan god of riches. The

Vatican

isn't a pagan god, it is the "government" of the Roman Catholic

Church.

Can you find many passages where Jesus was actually baptizing by

water?

John the baptist stated outright that he baptized with water, yet

Jesus

baptized by the holy spirit. In fact, in the gospel of John, Jesus

didn't

baptize at all, but His followers did.

That is correct, Rob. Clearly you are in the right in this, and the
other person is incorrect.

Jesus never baptized anyone by immersion, but was Himself so immersed
by John the Baptist.

We cannot even agree on that, for it isn't shown whether or not Jesus was
really fully immersed. The origanization of the grammer states simply that
he was baptized and then he came up out of the water and was visited by the
Holy Spirit. In this, Jesus was up to his waste in water (if not less) and
was baptized by John the Baptist, which could very well have been scooping
the water up in his hands and pouring it over Jesus' head.

You are certainly desperate.
Some words mean pour.
Some words mean sprinkle and some words mean immerse.
from http://www.thercg.org/books/wdymwb.html
What is the proper form of baptism? Is it sprinkling, pouring or immersion?
Not only must people follow God’s command to be baptized but baptism must be
performed in the manner—the method—that God commands. Otherwise, the baptism
is invalid. It is as if it had never occurred.
We must ask what the word baptize means. Does it mean to sprinkle? Does it
mean to pour? The answer lies in the meaning of the particular Greek word used
wherever the words baptism or baptize are found in the New Testament.
First, it is vital to recognize that baptize is actually a Greek word. It is
not an English word! The reader is probably aware that the New Testament was
written in Greek and translated into English. The word baptize represents a
departure from this pattern of the translators in 1611 (when the King James
Version of the Bible was translated). When the translators came to the word
baptizo, they chose to leave it untranslated as “baptize.” The question of
which is the proper method would have been eliminated had they properly
translated it into its true meaning: immerse, dip or put into! The English
word “pour” derives from the Greek word cheo and “sprinkle” derives from
rantidzo. God chose the word baptizo because He did not want sprinkling or
pouring to represent the proper symbol of conversion!
Second, consider the matter in this way. One cannot be immersed by pouring or
sprinkling—one can only be poured or sprinkled by pouring and sprinkling.
Likewise, one can only be immersed by being immersed. God says what He means
and means what He says!
It is no wonder then that when John the Baptist was baptizing people, he chose
locations “because there was much water there” (John 3:23). This would not
have been necessary for sprinkling or pouring. It is also no wonder that when
Philip was baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch it says, “they went down…into the
water…and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water…” (Acts
8:38-39). This verse does not fit with merely using a little water to sprinkle
or pour over a person’s head. Finally, it is also not difficult to see why
Matthew 3:16 would record that after Christ was baptized, He “went up
straightway out of the water.”
None of these verses are consistent with either sprinkling or pouring. The
clear Bible pattern is that baptism requires a lot of water, because people go
into it and then come up out of it.

See? We CAN agree on some things :o)

the other party said:

The PROOF that one must not go to the Jordan River and have John
the Baptist immerse one is that Phillip baptized the eunuch and it
was NOT in the Jordan River.

There was never any law prohibiting anyone from being baptized in the
Jordan River!
In ANY river or lake, for that matter.

The comment above this wasn't written by me.

And thousands were baptized in Acts, yet it doesn't claim they were

all

baptisms of immersion. That would be foolish and would pollute the

local

water supply. To bathe 3000 people in the local water supply isn't a

smart

thing to do. They were smart enough to realize that there was

limited water

in Jerusalem and that plunging 3000 unwashed bodies into that water

supply

would have been a health risk.

I don't imagine that is one hundred percent true though, Rob.
To momentarily plunge a ba[tismal candidate under and back out is not
to literally 'take a bath'. To take a bath, you'd need soap, or as
some call it now, 'body-wash'..........

They were clothed fully during the baptism. Their clothes are dirty, their
bodies are dirty (with desert dust). It is a hot environment with sweat.
If 3000 people were to be plunged in those waters, or even standing in the
water a few at a time, it would have been hazardous to the water source (if
it were similar to an oxbow lake). Also, being fully clothed (or even
partially) it would have absorbed quite a bit of water. There simply
wouldn't be enough water in any of the sources of water surrounding the area
that 3000 baptisms occurred.

In fact, I very strongly doubt that any significant pollution would
occur from simply immerisn and removing a person from the water, when
one considers the amount of actual pollutants which are deposited into
our lakes, rivers, strams, oceans and seas on a DAILY basis.

That is our lakes, rivers, and streams. We, unlike those in antiquity, have
ways of purifying water. I would not, however, wish to drink water that you
were walking around in, none the less water that 3000 people were baptized
in. The only way I could see this happening and not having it be a threat
to the health of those drinking the water would be through the pouring of
water, which meant each of the 3000 people recieved a handful of water which
was absorbed by their hair or dripped to the ground.

On the contary, I take scripture and interpret it logically, unlike

your

argument. "Jesus was immersed so that is the only valid baptism!"

yet John

the Baptist clearly states that it isn't. "I baptize with water.

Here

comes one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit."

Hmmmmmmmm- I thought I had replied to this section earlier, but I
don't see it showing up, so forgive me if I reply to this twice!!

I don't see anywhere in the Bible where iimmersion is the ONLY method
of baptism either, Rob.

We, as Baptists, however, baptize by immersion, as that is how the
Bible depicts our Lord Jesus having been baptized.... by immersion.

Even that is overreaching, since there are only three accounts of the
baptism of Christ: Luke says the baptism is over before the Holy Spirit
descends on him. Matthew says he came up from the water. Mark says he came
up out of the water. None of them, however, describe the full-immersion of
Christ, considering if we stick to Luke, the baptism is over and done with
before the Holy Spirit descends on Christ.

Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of
the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the
Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Personally, I feel that since there is no directive that immersion
MUST be used, then sprinkling or pouring is also acceptable. To be
baptized, though, the INTENT must be there, and the understanding of
what Baptism is, what it entails, WHO it represents, and what it
represents.

I feel the same way, but changing one thing. Taking into light the baptism
of entire households with the 3000, and the fact that infant baptism isn't
addressed, it is fair to say that infants were also baptized. 1. Entire
households were baptized (not entire households minus the infants). 2. If I
believed someone to be baptizing in the name of the Messiah, I would want
them to baptize my children as well. 3. When infants are baptized, the
parents make the promise that they will raise the child with a heart of
repentance and love for Jesus Christ.

I don't see anything wrong with not baptizing infants (waiting until they
are old enough to know what baptism is) but I feel that baptizing infants is
also a good thing, for the parents and godparents make a promise to God to
raise the child in love and light of Christ.

BAPTISM in itself does NOT save us. Unlike some who falsely claim
baptism 'assures you a place in Heaven'......... Baptism is actually
the outward sign that a believer wishes to follow Christ, and the
believer will be baptized in obedience to HIS command that we be
baptized.

I concur, but extend it to this: Someone cannot be saved without baptism in
water and in Spirit. It takes both, for someone who doesn't first approach
Christ through baptism isn't called to the path of Christ and is outside of
Him (salvation). Once someone is baptized, however, the doorway becomes
opened and salvation is there, if they so desire to walk through it (baptism
of Spirit).

-RS

O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.
Psalm 8:1
.

User: "j w"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	19 Dec 2004 04:52:49 PM

x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 15:16:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

"Doc Watson -- the "Usenet GHOST!" :O)" <me@you.net> wrote in message
news:34abs0to4bikaqnqus0brvcb737laf3g5o@4ax.com...

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:00:40 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> spoke the
following words of wisdom:

The papacy isn't mammon. Mammon is a pagan god of riches. The

Vatican

isn't a pagan god, it is the "government" of the Roman Catholic

Church.

Can you find many passages where Jesus was actually baptizing by

water?

John the baptist stated outright that he baptized with water, yet

Jesus

baptized by the holy spirit. In fact, in the gospel of John, Jesus

didn't

baptize at all, but His followers did.

That is correct, Rob. Clearly you are in the right in this, and the
other person is incorrect.

Jesus never baptized anyone by immersion, but was Himself so immersed
by John the Baptist.

Explain
1. the reason Jesus would have walked down waist deep into the river
water, and then John would have "scooped the water in his hands and
poured it over" ?
Particularly since Paul specifically describes baptism as representing
"burial."
2. why you INSIST that Jesus was not immersed, when you can't prove
that? And EVERY indication in scripture is that He WAS immersed!
You prefer mammon to God. It's that simple. And that POV is NOT
Christian. You worship mammon.
jw
snip

See? We CAN agree on some things :o)

the other party said:

The PROOF that one must not go to the Jordan River and have John
the Baptist immerse one is that Phillip baptized the eunuch and it
was NOT in the Jordan River.

That is not what I said, or if it possibly was, it was misstated. Try
this:
The PROOF that one does not HAVE to go to the Jordan River and have
John the Baptist immerse one is that Phillip baptized the eunuch and
it was NOT in the Jordan River.
Same statement, but that may be a little clear for the less evolved.

There was never any law prohibiting anyone from being baptized in the
Jordan River!
In ANY river or lake, for that matter.

The comment above this wasn't written by me.

I,. John W wrote it and clarified it.

And thousands were baptized in Acts, yet it doesn't claim they were

all

baptisms of immersion. That would be foolish and would pollute the

local

water supply. To bathe 3000 people in the local water supply isn't a

smart

thing to do. They were smart enough to realize that there was

limited water

in Jerusalem and that plunging 3000 unwashed bodies into that water

supply

would have been a health risk.

They were clothed fully during the baptism. Their clothes are dirty, their
bodies are dirty (with desert dust).

Says who? And the Jordan River isn't particularly "clean" to begin
with.
It is a hot environment with sweat.

If 3000 people were to be plunged in those waters, or even standing in the
water a few at a time, it would have been hazardous to the water source (if
it were similar to an oxbow lake). Also, being fully clothed (or even
partially) it would have absorbed quite a bit of water. There simply
wouldn't be enough water in any of the sources of water surrounding the area
that 3000 baptisms occurred.

There you go, rationalize away your not needing to follow the
commands. You haven't even had water poured over your head as an
adult. So your argument is just words.
jw
snip
.

User: "RS"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	19 Dec 2004 05:01:43 PM

"j w @yahoo.com>" <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:681cs0hhmqfuas8sq7heaerv551v9887jf@4ax.com...

x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 15:16:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

"Doc Watson -- the "Usenet GHOST!" :O)" <me@you.net> wrote in message
news:34abs0to4bikaqnqus0brvcb737laf3g5o@4ax.com...

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:00:40 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> spoke the
following words of wisdom:

The papacy isn't mammon. Mammon is a pagan god of riches. The

Vatican

isn't a pagan god, it is the "government" of the Roman Catholic

Church.

Can you find many passages where Jesus was actually baptizing by

water?

John the baptist stated outright that he baptized with water, yet

Jesus

baptized by the holy spirit. In fact, in the gospel of John, Jesus

didn't

baptize at all, but His followers did.

That is correct, Rob. Clearly you are in the right in this, and the
other person is incorrect.

Jesus never baptized anyone by immersion, but was Himself so immersed
by John the Baptist.

We cannot even agree on that, for it isn't shown whether or not Jesus was
really fully immersed. The origanization of the grammer states simply
that
he was baptized and then he came up out of the water and was visited by
the
Holy Spirit. In this, Jesus was up to his waste in water (if not less)
and
was baptized by John the Baptist, which could very well have been scooping
the water up in his hands and pouring it over Jesus' head.

Explain
1. the reason Jesus would have walked down waist deep into the river
water, and then John would have "scooped the water in his hands and
poured it over" ?

Because that might have been how John the Baptist did it. There is no other
proof that he did only full immersion. In a baptism, it isn't important how
much water is used.

Particularly since Paul specifically describes baptism as representing
"burial."

You are wrong here. Paul doesn't describe baptism as "burial" but merely
states that we are buried with Him through baptism. THe burial part
reflects not on the baptism, but on the sentence afterwards, describing that
just as Christ was raised from the dead, so we shall walk in new life.

2. why you INSIST that Jesus was not immersed, when you can't prove
that? And EVERY indication in scripture is that He WAS immersed!

On the contary, I offered solid proof extracting from all three Synoptics
that Jesus wasn't immersed fully. You chose to ignore that and follow what
you tell yourself. You prefer your own interpretation to that of God.
<snip JW's demonic lies>
-RS
.

User: "CB"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	19 Dec 2004 07:38:51 PM

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:01:43 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:

"j w @yahoo.com>" <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:681cs0hhmqfuas8sq7heaerv551v9887jf@4ax.com...

x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 15:16:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

"Doc Watson -- the "Usenet GHOST!" :O)" <me@you.net> wrote in message
news:34abs0to4bikaqnqus0brvcb737laf3g5o@4ax.com...

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:00:40 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> spoke the
following words of wisdom:

The papacy isn't mammon. Mammon is a pagan god of riches. The

Vatican

isn't a pagan god, it is the "government" of the Roman Catholic

Church.

Can you find many passages where Jesus was actually baptizing by

water?

John the baptist stated outright that he baptized with water, yet

Jesus

baptized by the holy spirit. In fact, in the gospel of John, Jesus

didn't

baptize at all, but His followers did.

That is correct, Rob. Clearly you are in the right in this, and the
other person is incorrect.

Jesus never baptized anyone by immersion, but was Himself so immersed
by John the Baptist.

We cannot even agree on that, for it isn't shown whether or not Jesus was
really fully immersed. The origanization of the grammer states simply
that
he was baptized and then he came up out of the water and was visited by
the
Holy Spirit. In this, Jesus was up to his waste in water (if not less)
and
was baptized by John the Baptist, which could very well have been scooping
the water up in his hands and pouring it over Jesus' head.

Explain
1. the reason Jesus would have walked down waist deep into the river
water, and then John would have "scooped the water in his hands and
poured it over" ?

Because that might have been how John the Baptist did it. There is no other
proof that he did only full immersion. In a baptism, it isn't important how
much water is used.

So your religion is based on "might have been'?
I'll stick with the Truth, you can guess if you like.

-RS

O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.
Psalm 8:1
.

User: "Doc Watson -- the \Usenet GHOST!\ :O"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	20 Dec 2004 03:25:55 PM

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:38:51 -0600, CB <country2000@hotmail.com> spoke
the following words of wisdom:

O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast

set thy glory above the heavens.

Psalm 8:1

How VERY TRUE, CB.
And His glory is also all around those who believe in Him ......
God bless :o)
--
The official Usenet GHOST....
haunting romanists EVERYWHERE!
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA! BOO!
.

User: "j w"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	20 Dec 2004 11:13:36 PM

x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:25:55 -0500, "Doc Watson -- the \"Usenet
GHOST!\" :O)" <me@you.net> wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:38:51 -0600, CB <country2000@hotmail.com> spoke
the following words of wisdom:

O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast

set thy glory above the heavens.

Psalm 8:1

How VERY TRUE, CB.

And His glory is also all around those who believe in Him ......

You forgot to say, "... those who believe in Him and do His will."
That would leave YOU out as you CONTINUE in your lies and apostasy.
jw

God bless :o)

User: "Doc Watson -- the \Usenet GHOST!\ :O"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	21 Dec 2004 11:46:21 AM

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:13:36 -0800, j w <j_w<no>@yahoo.com> spoke the
following words of wisdom:

quiet, cheap seat..........
--
The official Usenet GHOST....
haunting romanists EVERYWHERE!
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA! BOO!
.

User: "j w"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	20 Dec 2004 02:26:47 AM

x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:38:51 -0600, CB <country2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:01:43 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:

"j w @yahoo.com>" <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:681cs0hhmqfuas8sq7heaerv551v9887jf@4ax.com...

x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 15:16:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

"Doc Watson -- the "Usenet GHOST!" :O)" <me@you.net> wrote in message
news:34abs0to4bikaqnqus0brvcb737laf3g5o@4ax.com...

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:00:40 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> spoke the
following words of wisdom:

The papacy isn't mammon. Mammon is a pagan god of riches. The

Vatican

isn't a pagan god, it is the "government" of the Roman Catholic

Church.

Can you find many passages where Jesus was actually baptizing by

water?

John the baptist stated outright that he baptized with water, yet

Jesus

baptized by the holy spirit. In fact, in the gospel of John, Jesus

didn't

baptize at all, but His followers did.

That is correct, Rob. Clearly you are in the right in this, and the
other person is incorrect.

Jesus never baptized anyone by immersion, but was Himself so immersed
by John the Baptist.

We cannot even agree on that, for it isn't shown whether or not Jesus was
really fully immersed. The origanization of the grammer states simply
that
he was baptized and then he came up out of the water and was visited by
the
Holy Spirit. In this, Jesus was up to his waste in water (if not less)
and
was baptized by John the Baptist, which could very well have been scooping
the water up in his hands and pouring it over Jesus' head.

Explain
1. the reason Jesus would have walked down waist deep into the river
water, and then John would have "scooped the water in his hands and
poured it over" ?

Because that might have been how John the Baptist did it. There is no other
proof that he did only full immersion. In a baptism, it isn't important how
much water is used.

So your religion is based on "might have been'?
I'll stick with the Truth, you can guess if you like.

Well put!
jw

-RS

O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.
Psalm 8:1

User: "j w"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	20 Dec 2004 02:25:54 AM

x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:01:43 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

"j w @yahoo.com>" <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:681cs0hhmqfuas8sq7heaerv551v9887jf@4ax.com...

x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 15:16:27 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
group)

"Doc Watson -- the "Usenet GHOST!" :O)" <me@you.net> wrote in message
news:34abs0to4bikaqnqus0brvcb737laf3g5o@4ax.com...

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:00:40 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> spoke the
following words of wisdom:

The papacy isn't mammon. Mammon is a pagan god of riches. The

Vatican

isn't a pagan god, it is the "government" of the Roman Catholic

Church.

Can you find many passages where Jesus was actually baptizing by

water?

John the baptist stated outright that he baptized with water, yet

Jesus

baptized by the holy spirit. In fact, in the gospel of John, Jesus

didn't

baptize at all, but His followers did.

That is correct, Rob. Clearly you are in the right in this, and the
other person is incorrect.

Jesus never baptized anyone by immersion, but was Himself so immersed
by John the Baptist.

We cannot even agree on that, for it isn't shown whether or not Jesus was
really fully immersed. The origanization of the grammer states simply
that
he was baptized and then he came up out of the water and was visited by
the
Holy Spirit. In this, Jesus was up to his waste in water (if not less)
and
was baptized by John the Baptist, which could very well have been scooping
the water up in his hands and pouring it over Jesus' head.

Explain
1. the reason Jesus would have walked down waist deep into the river
water, and then John would have "scooped the water in his hands and
poured it over" ?

Because that might have been how John the Baptist did it. There is no other
proof that he did only full immersion. In a baptism, it isn't important how
much water is used.

You CONTINUE to ignore Paul's remarks. And it OBVIOUSLY IS important
how much water is used. Jesus sought John out BECAUSE he was baptizing
people in water DEEP ENOUGH TO SUBMERGE THEM.

Particularly since Paul specifically describes baptism as representing
"burial."

You are wrong here. Paul doesn't describe baptism as "burial" but merely
states that we are buried with Him through baptism.

semantics and scripture twisting. No matter HOW CLEAR the teaching is,
if Rome says otherwise, you will NEVER admit it.
RO 6:1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace
may increase? 2 By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any
longer? 3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into
Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in
order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory
of the Father, we too may live a new life.
It DOES say "we were therefore BURIED WITH HIM through baptism..."
And YOU ONCE AGAIN, are a liar.
RO 6:5 If we have been united with him like this in his death, we
will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6 For we
know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin
might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin-- 7
because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
THe burial part

reflects not on the baptism, but on the sentence afterwards, describing that
just as Christ was raised from the dead, so we shall walk in new life.

You are stretching to avoid immersion.
jw
snip
.

User: "RS"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	20 Dec 2004 04:04:04 AM

"j w @yahoo.com>" <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:is2ds0pr1io9heb60jnt1apu44upmb66ti@4ax.com...

It DOES say "we were therefore BURIED WITH HIM through baptism..."

Yes, buried with him through baptism. The buried part doesn't symbolize to
the baptism part.

And YOU ONCE AGAIN, are a liar.

RO 6:5 If we have been united with him like this in his death, we
will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6 For we
know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin
might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin-- 7
because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

THe burial part

reflects not on the baptism, but on the sentence afterwards, describing
that
just as Christ was raised from the dead, so we shall walk in new life.

You are stretching to avoid immersion.

You are stretching to result in immersion. You forget here, JW, that I
condone immersion. I believe that no matter what amount of water is used,
the baptism is valid.
-RS
.

User: "Doc Watson -- the \Usenet GHOST!\ :O"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	20 Dec 2004 03:25:56 PM

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 05:04:04 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> spoke the
following words of wisdom:

Yes, buried with him through baptism. The buried part doesn't

symbolize to

the baptism part.

Actually, Rob------- yes it does. When we are immersed, it symbolozes
our death with Christ, vhence our burial.
When we emerge, it symbolozes out rebirth, or resurrection.
--
The official Usenet GHOST....
haunting romanists EVERYWHERE!
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA! BOO!
.

User: "j w"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	20 Dec 2004 11:24:27 PM

"j w @yahoo.com>" <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:is2ds0pr1io9heb60jnt1apu44upmb66ti@4ax.com...

It DOES say "we were therefore BURIED WITH HIM through baptism..."

Yes, buried with him through baptism. The buried part doesn't symbolize to
the baptism part.

THe burial part

reflects not on the baptism, but on the sentence afterwards, describing
that
just as Christ was raised from the dead, so we shall walk in new life.

You are stretching to avoid immersion.

You are stretching to result in immersion.

It's like this, RS. In exegeting text, we look for the MOST OBVIOUS
solution, NOT the most obscure. If the text says that Jesus "came up
out of the water", and if Paul says that baptism represents "burial",
the most OBVIOUS explanation IS that baptism represents burial in that
one is COVERED with the water as one would be covered with dirt.
YOU, however, since you don't like immersion, go to an EXTREME
"solution" to avoid the OBVIOUS immersion.
That is NOT sound apologetics or hermeneutics.
You merely twist scripture like a pretzel to ATTEMPT to make it say
what you WANT it to say.
HONEST Bible study REQUIRES us to accept what's on the written page
UNLESS there is VERY good reason not to.
SUCH AS, when Jesus said, "if your eye offends you, pluck it out..."
There is NO record in the New Testament where that actually took
place, so it's safe to assume that "instruction" is allegorical.
NOW YOU give me a GOOD reason to NOT believe the baptism passages
refer to immersion.
You can't.
You forget here, JW, that I

condone immersion.

SURE you do! You "condone immersion" so much that you refuse to be
immersed!!!
ANOETHER lie.
I believe that no matter what amount of water is used,

the baptism is valid.

I agree! IF there is not enough water to immerse. If there IS enough
water to immerse, you STILL haven't been immersed!
And I GUARANTEE you there is PLENTY of water at your church for
immersion if your "church" taught immersion.
AGAIN, you prefer mammon to God.
"If you love me, obey me."
jw

-RS

User: "j w"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	17 Dec 2004 07:02:20 PM

"j w @yahoo.com>" <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:q7n5s0d1l7up7qkoih04r7bl2jsl26uip0@4ax.com...

So as per Christ's example, we must all seek out John the Baptist and go
to
the Jordan River and be fully immsersed there?

I see NO interest in conforming to the teachings of the Bible BUT an
INTENSE interest in conforming to the misteaching of Rome (mammon).

The papacy isn't mammon. Mammon is a pagan god of riches.

Lie. "mammon" was the word Jesus used for "mankind." The passage in
modern English would read, "You cannot serve both God and man..."
When you obey MEN's traditions RATHER than God's word, you are loving
man above God.
jw
snip
.

User: "RS"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	17 Dec 2004 10:34:22 PM

"j w @yahoo.com>" <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:o907s05qudm57su0m6j42pu59q1633scjo@4ax.com...

"j w @yahoo.com>" <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:q7n5s0d1l7up7qkoih04r7bl2jsl26uip0@4ax.com...

So as per Christ's example, we must all seek out John the Baptist and go
to
the Jordan River and be fully immsersed there?

I see NO interest in conforming to the teachings of the Bible BUT an
INTENSE interest in conforming to the misteaching of Rome (mammon).

The papacy isn't mammon. Mammon is a pagan god of riches.

Lie. "mammon" was the word Jesus used for "mankind." The passage in
modern English would read, "You cannot serve both God and man..."

When you obey MEN's traditions RATHER than God's word, you are loving
man above God.

Mam�mon ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mmn)
n.
1.. Bible. Riches, avarice, and worldly gain personified as a false god in
the New Testament.
2.. often mammon Material wealth regarded as having an evil influence.
http://www.dictionary.com
More on mammon:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580b.htm
Describes mammon as money that man trusts in
http://latter-rain.com/perspectives/mammon.htm
Describes mammon as filthy money. Signifies riches. It is used in the book
of Matthew as a personficiation of riches.
http://www.occultopedia.com/m/mammon.htm
mammon is the syrian term for "money" or "riches"
http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/easton/east2396.htm
Mammon- a Syriac word meaning "weath" or "riches" Personified as the god of
riches in Matthew and Luke
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=120&letter=M&search=mammon
Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic for "riches".
Where is this that the word "mammon" though clear in all of these sources,
means 'mankind'? You cannot change what the word means. The entire passage
beforehand refers to men who serve physical and material wealth.
Consider the birds in the field. They do not reap nor sow nor store in
barns, yet our heavenly father feeds them. Are you not more important than
them?
Consider the lily in the field. They do not spin yet Solomon in all his
splendor was not adorned as one of these.
Fools. You ask "What are we to eat, what are we to drink, what are we to
wear?" yet these are things for the pagans to run after, not for you.
Christ is referring to the collection of riches and concern for material
things hiding people from true beauty in treasures.
You store your treasure here on earth where there is fire and moth to devour
it, and thieves to break in and steal it. Yet store your treasures in
heaven where there is no moth to devour nor thief to steal.
Mammon is the personfication of "riches" or "trusting in riches". There is
no indication in any credible source that "mammon" means mankind. You are
wrong and you lie. You have proven to me that the Holy Spirit doesn't speak
through you, for the gospel that you have given me isn't the one I was given
from God, and the interpretation you have made from the teachings of the
Word of God aren't what the Word taught.
You will be in my prayers. I am sorry to see that you have failed in
grasping the truth of Christ in this matter.
-RS
begin 666 pron.jpg
M_]C_X `02D9)1@`!`@$`2 !(``#_[08(4&AO=&]S:&]P(#,N, `X0DE-`^D`
M`````'@`'@```$@`2 `````"YP)3__?_^ ,/`EL@`@4H`_P``````6@!: ``
M```.@PN?`70`,@N?2*@`2P`!`0$````!)P\``0`!````````````````````
M`````````0!D`P```````````!"A"@`1`````````%,V,# X0DE-`^T`````
M`! `2 !"``$``0!(`$(``0`!.$))300-```````$````>#A"24T#\P``````
M" ``````````.$))300*```````!```X0DE-)Q ```````H``0`````````"
M.$))30/U``````!(`"]F9@`!`&QF9@`&```````!`"]F9@`!`*&9F@`&````
M```!`#(````!`%H````&```````!`#4````!`"T````&```````!.$))30/X
M``````!P``#_____________________________`^@`````____________
M_________________P/H`````/____________________________\#Z ``
M``#_____________________________`^@``#A"24T$" ``````'P````$`
M``) ```"0 ````,``!1 ````!> !```]50``.$))3001```````!`0`X0DE-
M!!0```````0```#Q.$))300,``````,3`````0````T````5````* ```T@`
M``+W`!@``?_8_^ `$$I&248``0(!`$@`2 ``__X`)D9I;&4@=W)I='1E;B!B
M>2!!9&]B92!0:&]T;W-H;W"H(#4N,/_N``Y!9&]B90!D@ ````'_VP"$``P(
M" @)" P)"0P1"PH+$14/# P/%1@3$Q43$Q@1# P,# P,$0P,# P,# P,# P,
M# P,# P,# P,# P,# P,# P!#0L+#0X-$ X.$!0.#@X4% X.#@X4$0P,# P,
M$1$,# P,# P1# P,# P,# P,# P,# P,# P,# P,# P,# P,#/_ `!$(`!4`
M#0,!(@`"$0$#$0'_W0`$``'_Q $_```!!0$!`0$!`0`````````#``$"! 4&
M!P@)"@L!``$%`0$!`0$!``````````$``@,$!08'" D*"Q ``00!`P($`@4'
M!@@%`PPS`0`"$0,$(1(Q!4%181,B<8$R!A21H;%"(R054L%B,S1R@M%#!R62
M4_#A\6-S-1:BLH,F1)-49$7"HW0V%])5XF7RLX3#TW7C\T8GE*2%M)7$U.3T
MI;7%U>7U5F9VAI:FML;6YO8W1U=G=X>7I[?'U^?W$0`"`@$"! 0#! 4&!P<&
M!34!``(1`R$Q$@1!46%Q(A,%,H&1%*&Q0B/!4M'P,R1BX7*"DD-3%6-S-/$E
M!A:BLH,')C7"TD235*,79$55-G1EXO*SA,/3=>/S1I2DA;25Q-3D]*6UQ=7E
M]59F=H:6IK;&UN;V)S='5V=WAY>GM\?_V@`,`P$``A$#$0`_`/0\CZQ]$QW6
M,MS*_4I):^L&7[FZ.9L;[M^[\U9;.N]<.3<XXHVLMI+</3U?0?3D7/U_[E_H
MF/\`2_ZRK&/C==Z<<OT,;&R:K,B[)8/5<VPBQQM]/6KT_4_MJA5UK#_:>3U#
MW[?5QV>CM/J^K]GRV?9?2_T_J?H]JBXI6+\?35?HR;(QPX94+%#UWQ</KAT_
M0?_0]45-O[(^W/V^C]LWL]3C?ZFRSTI_X3[/ZW_6E\Q)('ILD;2WVZ>?Z3__
MV0`X0DE-! $``````+8`!@````````````````````````````````````4`
M``````````````````````````````$#QYYZ^[B=B@/,DDG[I8G9`\R22?NE
MB=D``0.TDDG[R[$[`ZYYZ/Q0G8H#J&&&_-6)V0`!`_SSS_S%B=D#_///_,6)
MV0/\\\_\Q8G9``$$-GGH_'V)V00.>>C\( ``! ///?P(`````0/9AAC[_$[%
M`]C##/OIV)X#USST^\1.Q3A"24T$!@``````!P`(`0$``0$`__X`)D9I;&4@
M=W)I='1E;B!B>2!!9&]B92!0:&]T;W-H;W"H(#4N,/_N`"%!9&]B90!D0 ``
M``$#`! #`@,&````````````````_]L`A `!`0$!`0$!`0$!`0$!`0$!`0$!
M`0$!`0$!`0$!`0$!`0$!`0$!`0$!`0$!`@("`@("`@("`@(#`P,#`P,#`P,#
M`0$!`0$!`0$!`0$"`@$"`@,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#
M`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P/_P@`1" `5``T#`1$``A$!`Q$!_\0`F@`!
M``,`````````````````" <)"@$!`0$!````````````````!@4'"! ``0,#
M! ,!````````````!@0%" (#!P`!%181(A<8$0``!0(%! ,!```````````#
M! 4&!P$"$Q06%P@`$40505$2)!(``0,#`P(&`04``````````0(#!!$2$P`4
M!2$B,4$R0A4&(Q#P8206_]H`# ,!`0(1`Q$```#9J0=BT;H,KU8I?,L+W-RY
ML.YU5__:``@!`@`!!0!<=B*"[9,2^M<A0&8_4G+FGG]4=9Y?_]H`" $#``$%
M`&_&1ZZ6K^/P*VUN+GCXJI5 C[U7;5SN/!?_V@`(`0$``04`.)^0[QZO9YES
M)6'P, 35CM<'9@8CVD-Z^$?Y?^P__]H`" $"`@8_`);$GGH^Y94I"FPHJ7<D
MT4@(2"HKN%H2`23T'4ZY%Q7"IQ-R(Y3$J-P(KD:4\H5\#*.-"PU6@H6@JXE6
MN:V7$\?*BO<A)DH_L.(=4EYTN! "F"V%T-H)7;<1W 5.N7Y_\N+<Q$8;#GW&
MSG)VV/QS7]EOIKW76=WZ2+-M\WF;O].3+B=Q5\\F#+;[\5WEK__:``@!`P(&
M/P"#(B?5Y1AR4H6VZI-C1;6 4N%:BE*6RDA16H@`=3KBFT_8%AUV++2J=0[8
MS&IL*.@V^H0@'EHS!-YNS%%H"!]=^0YWEH,UGC(<-RD5IUA*X[*6BY5,D.*:
MN%U W?;6B2>FN"^KT9R[.>[GR#;;;Y'CE[S-Z=M9^2_QITLR=NOY_?CJ)DWW
M^>P.XZWXL.=G-;Y8MS@N]F:SWZ__V@`(`0$!!C\`=R(Y>0$?!N=CJ"RBN%GI
MBK5:=X#B0AA2:@V"K:2@C:LH.:Q0!J5L(@A7F!#-:!VVUNKVZD4\/"J?>F-Z
M1H854OCS08E9+9>!WC!$]2&O%;U"T.A$Q/APVQ4Y2M0KS%2@-P%4NPQ046\>
MLY:(B'CM+34='(&<YS;P0LO.YI2(L(LD/I5>I1L!DC\3G6HGNP,D;H5"N&5+
M2.:_-;Q[0_T)28.07=T>KNDSC>TZ1UIM0W9K+MO%SE2CW0;HC#S^ZE'-?1.R
M/? QJXV/E?Z.J?7Q]]./);3[W:O96IL+T.M->[;O[0V?\K6&T^HLIYWH\SX_
#7__9
`
end
begin 666 abreve.gif
M1TE&.#EA!P`/`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````'``\```(5A ^!H<P(
1C3M*VDMK:KAZ_3S1&!$H`#L`
`
end
begin 666 prime.gif
M1TE&.#EA! `6`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````$`!8```(.A(^I$<;>
*0)2JVHLO00$`.P``
`
end
begin 666 schwa.gif
M1TE&.#EA!@`/`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````&``\```(0A(^I>^$6
,&H@2N7MK9AP0% `[
`
end
.

User: "j w"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	18 Dec 2004 09:07:39 PM

"j w @yahoo.com>" <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:q7n5s0d1l7up7qkoih04r7bl2jsl26uip0@4ax.com...

So as per Christ's example, we must all seek out John the Baptist and go
to
the Jordan River and be fully immsersed there?

I see NO interest in conforming to the teachings of the Bible BUT an
INTENSE interest in conforming to the misteaching of Rome (mammon).

The papacy isn't mammon. Mammon is a pagan god of riches. The Vatican
isn't a pagan god, it is the "government" of the Roman Catholic Church.

Jesus gave the example of Believers' baptism by immersion. He did it,
and the early church did it, following His example. Can you find that
one passage where JESUS baptized His early follower? Including--
likely-- the 12 apostles?

Can you find many passages where Jesus was actually baptizing by water?
John the baptist stated outright that he baptized with water, yet Jesus
baptized by the holy spirit. In fact, in the gospel of John, Jesus didn't
baptize at all, but His followers did.

The PROOF that one must not go to the Jordan River and have John the
Baptist immerse one is that Phillip baptized the eunuch and it was NOT
in the Jordan River.

And thousands were baptized in Acts, yet it doesn't claim they were all
baptisms of immersion. That would be foolish and would pollute the local
water supply.

You sure add a lot of human "twist" to the story. Why would you think
that any Jew/Christian would go to the River Jordan to be baptized, a
MOST HOLY event and be dirty, unwashed, unclean? Would YOU?
To bathe 3000 people
NOTHING was said in the text about anyone being BATHED as part of the
baptism ceremony. AGAIN, you MUST TWIST the text into something it
doesn't say (perverting the holy scriptures) to make your point.
in the local water supply isn't a smart

thing to do.

If 10,000 people were clean when they went to the river for baptism,
they'd not pollute the water.
They were smart enough to realize that there was limited water

in Jerusalem and that plunging 3000 unwashed bodies into that water supply
would have been a health risk.

AGAIN, you make every conceivable excuse for obeying mammon and not
God.
Why?

AGAIN, you aren't interested in the Bible or how Jesus did it, or in
what the apostles taught. You will accept any heresy of Rome as long
as it comes from Rome.

On the contary, I take scripture and interpret it logically,

Why are you "interpreting" when the text needs no interpreting? If
you take the baptism stories and baptism instructions literally, they
require NO interpretation. Jesus said you must be baptized; Jesus said
you must be baptized as a BELIEVER. Jesus specified that even young
children WHO BELIEVED could be baptized. Paul said that the baptism
MUST cover your entire body, as would dirt when you're buried.
All that is as clear as spring water.
unlike your

argument. "Jesus was immersed so that is the only valid baptism!"

I have never made that remark, nor has Streamer. We object to the
fallacy that sprinkling is scriptural; it is not. We also object to
baptizing infants who have no choice or say in the matter; that is
also not scriptural, and if you analyze WHY those infants are being
baptized, the reasons are demonic.
yet John

the Baptist clearly states that it isn't. "I baptize with water. Here
comes one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit."

I have asked you a dozen times to explain your absolute rejection of
believers' immersion baptism.

You have yet to do so.

Just as the people kept asking Jesus over and over again to tell them who he
is (in John), I have told you plenty of times my scriptural justification of
baptism through infusion (pouring).

You have yet to show me ONE INSTANCE of where any elder baptized
ANYONE in that manner in the New Testament.
I couldn't care LESS what Rome thinks; show me in the Bible.
jw
snip
.

User: "RS"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	18 Dec 2004 10:11:24 PM

<snip>
I thought you were done with me. You keep saying it yet you keep
responding.
You can do something called not responding. It will make your life a whole
lot easier because it will allow you to continue being satisfied in the lies
you are spreading.
Bye
-RS
.

User: "j w"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	19 Dec 2004 04:46:47 PM

<snip>

I thought you were done with me. You keep saying it yet you keep
responding.

A BRIGHT person might have noticed that I have stopped responding to
your vomit commentary.
And one reason is that because after REPEATED requests for you to stop
chopping ALL previous comments, you CONTINUE to chop all previous
comments, so no one knows WHAT you are responding to.
Sheesh!
jw
snip
.

User: "RS"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	19 Dec 2004 04:57:50 PM

<snip>
Any moron with half a brain realizes that what I am responding to is in the
post above what they are currently reading.
-RS
.

User: "ujb"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	19 Dec 2004 05:21:27 PM

RS wrote:

<snip>

Any moron with half a brain realizes that what I am responding to is in the
post above what they are currently reading.

You are talking with the 'scrambled one' who seems to thinks it ok if a man and
his mate make sex movies for profit? Poor jw ain't your normal moron! :(
ujb

-RS

User: "RS"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	19 Dec 2004 06:19:44 PM

"ujb" <ujibwa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41C60CF7.91BF34EB@yahoo.com...

RS wrote:

<snip>

Any moron with half a brain realizes that what I am responding to is in
the
post above what they are currently reading.

You are talking with the 'scrambled one' who seems to thinks it ok if a
man and
his mate make sex movies for profit? Poor jw ain't your normal moron! :(
ujb

Haha, you're pretty funny, uj. You shed some light on JW that I have never
seen shine before :p
-RS
.

User: "CB"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	19 Dec 2004 07:25:41 PM

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:19:44 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:

"ujb" <ujibwa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41C60CF7.91BF34EB@yahoo.com...

RS wrote:

<snip>

Any moron with half a brain realizes that what I am responding to is in
the
post above what they are currently reading.

You are talking with the 'scrambled one' who seems to thinks it ok if a
man and
his mate make sex movies for profit? Poor jw ain't your normal moron! :(
ujb

Haha, you're pretty funny, uj. You shed some light on JW that I have never
seen shine before :p

your response to a known moron is duly noted.

-RS

O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.
Psalm 8:1
.

User: "ujb"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	19 Dec 2004 07:33:22 PM

CB wrote:

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:19:44 -0500, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:

"ujb" <ujibwa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41C60CF7.91BF34EB@yahoo.com...

RS wrote:

<snip>

Any moron with half a brain realizes that what I am responding to is in
the
post above what they are currently reading.

You are talking with the 'scrambled one' who seems to thinks it ok if a
man and
his mate make sex movies for profit? Poor jw ain't your normal moron! :(
ujb

Haha, you're pretty funny, uj. You shed some light on JW that I have never
seen shine before :p

your response to a known moron is duly noted.

Who told the truth and can show the post!
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.baptist/msg/612d0320038a557c?dmode=source
.

User: "RS"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	20 Dec 2004 01:36:55 AM

"ujb" <ujibwa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41C62BE2.B839D8D7@yahoo.com...

Who told the truth and can show the post!
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.baptist/msg/612d0320038a557c?dmode=source

Haha, JW likes porn. What an awesome way to walk in the path of Christ but
to commit adultery of the body and mind...
-RS
.

User: "j w"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	20 Dec 2004 10:59:08 PM

"ujb" <ujibwa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41C62BE2.B839D8D7@yahoo.com...

Who told the truth and can show the post!
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.baptist/msg/612d0320038a557c?dmode=source

Haha, JW likes porn.

Jim Agar lies.
jw
What an awesome way to walk in the path of Christ but

to commit adultery of the body and mind...

-RS

User: "Doc Watson -- the \Usenet GHOST!\ :O"
Title: Re: Please read! :) (especially the end)	20 Dec 2004 03:25:52 PM

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:25:41 -0600, CB <country2000@hotmail.com> spoke
the following words of wisdom:
ujie the wannabe trol moaned and groaned:

You are tal