| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"James" |
| Date: |
19 Nov 2006 11:31:30 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Simple Question (9) |
*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>
Re: Simple Question
In article <y_AZg.3646$4T6.1070@trnddc02>,
Gilbertus Albans <primemenstat@world.net> wrote:
How do you identify a false religion?
That would be the religion of anyone who doesn't agree with me. {;-)
Hello,
As to a more serious note, here was my response to the poster. See if
it makes any Scriptural sense to you:
"Many are easily identified by their "fruit"- by their conduct, etc.
Jesus explained it this way at Mt 7:15-20,
"15. "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
16. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes
from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17. Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears
bad fruit.
18. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear
good fruit.
19. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown
into the fire.
20. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." (NIV)
For example, if a religion professes to be Christian, and yet supports
the wars of this world, they are directly going against Jesus' words
at Mt 5:44,
"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute
you," (NASB)
Instead of 'loving' their enemies, they try to spread out his guts on
a battlefield. (or worse) Their 'fruit' shows them to be just what
they are; a false religion.
Of course when one is in the true religion (like Jesus' disciples were
in the first century), it is easier to recognize false religions that
are much different than yours. (like the pagan religions around those
first century Christians)
At any rate, there are some things to look for than one would
logically expect of a true religion. For instance, if God wanted
everyone to follow Him, then He would make sure that everyone would
get the opportunity to hear about Him and learn about Him etc.
Interestingly, the Bible is in more languages and widely distributed
than any other religious book. As the World Book Encyclopedia puts it:
"The Bible is the most widely distributed book in history. It has also
been translated more times, and into more languages, than any other
book."
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************"
.
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
30 Dec 2006 07:09:41 PM |
|
|
Steve O wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1167513742.227362.136250@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 19:18:15 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
There's not a single mention of a corporeal Jesus in any document in
our possession that was written in the first century.
I think you are the one with a made-up story, Al. You do not know a
thing about what happened in the first century.
What does your response have to do with what you responded to? I'm
talking about the TWENTY-FIRST century. We DO NOT HAVE any document
written in the first century that mentions a corporeal Jesus. Present
tense.
Well, yes, we do Al. In fact, the book of Isaiah, written in 700 B.C.
, mentions a corporeal Jesus. If you do not have a Bible, maybe I
could send you one.
Robert B. Winn
Liar.
It says no such thing.
If you think it does, please quote verse and chapter.
Or stop lying.
===>What hideous liars keep on posting in these NGs.
There is NOTHING about an "Jesus" or "IESOUS" or
"JOSHUA" or whatever name they wish to use.
Anyway, how could a writer "in 700 B.C."
have written ANYTHING about ANYONE 700 years later?
Once someone submits to the brainwashing of "faith",
they will believe any nonsense so long as their hypnotist
preacher tells them it is so. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sugien" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
30 Dec 2006 07:30:21 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:7cqdnbkb3ddTkArYnZ2dnUVZ_vWtnZ2d@comcast.com...
Steve O wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1167513742.227362.136250@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 19:18:15 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
There's not a single mention of a corporeal Jesus in any document in
our possession that was written in the first century.
I think you are the one with a made-up story, Al. You do not know a
thing about what happened in the first century.
What does your response have to do with what you responded to? I'm
talking about the TWENTY-FIRST century. We DO NOT HAVE any document
written in the first century that mentions a corporeal Jesus. Present
tense.
Well, yes, we do Al. In fact, the book of Isaiah, written in 700 B.C.
, mentions a corporeal Jesus. If you do not have a Bible, maybe I
could send you one.
Robert B. Winn
Liar.
It says no such thing.
If you think it does, please quote verse and chapter.
Or stop lying.
===>What hideous liars keep on posting in these NGs.
There is NOTHING about an "Jesus" or "IESOUS" or
"JOSHUA" or whatever name they wish to use.
Anyway, how could a writer "in 700 B.C."
have written ANYTHING about ANYONE 700 years later?
Once someone submits to the brainwashing of "faith",
they will believe any nonsense so long as their hypnotist
preacher tells them it is so. -- L.
Ah so now the truth comes out *YOUR* faith was *brainwashed* out of you and
then you were hypnotized into believing your own tripe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
03 Jan 2007 12:07:04 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 20:30:21 -0500, "Sugien" <dinosoft@adelphia.net>
wrote:
Ah so now the truth comes out *YOUR* faith was *brainwashed* out of you and
then you were hypnotized into believing your own tripe.
Some of us never had any religion to BE "washed out" of us. We were
born not believing in any god and never began to believe in one.
Unless you're brainwashed from early childhood, there's no reason to
believe in any god.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
31 Dec 2006 05:13:04 PM |
|
|
Sugien wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:7cqdnbkb3ddTkArYnZ2dnUVZ_vWtnZ2d@comcast.com...
Steve O wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1167513742.227362.136250@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 19:18:15 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
There's not a single mention of a corporeal Jesus in any document in
our possession that was written in the first century.
I think you are the one with a made-up story, Al. You do not know a
thing about what happened in the first century.
What does your response have to do with what you responded to? I'm
talking about the TWENTY-FIRST century. We DO NOT HAVE any document
written in the first century that mentions a corporeal Jesus. Present
tense.
Well, yes, we do Al. In fact, the book of Isaiah, written in 700 B.C.
, mentions a corporeal Jesus. If you do not have a Bible, maybe I
could send you one.
Robert B. Winn
Liar.
It says no such thing.
If you think it does, please quote verse and chapter.
Or stop lying.
===>What hideous liars keep on posting in these NGs.
There is NOTHING about an "Jesus" or "IESOUS" or
"JOSHUA" or whatever name they wish to use.
Anyway, how could a writer "in 700 B.C."
have written ANYTHING about ANYONE 700 years later?
Once someone submits to the brainwashing of "faith",
they will believe any nonsense so long as their hypnotist
preacher tells them it is so. -- L.
Ah so now the truth comes out *YOUR* faith was *brainwashed* out of you and
then you were hypnotized into believing your own tripe.
===>Ah, trying to be funni, Idiot?
I don't live by FAITH, YOU do
so, your dumb illogic does not apply! -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
03 Jan 2007 12:05:15 AM |
|
|
On 30 Dec 2006 13:22:22 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 19:18:15 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
There's not a single mention of a corporeal Jesus in any document in
our possession that was written in the first century.
I think you are the one with a made-up story, Al. You do not know a
thing about what happened in the first century.
What does your response have to do with what you responded to? I'm
talking about the TWENTY-FIRST century. We DO NOT HAVE any document
written in the first century that mentions a corporeal Jesus. Present
tense.
Well, yes, we do Al. In fact, the book of Isaiah, written in 700 B.C.
It mentions a warrior savior named Immanuel, but no Yeshua. Apologists
claim that, through some sleight-of-mouth, Immanuel the Warrior
becomes Yeshua the Peacebringer.
We have no original document written before the second century that
mentions a corporeal person named Yeshua. We don't even have an
original OT, just copies - and NO actual evidence of when it was
written.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
03 Jan 2007 04:01:02 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 30 Dec 2006 13:22:22 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 19:18:15 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
There's not a single mention of a corporeal Jesus in any document in
our possession that was written in the first century.
I think you are the one with a made-up story, Al. You do not know a
thing about what happened in the first century.
What does your response have to do with what you responded to? I'm
talking about the TWENTY-FIRST century. We DO NOT HAVE any document
written in the first century that mentions a corporeal Jesus. Present
tense.
Well, yes, we do Al. In fact, the book of Isaiah, written in 700 B.C.
It mentions a warrior savior named Immanuel, but no Yeshua. Apologists
claim that, through some sleight-of-mouth, Immanuel the Warrior
becomes Yeshua the Peacebringer.
We have no original document written before the second century that
mentions a corporeal person named Yeshua. We don't even have an
original OT, just copies - and NO actual evidence of when it was
written.
Frankly any request tp purchase a bible during the third century would have
been received with a blank stare, or a comment such as "Buy a WHAT!?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) - ORIGINAL "BIBLE" |
03 Jan 2007 07:27:01 PM |
|
|
bob young wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 30 Dec 2006 13:22:22 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 19:18:15 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
There's not a single mention of a corporeal Jesus in any document in
our possession that was written in the first century.
I think you are the one with a made-up story, Al. You do not know a
thing about what happened in the first century.
What does your response have to do with what you responded to? I'm
talking about the TWENTY-FIRST century. We DO NOT HAVE any document
written in the first century that mentions a corporeal Jesus. Present
tense.
Well, yes, we do Al. In fact, the book of Isaiah, written in 700 B.C.
It mentions a warrior savior named Immanuel, but no Yeshua. Apologists
claim that, through some sleight-of-mouth, Immanuel the Warrior
becomes Yeshua the Peacebringer.
We have no original document written before the second century that
mentions a corporeal person named Yeshua. We don't even have an
original OT, just copies - and NO actual evidence of when it was
written.
Frankly any request tp purchase a bible during the third century would have
been received with a blank stare, or a comment such as "Buy a WHAT!?"
===>There was no such thing as
canonical "Bible" until the Vulgate,
compiled and translated into LATIN
from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts
by Jerome, a Catholic monk, later Catholic priest,
between 382 and 405 CE. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) - ORIGINAL "BIBLE" |
03 Jan 2007 07:47:31 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
bob young wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 30 Dec 2006 13:22:22 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 19:18:15 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
There's not a single mention of a corporeal Jesus in any document in
our possession that was written in the first century.
I think you are the one with a made-up story, Al. You do not know a
thing about what happened in the first century.
What does your response have to do with what you responded to? I'm
talking about the TWENTY-FIRST century. We DO NOT HAVE any document
written in the first century that mentions a corporeal Jesus. Present
tense.
Well, yes, we do Al. In fact, the book of Isaiah, written in 700 B.C.
It mentions a warrior savior named Immanuel, but no Yeshua. Apologists
claim that, through some sleight-of-mouth, Immanuel the Warrior
becomes Yeshua the Peacebringer.
We have no original document written before the second century that
mentions a corporeal person named Yeshua. We don't even have an
original OT, just copies - and NO actual evidence of when it was
written.
Frankly any request tp purchase a bible during the third century would have
been received with a blank stare, or a comment such as "Buy a WHAT!?"
===>There was no such thing as
canonical "Bible" until the Vulgate,
compiled and translated into LATIN
from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts
by Jerome, a Catholic monk, later Catholic priest,
between 382 and 405 CE. -- L.
Well, that may be, but books of the Bible existed from Old Testament
times.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) - ORIGINAL "BIBLE" |
03 Jan 2007 09:34:22 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
bob young wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 30 Dec 2006 13:22:22 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 19:18:15 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
There's not a single mention of a corporeal Jesus in any document in
our possession that was written in the first century.
I think you are the one with a made-up story, Al. You do not know a
thing about what happened in the first century.
What does your response have to do with what you responded to? I'm
talking about the TWENTY-FIRST century. We DO NOT HAVE any document
written in the first century that mentions a corporeal Jesus. Present
tense.
Well, yes, we do Al. In fact, the book of Isaiah, written in 700 B.C.
It mentions a warrior savior named Immanuel, but no Yeshua. Apologists
claim that, through some sleight-of-mouth, Immanuel the Warrior
becomes Yeshua the Peacebringer.
We have no original document written before the second century that
mentions a corporeal person named Yeshua. We don't even have an
original OT, just copies - and NO actual evidence of when it was
written.
Frankly any request tp purchase a bible during the third century would have
been received with a blank stare, or a comment such as "Buy a WHAT!?"
===>There was no such thing as
canonical "Bible" until the Vulgate,
compiled and translated into LATIN
from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts
by Jerome, a Catholic monk, later Catholic priest,
between 382 and 405 CE. -- L.
Well, that may be, but books of the Bible existed from Old Testament
times.
===>LOTS of books existed before Church authorities selected,
edited and compiled their "Bible". -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) - ORIGINAL "BIBLE" |
03 Jan 2007 11:03:02 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
bob young wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 30 Dec 2006 13:22:22 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 19:18:15 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
There's not a single mention of a corporeal Jesus in any document in
our possession that was written in the first century.
I think you are the one with a made-up story, Al. You do not know a
thing about what happened in the first century.
What does your response have to do with what you responded to? I'm
talking about the TWENTY-FIRST century. We DO NOT HAVE any document
written in the first century that mentions a corporeal Jesus. Present
tense.
Well, yes, we do Al. In fact, the book of Isaiah, written in 700 B.C.
It mentions a warrior savior named Immanuel, but no Yeshua. Apologists
claim that, through some sleight-of-mouth, Immanuel the Warrior
becomes Yeshua the Peacebringer.
We have no original document written before the second century that
mentions a corporeal person named Yeshua. We don't even have an
original OT, just copies - and NO actual evidence of when it was
written.
Frankly any request tp purchase a bible during the third century would have
been received with a blank stare, or a comment such as "Buy a WHAT!?"
===>There was no such thing as
canonical "Bible" until the Vulgate,
compiled and translated into LATIN
from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts
by Jerome, a Catholic monk, later Catholic priest,
between 382 and 405 CE. -- L.
Well, that may be, but books of the Bible existed from Old Testament
times.
Robert B. Winn
.....at least that is what his Padre told him
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) - ORIGINAL "BIBLE" |
03 Jan 2007 10:36:00 PM |
|
|
On 3 Jan 2007 17:47:31 -0800, wrote:
Well, that may be, but books of the Bible existed from Old Testament
times.
There were books (scrolls, actually), but there was no Bible, so there
were no books of the Bible. The concept "Bible" didn't exist in the
first century. Not even the Greeks referred to the sacred Hebrew
texts by that name, although it's a word derived from their word
(biblion).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
03 Jan 2007 02:38:22 PM |
|
|
bob young wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 30 Dec 2006 13:22:22 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 19:18:15 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
There's not a single mention of a corporeal Jesus in any document in
our possession that was written in the first century.
I think you are the one with a made-up story, Al. You do not know a
thing about what happened in the first century.
What does your response have to do with what you responded to? I'm
talking about the TWENTY-FIRST century. We DO NOT HAVE any document
written in the first century that mentions a corporeal Jesus. Present
tense.
Well, yes, we do Al. In fact, the book of Isaiah, written in 700 B.C.
It mentions a warrior savior named Immanuel, but no Yeshua. Apologists
claim that, through some sleight-of-mouth, Immanuel the Warrior
becomes Yeshua the Peacebringer.
We have no original document written before the second century that
mentions a corporeal person named Yeshua. We don't even have an
original OT, just copies - and NO actual evidence of when it was
written.
Frankly any request tp purchase a bible during the third century would have
been received with a blank stare, or a comment such as "Buy a WHAT!?"
So you believe the Essenes should have destroyed their scrolls of
Isaiah instead of hiding them in a cave by the Dead Sea?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
03 Jan 2007 11:02:02 PM |
|
|
wrote:
bob young wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 30 Dec 2006 13:22:22 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 19:18:15 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
There's not a single mention of a corporeal Jesus in any document in
our possession that was written in the first century.
I think you are the one with a made-up story, Al. You do not know a
thing about what happened in the first century.
What does your response have to do with what you responded to? I'm
talking about the TWENTY-FIRST century. We DO NOT HAVE any document
written in the first century that mentions a corporeal Jesus. Present
tense.
Well, yes, we do Al. In fact, the book of Isaiah, written in 700 B.C.
It mentions a warrior savior named Immanuel, but no Yeshua. Apologists
claim that, through some sleight-of-mouth, Immanuel the Warrior
becomes Yeshua the Peacebringer.
We have no original document written before the second century that
mentions a corporeal person named Yeshua. We don't even have an
original OT, just copies - and NO actual evidence of when it was
written.
Frankly any request tp purchase a bible during the third century would have
been received with a blank stare, or a comment such as "Buy a WHAT!?"
So you believe the Essenes should have destroyed their scrolls of
Isaiah instead of hiding them in a cave by the Dead Sea?
Robert B. Winn
ROFL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
03 Jan 2007 10:40:57 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 30 Dec 2006 13:22:22 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 19:18:15 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
There's not a single mention of a corporeal Jesus in any document in
our possession that was written in the first century.
I think you are the one with a made-up story, Al. You do not know a
thing about what happened in the first century.
What does your response have to do with what you responded to? I'm
talking about the TWENTY-FIRST century. We DO NOT HAVE any document
written in the first century that mentions a corporeal Jesus. Present
tense.
Well, yes, we do Al. In fact, the book of Isaiah, written in 700 B.C.
It mentions a warrior savior named Immanuel, but no Yeshua. Apologists
claim that, through some sleight-of-mouth, Immanuel the Warrior
becomes Yeshua the Peacebringer.
We have no original document written before the second century that
mentions a corporeal person named Yeshua. We don't even have an
original OT, just copies - and NO actual evidence of when it was
written.
We have the Dead Sea Scrolls which had two complete scrolls of the book
of Isaiah. The book of Isaiah mentions a corporeal person named
Yeshua.
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, etc.
Oh, I forgot. Back in 700 B.C. you still had time to put together a
plan to keep it from happening.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
03 Jan 2007 07:49:58 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 30 Dec 2006 13:22:22 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 19:18:15 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
There's not a single mention of a corporeal Jesus in any document in
our possession that was written in the first century.
I think you are the one with a made-up story, Al. You do not know a
thing about what happened in the first century.
What does your response have to do with what you responded to? I'm
talking about the TWENTY-FIRST century. We DO NOT HAVE any document
written in the first century that mentions a corporeal Jesus. Present
tense.
Well, yes, we do Al. In fact, the book of Isaiah, written in 700 B.C.
It mentions a warrior savior named Immanuel, but no Yeshua. Apologists
claim that, through some sleight-of-mouth, Immanuel the Warrior
becomes Yeshua the Peacebringer.
We have no original document written before the second century that
mentions a corporeal person named Yeshua. We don't even have an
original OT, just copies - and NO actual evidence of when it was
written.
We have the Dead Sea Scrolls which had two complete scrolls of the book
of Isaiah. The book of Isaiah mentions a corporeal person named
Yeshua.
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, etc.
Oh, I forgot. Back in 700 B.C. you still had time to put together a
plan to keep it from happening.
===>That child was a real prince,
Hezekiah, many centuries before the fictional
"Jesus". -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
03 Jan 2007 10:31:57 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 30 Dec 2006 13:22:22 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 19:18:15 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
There's not a single mention of a corporeal Jesus in any document in
our possession that was written in the first century.
I think you are the one with a made-up story, Al. You do not know a
thing about what happened in the first century.
What does your response have to do with what you responded to? I'm
talking about the TWENTY-FIRST century. We DO NOT HAVE any document
written in the first century that mentions a corporeal Jesus. Present
tense.
Well, yes, we do Al. In fact, the book of Isaiah, written in 700 B.C.
It mentions a warrior savior named Immanuel, but no Yeshua. Apologists
claim that, through some sleight-of-mouth, Immanuel the Warrior
becomes Yeshua the Peacebringer.
We have no original document written before the second century that
mentions a corporeal person named Yeshua. We don't even have an
original OT, just copies - and NO actual evidence of when it was
written.
We have the Dead Sea Scrolls which had two complete scrolls of the book
of Isaiah. The book of Isaiah mentions a corporeal person named
Yeshua.
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, etc.
Oh, I forgot. Back in 700 B.C. you still had time to put together a
plan to keep it from happening.
===>That child was a real prince,
Hezekiah, many centuries before the fictional
"Jesus". -- L.
Well, the prophecy was written by Isaiah. According to you, Isaiah and
Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah, got together the night Hezekiah was born
and said, Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, etc. If you
had read the rest of Isaiah, you might have a little more difficulty
visualizing that happy scene. Isaiah and Ahaz were not really given to
celebrating together.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
04 Jan 2007 07:25:45 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 30 Dec 2006 13:22:22 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 19:18:15 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
There's not a single mention of a corporeal Jesus in any document in
our possession that was written in the first century.
I think you are the one with a made-up story, Al. You do not know a
thing about what happened in the first century.
What does your response have to do with what you responded to? I'm
talking about the TWENTY-FIRST century. We DO NOT HAVE any document
written in the first century that mentions a corporeal Jesus. Present
tense.
Well, yes, we do Al. In fact, the book of Isaiah, written in 700 B.C.
It mentions a warrior savior named Immanuel, but no Yeshua. Apologists
claim that, through some sleight-of-mouth, Immanuel the Warrior
becomes Yeshua the Peacebringer.
We have no original document written before the second century that
mentions a corporeal person named Yeshua. We don't even have an
original OT, just copies - and NO actual evidence of when it was
written.
We have the Dead Sea Scrolls which had two complete scrolls of the book
of Isaiah. The book of Isaiah mentions a corporeal person named
Yeshua.
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, etc.
Oh, I forgot. Back in 700 B.C. you still had time to put together a
plan to keep it from happening.
===>That child was a real prince,
Hezekiah, many centuries before the fictional
"Jesus". -- L.
Well, the prophecy was written by Isaiah. According to you, Isaiah and
Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah, got together the night Hezekiah was born
and said, Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, etc. If you
had read the rest of Isaiah, you might have a little more difficulty
visualizing that happy scene. Isaiah and Ahaz were not really given to
celebrating together.
===>Only your crazy mind can conjure up such a
strawman scenario.
You're NUTS, RB! -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
04 Jan 2007 10:05:29 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 30 Dec 2006 13:22:22 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 19:18:15 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
There's not a single mention of a corporeal Jesus in any document in
our possession that was written in the first century.
I think you are the one with a made-up story, Al. You do not know a
thing about what happened in the first century.
What does your response have to do with what you responded to? I'm
talking about the TWENTY-FIRST century. We DO NOT HAVE any document
written in the first century that mentions a corporeal Jesus. Present
tense.
Well, yes, we do Al. In fact, the book of Isaiah, written in 700 B.C.
It mentions a warrior savior named Immanuel, but no Yeshua. Apologists
claim that, through some sleight-of-mouth, Immanuel the Warrior
becomes Yeshua the Peacebringer.
We have no original document written before the second century that
mentions a corporeal person named Yeshua. We don't even have an
original OT, just copies - and NO actual evidence of when it was
written.
We have the Dead Sea Scrolls which had two complete scrolls of the book
of Isaiah. The book of Isaiah mentions a corporeal person named
Yeshua.
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, etc.
Oh, I forgot. Back in 700 B.C. you still had time to put together a
plan to keep it from happening.
===>That child was a real prince,
Hezekiah, many centuries before the fictional
"Jesus". -- L.
Well, the prophecy was written by Isaiah. According to you, Isaiah and
Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah, got together the night Hezekiah was born
and said, Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, etc. If you
had read the rest of Isaiah, you might have a little more difficulty
visualizing that happy scene. Isaiah and Ahaz were not really given to
celebrating together.
===>Only your crazy mind can conjure up such a
strawman scenario.
You're NUTS, RB! -- L.
Oh well then you are trying to say that Isaiah came up with the happy
news all on his own. His worst enemy on earth has a son, and Isaiah
says, Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, his name shall
be called wonderful, etc.
When his own son was born he just said what his name was,
Maher-shalal-hash-baz. If you had read the book you would have noticed
that Hezekiah did not thrill Isaiah much at first and it was some time
before Isaiah was convinced that he was not going to follow in the
footsteps of his father Ahaz. Even after Hezekiah convinced the
prophet he wanted to live a righteous life, Isaiah would have some
corrective counsel for him from time to time. No, the subject of
Isaiah 9:6 was definitely not Hezekiah.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
06 Jan 2007 03:56:46 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 30 Dec 2006 13:22:22 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 19:18:15 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
There's not a single mention of a corporeal Jesus in any document in
our possession that was written in the first century.
I think you are the one with a made-up story, Al. You do not know a
thing about what happened in the first century.
What does your response have to do with what you responded to? I'm
talking about the TWENTY-FIRST century. We DO NOT HAVE any document
written in the first century that mentions a corporeal Jesus. Present
tense.
Well, yes, we do Al. In fact, the book of Isaiah, written in 700 B.C.
It mentions a warrior savior named Immanuel, but no Yeshua. Apologists
claim that, through some sleight-of-mouth, Immanuel the Warrior
becomes Yeshua the Peacebringer.
We have no original document written before the second century that
mentions a corporeal person named Yeshua. We don't even have an
original OT, just copies - and NO actual evidence of when it was
written.
We have the Dead Sea Scrolls which had two complete scrolls of the book
of Isaiah. The book of Isaiah mentions a corporeal person named
Yeshua.
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, etc.
Oh, I forgot. Back in 700 B.C. you still had time to put together a
plan to keep it from happening.
===>That child was a real prince,
Hezekiah, many centuries before the fictional
"Jesus". -- L.
Well, the prophecy was written by Isaiah. According to you, Isaiah and
Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah, got together the night Hezekiah was born
and said, Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, etc. If you
had read the rest of Isaiah, you might have a little more difficulty
visualizing that happy scene. Isaiah and Ahaz were not really given to
celebrating together.
===>Only your crazy mind can conjure up such a
strawman scenario.
You're NUTS, RB! -- L.
Oh well then you are trying to say that Isaiah came up with the happy
news all on his own. His worst enemy on earth has a son, and Isaiah
says, Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, his name shall
be called wonderful, etc.
When his own son was born he just said what his name was,
Maher-shalal-hash-baz. If you had read the book you would have noticed
that Hezekiah did not thrill Isaiah much at first and it was some time
before Isaiah was convinced that he was not going to follow in the
footsteps of his father Ahaz. Even after Hezekiah convinced the
prophet he wanted to live a righteous life, Isaiah would have some
corrective counsel for him from time to time. No, the subject of
Isaiah 9:6 was definitely not Hezekiah.
===>Deny it all you want,
"the subject" could NEVER have been the "Iesous" of the fictional
Gospel stories, since "the subject" was born
hundreds of years before. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
06 Jan 2007 08:56:56 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 30 Dec 2006 13:22:22 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 19:18:15 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
There's not a single mention of a corporeal Jesus in any document in
our possession that was written in the first century.
I think you are the one with a made-up story, Al. You do not know a
thing about what happened in the first century.
What does your response have to do with what you responded to? I'm
talking about the TWENTY-FIRST century. We DO NOT HAVE any document
written in the first century that mentions a corporeal Jesus. Present
tense.
Well, yes, we do Al. In fact, the book of Isaiah, written in 700 B.C.
It mentions a warrior savior named Immanuel, but no Yeshua. Apologists
claim that, through some sleight-of-mouth, Immanuel the Warrior
becomes Yeshua the Peacebringer.
We have no original document written before the second century that
mentions a corporeal person named Yeshua. We don't even have an
original OT, just copies - and NO actual evidence of when it was
written.
We have the Dead Sea Scrolls which had two complete scrolls of the book
of Isaiah. The book of Isaiah mentions a corporeal person named
Yeshua.
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, etc.
Oh, I forgot. Back in 700 B.C. you still had time to put together a
plan to keep it from happening.
===>That child was a real prince,
Hezekiah, many centuries before the fictional
"Jesus". -- L.
Well, the prophecy was written by Isaiah. According to you, Isaiah and
Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah, got together the night Hezekiah was born
and said, Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, etc. If you
had read the rest of Isaiah, you might have a little more difficulty
visualizing that happy scene. Isaiah and Ahaz were not really given to
celebrating together.
===>Only your crazy mind can conjure up such a
strawman scenario.
You're NUTS, RB! -- L.
Oh well then you are trying to say that Isaiah came up with the happy
news all on his own. His worst enemy on earth has a son, and Isaiah
says, Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, his name shall
be called wonderful, etc.
When his own son was born he just said what his name was,
Maher-shalal-hash-baz. If you had read the book you would have noticed
that Hezekiah did not thrill Isaiah much at first and it was some time
before Isaiah was convinced that he was not going to follow in the
footsteps of his father Ahaz. Even after Hezekiah convinced the
prophet he wanted to live a righteous life, Isaiah would have some
corrective counsel for him from time to time. No, the subject of
Isaiah 9:6 was definitely not Hezekiah.
===>Deny it all you want,
"the subject" could NEVER have been the "Iesous" of the fictional
Gospel stories, since "the subject" was born
hundreds of years before. -- L.
No, Isaiah was talking about the Messiah, Jesus Christ.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
07 Jan 2007 05:08:15 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 30 Dec 2006 13:22:22 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 19:18:15 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
There's not a single mention of a corporeal Jesus in any document in
our possession that was written in the first century.
I think you are the one with a made-up story, Al. You do not know a
thing about what happened in the first century.
What does your response have to do with what you responded to? I'm
talking about the TWENTY-FIRST century. We DO NOT HAVE any document
written in the first century that mentions a corporeal Jesus. Present
tense.
Well, yes, we do Al. In fact, the book of Isaiah, written in 700 B.C.
It mentions a warrior savior named Immanuel, but no Yeshua. Apologists
claim that, through some sleight-of-mouth, Immanuel the Warrior
becomes Yeshua the Peacebringer.
We have no original document written before the second century that
mentions a corporeal person named Yeshua. We don't even have an
original OT, just copies - and NO actual evidence of when it was
written.
We have the Dead Sea Scrolls which had two complete scrolls of the book
of Isaiah. The book of Isaiah mentions a corporeal person named
Yeshua.
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, etc.
Oh, I forgot. Back in 700 B.C. you still had time to put together a
plan to keep it from happening.
===>That child was a real prince,
Hezekiah, many centuries before the fictional
"Jesus". -- L.
Well, the prophecy was written by Isaiah. According to you, Isaiah and
Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah, got together the night Hezekiah was born
and said, Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, etc. If you
had read the rest of Isaiah, you might have a little more difficulty
visualizing that happy scene. Isaiah and Ahaz were not really given to
celebrating together.
===>Only your crazy mind can conjure up such a
strawman scenario.
You're NUTS, RB! -- L.
Oh well then you are trying to say that Isaiah came up with the happy
news all on his own. His worst enemy on earth has a son, and Isaiah
says, Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, his name shall
be called wonderful, etc.
When his own son was born he just said what his name was,
Maher-shalal-hash-baz. If you had read the book you would have noticed
that Hezekiah did not thrill Isaiah much at first and it was some time
before Isaiah was convinced that he was not going to follow in the
footsteps of his father Ahaz. Even after Hezekiah convinced the
prophet he wanted to live a righteous life, Isaiah would have some
corrective counsel for him from time to time. No, the subject of
Isaiah 9:6 was definitely not Hezekiah.
===>Deny it all you want,
"the subject" could NEVER have been the "Iesous" of the fictional
Gospel stories, since "the subject" was born
hundreds of years before. -- L.
No, Isaiah was talking about the Messiah, Jesus Christ.
===>Prove it, Dummy,
don't just ASSert it. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
07 Jan 2007 12:03:40 AM |
|
|
On 6 Jan 2007 18:56:56 -0800, wrote:
No, Isaiah was talking about the Messiah, Jesus Christ.
No, he was talking about the Messiah Emmanuel. (And, since there were
numerous claimants to the title, the comma is in error.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
08 Jan 2007 07:58:14 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 6 Jan 2007 18:56:56 -0800, wrote:
No, Isaiah was talking about the Messiah, Jesus Christ.
No, he was talking about the Messiah Emmanuel. (And, since there were
numerous claimants to the title, the comma is in error.)
Well, if you want to believe something is in error, Al, why don't you
just go ahead and believe it is in error?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
06 Jan 2007 10:47:31 PM |
|
|
On 6 Jan 2007 18:56:56 -0800, in alt.atheism
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote in
<1168138615.988564.221440@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Libertarius wrote:
....
===>Deny it all you want,
"the subject" could NEVER have been the "Iesous" of the fictional
Gospel stories, since "the subject" was born
hundreds of years before. -- L.
No, Isaiah was talking about the Messiah, Jesus Christ.
Robert B. Winn
So Christians claim, but he didn't even get the name right. Isaiah was
no more accurate or precise than Nostradamus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question (9) |
07 Jan 2007 08:34:06 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On 6 Jan 2007 18:56:56 -0800, in alt.atheism
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote in
<1168138615.988564.221440@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Libertarius wrote:
...
===>Deny it all you want,
"the subject" could NEVER have been the "Iesous" of the fictional
Gospel stories, since "the subject" was born
hundreds of years before. -- L.
No, Isaiah was talking about the Messiah, Jesus Christ.
Robert B. Winn
So Christians claim, but he didn't even get the name right. Isaiah was
no more accurate or precise than Nostradamus.
Isaiah was a prophet of God. What do you claim he was inaccurate
about?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
