On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:12:50 -0500, "Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)"
<christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote:

""Mark T"" <thinkaboutwh@youaredoing2322232322254464556867552> wrote in
message news:448a1e80@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:

NONE!!! Not one single case in the last 25 years. This includes
children and victims through
needle stick.

Actually, I have witnessed spontaneous disappearance of HIV titers in
some folks that have refused anti-retroviral cocktails.

Permanently? Written up in any medical journal? Journal name, number,
article name, author???

Unlike you, I do not doubt the possibility of miracles.

No objective evidence of any miracles. Plenty of things science
couldn't explain at the time, but the sun DOESN'T move across the sky
because the sun god pulls it across in his chariot, remember? It's
not a miracle, just a lack of knowledge.

I am a liberal Christian and Exiled Believer (Read John Shelby Spong).

....

First mistake: God heals, not God's Messiah. Jesus is YHWH's Christ /
Messiah not YHWH himself.

Christ Jesus is GOD the Son.

Jesus of Nazareth never claimed that. He called himself the Son of Man
indicating his humanity.

Agreed

First - it's Jesus the NAZORITE, not Jesus the NAZARENE. A simple
translation error changed him from a man who obeys God to a man who
comes from a town that didn't exist until long after he was dead. And
the claim wasn't even made until he was dead (supposedly - fictional
characters don't really die) well over a century.

Second - first century Christianity wasn't about a man called the
Christ, it was about a congregation of the Chreestos - "the Anointed
of God". 'Jesus' was the Logos - the part of God that he used to
interact with the universe, not some person - until long after the
second century started.

Most so-called "Christians" have no idea when the first recorded use
of Jesus, the man, as opposed to Chreestos, the followers, occurred.
And it wasn't in 'inspired' writing, it was in writing that went
largely ignored for a long time.

Never stated by the hostorical Jesus of Nazareth nor the historical
Thomas. ONLY in John's gospel written 90 - 120 CE.

For me the possible date it was written is not relevant.

If you're interested in truth it should be. If you're only interested
in "facts" that back up your beliefs you wouldn't be. When something
was written is sometimes more important than what was written, or by
whom.

Agreed, but *even* Jesus' namesake doesn't give Jesus the credit, as His
name means "God saves" / "God is salvation"

Funny, since early Christianity - say up until about 150 - believed
that salvation was through knowledge of the god of Moses. There was
no belief in any "son" of any "god" who died for salvation. That was
a later addition.

Realize that in the last couple of years new discoveries about early
Christianity have been made. Most of what Christians have believed
for centuries wasn't. Of course that won't change the minds of any
"true believers" - belief has nothing to do with fact, just with
belief.

Funny, that, since Logos, the only path to salvation according to real
Christianity, can be translated as "truth", which "true believers"
aren't at all interested in. Kind of makes you wonder who the
Christians are.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate
understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein
Archive 59-085
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)