Memorial Day

Budd Cochran wrote:
> You're right, it is a jeep group, but someone chose to cause a religious
> argument over the quote used in the post of another.
>
> So, who really should be "net nannied"? Not the OP.
>
> Oh, wait, that's me.
>
> btw, there is not any difference in the true nature of YHVH between the New
> and Old Testaments except that which people like you try to imagine.
>
> Check www.aig.org or www.gotquestions.org for answers to your claim.
>
> Budd

P.S. Here's more stuff not in the Bible that you probably think there is:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18757...-in-bible.html

> "Larry" > wrote in message
> ...
> On May 31, 5:04 pm, "Budd Cochran" > wrote:
>> The Geneva Bible:http://www.gotquestions.org/Geneva-Bible.html
>>
>> According to the article appears is neither more accruate or less accurate
>> than the KJV or the NKJV, which I use.
>>
>> Have you tried putting it back into context where you find the reference
>> is
>> actually to harlot Babylon who will be destroyed in the end times (see The
>> Revelation of John)?
>>
>> The Old Testament also condoned the stoning of disobedient children ... do
>> you? I don't and no true teacher of the Scriptures does.
>>
>> Doesn't sound like you have to me.
>>
>> Mat. 7:5
>>
>> Budd
>>
>> "I" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>> What the heck are you talking about?
>>> I'm talking about the Holy Bible (in its multiple iterations).
>>>> If you mean abortion, no it doesn't. If you mean the commandmaent, "
>>>> Thou
>>>> shalt not kill"; the Hebrew word is more correctly translated "murder".
>>>> The King James translators are to blame there.
>>> Does that mention children?
>>>> But, no matter, the Bible does not condone murder of anyone and allows
>>>> killing only in self-defense or in time of war.
>>> I'm surprised at your ignorance about the very Bible you claim to adore.
>>> There are many, many verses that applaud killing in general, but I'm
>>> speaking of one in particular here (though there are others).
>>>> If you mean the so-called "collateral" deaths found in wartime ... I
>>>> know
>>>> from my own time in the srvice that our military would love to know how
>>>> to fight a war and never kill an innocent party. Got any ideas? Send
>>>> them
>>>> to the Pentagon.
>>> I see you're unable to keep your attention on the topic at hand and feel
>>> the need to bring up unrelated issues. This does not speak well for your
>>> ability to think.
>>>> If you believe otherwise, you do not know the Bible.
>>> I know "the Bible" (not that there is such a thing) better than you,
>>> since
>>> I know about the existence of its praise for child murder and you do
>>> not.
>>>> If you are in the US and just anti- US /military, feel free to
>>>> emmigrate
>>>> to a socialist country where you can be oppressed to your heart's
>>>> desire
>>>> ... nobody's gonna stop you.
>>>> Budd
>>> Once again you bring up unrelated issues. This is due no doubt to a
>>> mental weakness on your part and an inability to treat with the matter
>>> at
>>> hand.
>>> I direct you, sir, to read Psalms 137:9. Here is the text from the
>>> Geneva
>>> edition; the wording varies a bit from one edition to another but the
>>> sentiment is the same in all translations:
>>> Blessed shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy children against the
>>> stones.
>>> You may now apologize for being wrong both about what the Bible says and
>>> your knowledge about it.
>>>> "I" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>>>> The Holy Bible says, "No greater love has any man than he be willing
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> die
>>>>>> for a friend.(Jn 15:13 [paraphrased]) That's something our military
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> done
>>>>>> in spades since the Revolutionary War.
>>>>> Of course the Holy Bible also showers praise on those who murder
>>>>> children. How do you feel about that?
>>>>> --
>>>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>>> Aratzio
>>>>> Spooge
>>>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>>>> Vince
>>>>> Art Deco
>>>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>>>> Johnny Dollar
>>>>> Kevin Cannon
>>>>> yourfriend
>>>>> Fred Hall
>>> --
>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>> Aratzio
>>> Spooge
>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>> Vince
>>> Art Deco
>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>> Johnny Dollar
>>> Kevin Cannon
>>> yourfriend
>>> Fred Hall
>
> I thought this was a jeep group not a religious forum; however the
> history of the authorship of the gospels is an interesting subject and
> if you only read the "canon gospels", you are really missing a lot of
> interesting history. For example, ideas about nature of God and the
> Afterlife was somewhat formalized at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD
> when there was a meeting of all the known Christian bishops from the
> known world. These were early Christian bishops and there was no
> authoritative bible at that time, as the formalized canon gospels came
> a few decades later. The irony is that these Christian bishops met
> under the leadership of Emperor Constantine, essentially a pagan
> emperor at the time of the meeting. However, according some church
> fathers he did become a Christian on his death bed, probably hedging
> his bets and not taking any chances.
>
> In fact the selection of the so called canon gospels you are
> referring to were essentially arrived at by a politicization of
> Christianity by pagan roman emperors. If you google Nag Hammadi
> scrolls, you will find a lot more gospels that were ignored by the
> political establishment in the mid to late 4th century.
>
> So, essentially early Christianity was largely influenced by the pagan
> power structure of the time. (Think "Roman" Catholic Church)
>
> Also when while you are discussing the bible, have you noticed the
> difference in the description of the nature of God between the Old and
> New Testaments? The God in the New Testament is a more universal and
> loving God compared to the god described in the Old Testament.
>
> Larry
>
>
>


--

Greg's wrong guesses so far:

Aratzio
Spooge
Mad As A Box Of Frogs
Vince
Art Deco
Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
Johnny Dollar
Kevin Cannon
yourfriend
Fred Hall

Ya know, there is one big difference between us besides our source for
scriptures ... I don't claim to be a Scripture expert and you do and you
shove it down people's throats with a vengance Christ never used on anyone
except the moneychangers in the Temple.

And the only difference there was he was justified, you're not..

According to the KJV, NIV, NKJV, as I understand it, Father God, YHVH, thru
the actions of the Third Person of the Trinity (Elohim) was the father of
the child Jesus who was fully God and fully Man.

And if you disagree, then you disagree.

Budd

"I" > wrote in message
...
> Budd Cochran wrote:
>> You're right, it is a jeep group,
>
> Then why did you bring up Memorial Day? Don't be a hypocrite: either the
> group speech is ONLY about Jeeps, or it's an open group.
>
>> but someone chose to cause a religious argument over the quote used in
>> the post of another.
>
> I chose to point out that you were talking out of your ass about a book
> you don't even know. Quick question: who does the New Testament say is
> Jesus's father in a technical sense?
>
>> So, who really should be "net nannied"? Not the OP.
>
> In other words, you're asserting special pleading for yourself. Nice.
>
>> Oh, wait, that's me.
>>
>> btw, there is not any difference in the true nature of YHVH between the
>> New and Old Testaments except that which people like you try to imagine.
>
> Yaweh is never mentioned at all in the New Testament. There's no evidence
> the being called "God" is even the same being in the two sets of books.
>
>> Check www.aig.org or www.gotquestions.org for answers to your claim.
>>
>> Budd
>
> I have a better idea: try actually reading the Bible some time instead of
> claiming you know what it does or doesn't say on a given topic. You might
> be surprised how much you think you know about it is untrue. Here's a
> handy place to start:
>
> http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...ble/?hpt=hp_c1
>
>
>> "Larry" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On May 31, 5:04 pm, "Budd Cochran" > wrote:
>>> The Geneva Bible:http://www.gotquestions.org/Geneva-Bible.html
>>>
>>> According to the article appears is neither more accruate or less
>>> accurate
>>> than the KJV or the NKJV, which I use.
>>>
>>> Have you tried putting it back into context where you find the reference
>>> is
>>> actually to harlot Babylon who will be destroyed in the end times (see
>>> The
>>> Revelation of John)?
>>>
>>> The Old Testament also condoned the stoning of disobedient children ...
>>> do
>>> you? I don't and no true teacher of the Scriptures does.
>>>
>>> Doesn't sound like you have to me.
>>>
>>> Mat. 7:5
>>>
>>> Budd
>>>
>>> "I" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>>> What the heck are you talking about?
>>>> I'm talking about the Holy Bible (in its multiple iterations).
>>>>> If you mean abortion, no it doesn't. If you mean the commandmaent, "
>>>>> Thou
>>>>> shalt not kill"; the Hebrew word is more correctly translated
>>>>> "murder".
>>>>> The King James translators are to blame there.
>>>> Does that mention children?
>>>>> But, no matter, the Bible does not condone murder of anyone and allows
>>>>> killing only in self-defense or in time of war.
>>>> I'm surprised at your ignorance about the very Bible you claim to
>>>> adore.
>>>> There are many, many verses that applaud killing in general, but I'm
>>>> speaking of one in particular here (though there are others).
>>>>> If you mean the so-called "collateral" deaths found in wartime ... I
>>>>> know
>>>>> from my own time in the srvice that our military would love to know
>>>>> how
>>>>> to fight a war and never kill an innocent party. Got any ideas? Send
>>>>> them
>>>>> to the Pentagon.
>>>> I see you're unable to keep your attention on the topic at hand and
>>>> feel
>>>> the need to bring up unrelated issues. This does not speak well for
>>>> your
>>>> ability to think.
>>>>> If you believe otherwise, you do not know the Bible.
>>>> I know "the Bible" (not that there is such a thing) better than you,
>>>> since
>>>> I know about the existence of its praise for child murder and you do
>>>> not.
>>>>> If you are in the US and just anti- US /military, feel free to
>>>>> emmigrate
>>>>> to a socialist country where you can be oppressed to your heart's
>>>>> desire
>>>>> ... nobody's gonna stop you.
>>>>> Budd
>>>> Once again you bring up unrelated issues. This is due no doubt to a
>>>> mental weakness on your part and an inability to treat with the matter
>>>> at
>>>> hand.
>>>> I direct you, sir, to read Psalms 137:9. Here is the text from the
>>>> Geneva
>>>> edition; the wording varies a bit from one edition to another but the
>>>> sentiment is the same in all translations:
>>>> Blessed shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy children against the
>>>> stones.
>>>> You may now apologize for being wrong both about what the Bible says
>>>> and
>>>> your knowledge about it.
>>>>> "I" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>>>>> The Holy Bible says, "No greater love has any man than he be willing
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> die
>>>>>>> for a friend.(Jn 15:13 [paraphrased]) That's something our military
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>> in spades since the Revolutionary War.
>>>>>> Of course the Holy Bible also showers praise on those who murder
>>>>>> children. How do you feel about that?
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>>>> Aratzio
>>>>>> Spooge
>>>>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>>>>> Vince
>>>>>> Art Deco
>>>>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>>>>> Johnny Dollar
>>>>>> Kevin Cannon
>>>>>> yourfriend
>>>>>> Fred Hall
>>>> --
>>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>> Aratzio
>>>> Spooge
>>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>>> Vince
>>>> Art Deco
>>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>>> Johnny Dollar
>>>> Kevin Cannon
>>>> yourfriend
>>>> Fred Hall
>>
>> I thought this was a jeep group not a religious forum; however the
>> history of the authorship of the gospels is an interesting subject and
>> if you only read the "canon gospels", you are really missing a lot of
>> interesting history. For example, ideas about nature of God and the
>> Afterlife was somewhat formalized at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD
>> when there was a meeting of all the known Christian bishops from the
>> known world. These were early Christian bishops and there was no
>> authoritative bible at that time, as the formalized canon gospels came
>> a few decades later. The irony is that these Christian bishops met
>> under the leadership of Emperor Constantine, essentially a pagan
>> emperor at the time of the meeting. However, according some church
>> fathers he did become a Christian on his death bed, probably hedging
>> his bets and not taking any chances.
>>
>> In fact the selection of the so called canon gospels you are
>> referring to were essentially arrived at by a politicization of
>> Christianity by pagan roman emperors. If you google Nag Hammadi
>> scrolls, you will find a lot more gospels that were ignored by the
>> political establishment in the mid to late 4th century.
>>
>> So, essentially early Christianity was largely influenced by the pagan
>> power structure of the time. (Think "Roman" Catholic Church)
>>
>> Also when while you are discussing the bible, have you noticed the
>> difference in the description of the nature of God between the Old and
>> New Testaments? The God in the New Testament is a more universal and
>> loving God compared to the god described in the Old Testament.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>
> Aratzio
> Spooge
> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
> Vince
> Art Deco
> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
> Johnny Dollar
> Kevin Cannon
> yourfriend
> Fred Hall

Budd Cochran wrote:
> Ya know, there is one big difference between us besides our source for
> scriptures ... I don't claim to be a Scripture expert and you do

I don't claim to be an expert; I claim that I know more about it than
you do, which is an important distinction since you refer to it as
"holy" yet clearly have no answer for the many passages in which it
applauds horrible things happening to people. I've only touched on a
couple of them; there are many many more. You still have yet to answer
how smashing children against rocks is a good thing.

> and you
> shove it down people's throats with a vengance Christ never used on anyone
> except the moneychangers in the Temple.

Christ did what he did because the Jews had allowed their holy
Tabernacle to be corrupted. You clearly do not understand the
difference between manly temper and Godly anger. I do what I do for
similar, if not identical, reasons. There is no vengeance here, only an
attempt to get you to think.

> And the only difference there was he was justified, you're not..

So says the man who lied about what his Bible says WRT killing children.

> According to the KJV, NIV, NKJV, as I understand it, Father God, YHVH, thru
> the actions of the Third Person of the Trinity (Elohim) was the father of
> the child Jesus who was fully God and fully Man.

Then you do not understand it. The Bible says many times that the Holy
Ghost is the father of Jesus. Read Matthew, Mark, and Luke again.
Wait, here they are from the online KJV:

Matthew:

[18] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother
Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found
with child of the Holy Ghost.
[19] Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make
her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
[20] But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord
appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear
not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her
is of the Holy Ghost.

Mark:

[8] I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with
the Holy Ghost.
[9] And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of
Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
[10] And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens
opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
[11] And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased.
[12] And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.

Luke:

[31] And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a
son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
[32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and
the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
[33] And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his
kingdom there shall be no end.
[34] Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
a man?
[35] And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore
also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son
of God.

Note that the angel specifically says that the Holy Ghost will place the
child in her womb but the child will be CALLED the Son of God, not
that he is the son of God (presumably Yahweh).

Note too that the Holy Ghost then goes and knocks someone else up right
after that:

[41] And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of
Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the
Holy Ghost:
[42] And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou
among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

Finally, note what Jesus has to say about forgiveness of sin:

[31] Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be
forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be
forgiven unto men.
[32] And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be
forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall
not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

That's his Father he's talking about. Remember when Pilate confronts
him about being the Son of GOD he does not admit that.

> And if you disagree, then you disagree.
>
> Budd

If you have read the New Testament, then you realize that even Jesus
does not say he is the son of Yahweh.

Matthew:

[11] And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him,
saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.

Mark:

[2] And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he
answering said unto him, Thou sayest it.

Luke:

[3] And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he
answered him and said, Thou sayest it.

John:

[33] Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus,
and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
[34] Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did
others tell it thee of me?
[35] Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests
have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
[36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were
of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be
delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
[37] Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus
answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for
this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the
truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

If you have scripture to the contrary, please share it.

> "I" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>> You're right, it is a jeep group,
>> Then why did you bring up Memorial Day? Don't be a hypocrite: either the
>> group speech is ONLY about Jeeps, or it's an open group.
>>
>>> but someone chose to cause a religious argument over the quote used in
>>> the post of another.
>> I chose to point out that you were talking out of your ass about a book
>> you don't even know. Quick question: who does the New Testament say is
>> Jesus's father in a technical sense?
>>
>>> So, who really should be "net nannied"? Not the OP.
>> In other words, you're asserting special pleading for yourself. Nice.
>>
>>> Oh, wait, that's me.
>>>
>>> btw, there is not any difference in the true nature of YHVH between the
>>> New and Old Testaments except that which people like you try to imagine.
>> Yaweh is never mentioned at all in the New Testament. There's no evidence
>> the being called "God" is even the same being in the two sets of books.
>>
>>> Check www.aig.org or www.gotquestions.org for answers to your claim.
>>>
>>> Budd
>> I have a better idea: try actually reading the Bible some time instead of
>> claiming you know what it does or doesn't say on a given topic. You might
>> be surprised how much you think you know about it is untrue. Here's a
>> handy place to start:
>>
>> http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...ble/?hpt=hp_c1
>>
>>
>>> "Larry" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> On May 31, 5:04 pm, "Budd Cochran" > wrote:
>>>> The Geneva Bible:http://www.gotquestions.org/Geneva-Bible.html
>>>>
>>>> According to the article appears is neither more accruate or less
>>>> accurate
>>>> than the KJV or the NKJV, which I use.
>>>>
>>>> Have you tried putting it back into context where you find the reference
>>>> is
>>>> actually to harlot Babylon who will be destroyed in the end times (see
>>>> The
>>>> Revelation of John)?
>>>>
>>>> The Old Testament also condoned the stoning of disobedient children ...
>>>> do
>>>> you? I don't and no true teacher of the Scriptures does.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't sound like you have to me.
>>>>
>>>> Mat. 7:5
>>>>
>>>> Budd
>>>>
>>>> "I" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>>>> What the heck are you talking about?
>>>>> I'm talking about the Holy Bible (in its multiple iterations).
>>>>>> If you mean abortion, no it doesn't. If you mean the commandmaent, "
>>>>>> Thou
>>>>>> shalt not kill"; the Hebrew word is more correctly translated
>>>>>> "murder".
>>>>>> The King James translators are to blame there.
>>>>> Does that mention children?
>>>>>> But, no matter, the Bible does not condone murder of anyone and allows
>>>>>> killing only in self-defense or in time of war.
>>>>> I'm surprised at your ignorance about the very Bible you claim to
>>>>> adore.
>>>>> There are many, many verses that applaud killing in general, but I'm
>>>>> speaking of one in particular here (though there are others).
>>>>>> If you mean the so-called "collateral" deaths found in wartime ... I
>>>>>> know
>>>>>> from my own time in the srvice that our military would love to know
>>>>>> how
>>>>>> to fight a war and never kill an innocent party. Got any ideas? Send
>>>>>> them
>>>>>> to the Pentagon.
>>>>> I see you're unable to keep your attention on the topic at hand and
>>>>> feel
>>>>> the need to bring up unrelated issues. This does not speak well for
>>>>> your
>>>>> ability to think.
>>>>>> If you believe otherwise, you do not know the Bible.
>>>>> I know "the Bible" (not that there is such a thing) better than you,
>>>>> since
>>>>> I know about the existence of its praise for child murder and you do
>>>>> not.
>>>>>> If you are in the US and just anti- US /military, feel free to
>>>>>> emmigrate
>>>>>> to a socialist country where you can be oppressed to your heart's
>>>>>> desire
>>>>>> ... nobody's gonna stop you.
>>>>>> Budd
>>>>> Once again you bring up unrelated issues. This is due no doubt to a
>>>>> mental weakness on your part and an inability to treat with the matter
>>>>> at
>>>>> hand.
>>>>> I direct you, sir, to read Psalms 137:9. Here is the text from the
>>>>> Geneva
>>>>> edition; the wording varies a bit from one edition to another but the
>>>>> sentiment is the same in all translations:
>>>>> Blessed shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy children against the
>>>>> stones.
>>>>> You may now apologize for being wrong both about what the Bible says
>>>>> and
>>>>> your knowledge about it.
>>>>>> "I" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Holy Bible says, "No greater love has any man than he be willing
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> die
>>>>>>>> for a friend.(Jn 15:13 [paraphrased]) That's something our military
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>> in spades since the Revolutionary War.
>>>>>>> Of course the Holy Bible also showers praise on those who murder
>>>>>>> children. How do you feel about that?
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>>>>> Aratzio
>>>>>>> Spooge
>>>>>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>>>>>> Vince
>>>>>>> Art Deco
>>>>>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>>>>>> Johnny Dollar
>>>>>>> Kevin Cannon
>>>>>>> yourfriend
>>>>>>> Fred Hall
>>>>> --
>>>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>>> Aratzio
>>>>> Spooge
>>>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>>>> Vince
>>>>> Art Deco
>>>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>>>> Johnny Dollar
>>>>> Kevin Cannon
>>>>> yourfriend
>>>>> Fred Hall
>>> I thought this was a jeep group not a religious forum; however the
>>> history of the authorship of the gospels is an interesting subject and
>>> if you only read the "canon gospels", you are really missing a lot of
>>> interesting history. For example, ideas about nature of God and the
>>> Afterlife was somewhat formalized at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD
>>> when there was a meeting of all the known Christian bishops from the
>>> known world. These were early Christian bishops and there was no
>>> authoritative bible at that time, as the formalized canon gospels came
>>> a few decades later. The irony is that these Christian bishops met
>>> under the leadership of Emperor Constantine, essentially a pagan
>>> emperor at the time of the meeting. However, according some church
>>> fathers he did become a Christian on his death bed, probably hedging
>>> his bets and not taking any chances.
>>>
>>> In fact the selection of the so called canon gospels you are
>>> referring to were essentially arrived at by a politicization of
>>> Christianity by pagan roman emperors. If you google Nag Hammadi
>>> scrolls, you will find a lot more gospels that were ignored by the
>>> political establishment in the mid to late 4th century.
>>>
>>> So, essentially early Christianity was largely influenced by the pagan
>>> power structure of the time. (Think "Roman" Catholic Church)
>>>
>>> Also when while you are discussing the bible, have you noticed the
>>> difference in the description of the nature of God between the Old and
>>> New Testaments? The God in the New Testament is a more universal and
>>> loving God compared to the god described in the Old Testament.
>>>
>>> Larry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>
>> Aratzio
>> Spooge
>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>> Vince
>> Art Deco
>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>> Johnny Dollar
>> Kevin Cannon
>> yourfriend
>> Fred Hall
>
>


--

Greg's wrong guesses so far:

Aratzio
Spooge
Mad As A Box Of Frogs
Vince
Art Deco
Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
Johnny Dollar
Kevin Cannon
yourfriend
Fred Hall

Why are you insisting on arguing?

This is what is important:

Jesus, the second part of the Trinity, was fully man and fully God, and was
sinless before God. (symbolized by unblemished sacrificial animals)

Jesus offered Himself for the sacrifice (The Lamb of God) for the sins of
many (all that have or will believe on Him).

He died and lay in the sealed tomb for three days ( The sign of Jonah)
(symbolized by the broken Matzo which is hidden in the Passover Seder)

He rose on the first day of the week ( what we call Sunday) to bring Eternal
life for those that believe.(symbolized by when the hidden bread is brought
forth in the Passover Seder)

Paul spoke on Mars Hill to the philosophers who were worshiping at a
multitude of idols, including one for the "unknown god". He never once used
a single verse of Scripture, but he did teach about the Resurrection.
Therefore, the Scriptures prove the Scriptures aren't the important part of
evangelism.

He taught Jesus is the only perfect being or god that ever willingly died
for our sins and then rose again based on Nature.

And that is what really matters about Scripture and their translations.

And that, my friend, is the end of the discussion. Everything else in the
Scriptures, except for some historical or man-written bits, essentially
either predicted, symbolized, or detailed His life, ministry and
Resurrection.

Goodbye (which, in it's original form was, "God be with ye").

Budd

"I" > wrote in message
...
> Budd Cochran wrote:
>> Ya know, there is one big difference between us besides our source for
>> scriptures ... I don't claim to be a Scripture expert and you do
>
> I don't claim to be an expert; I claim that I know more about it than you
> do, which is an important distinction since you refer to it as "holy" yet
> clearly have no answer for the many passages in which it applauds horrible
> things happening to people. I've only touched on a couple of them; there
> are many many more. You still have yet to answer how smashing children
> against rocks is a good thing.
>
>> and you shove it down people's throats with a vengance Christ never used
>> on anyone except the moneychangers in the Temple.
>
> Christ did what he did because the Jews had allowed their holy Tabernacle
> to be corrupted. You clearly do not understand the difference between
> manly temper and Godly anger. I do what I do for similar, if not
> identical, reasons. There is no vengeance here, only an attempt to get
> you to think.
>
>> And the only difference there was he was justified, you're not..
>
> So says the man who lied about what his Bible says WRT killing children.
>
>> According to the KJV, NIV, NKJV, as I understand it, Father God, YHVH,
>> thru the actions of the Third Person of the Trinity (Elohim) was the
>> father of the child Jesus who was fully God and fully Man.
>
> Then you do not understand it. The Bible says many times that the Holy
> Ghost is the father of Jesus. Read Matthew, Mark, and Luke again. Wait,
> here they are from the online KJV:
>
> Matthew:
>
> [18] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother
> Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with
> child of the Holy Ghost.
> [19] Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make
> her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
> [20] But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord
> appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not
> to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of
> the Holy Ghost.
>
> Mark:
>
> [8] I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with
> the Holy Ghost.
> [9] And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of
> Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
> [10] And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens
> opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
> [11] And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son,
> in whom I am well pleased.
> [12] And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
>
> Luke:
>
> [31] And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
> and shalt call his name JESUS.
> [32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and
> the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
> [33] And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his
> kingdom there shall be no end.
> [34] Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a
> man?
> [35] And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come
> upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore
> also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son
> of God.
>
> Note that the angel specifically says that the Holy Ghost will place the
> child in her womb but the child will be CALLED the Son of God, not that he
> is the son of God (presumably Yahweh).
>
> Note too that the Holy Ghost then goes and knocks someone else up right
> after that:
>
> [41] And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of
> Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy
> Ghost:
> [42] And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among
> women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
>
> Finally, note what Jesus has to say about forgiveness of sin:
>
> [31] Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be
> forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be
> forgiven unto men.
> [32] And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be
> forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not
> be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
>
> That's his Father he's talking about. Remember when Pilate confronts him
> about being the Son of GOD he does not admit that.
>
>> And if you disagree, then you disagree.
>>
>> Budd
>
> If you have read the New Testament, then you realize that even Jesus does
> not say he is the son of Yahweh.
>
> Matthew:
>
> [11] And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him,
> saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou
> sayest.
>
> Mark:
>
> [2] And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering
> said unto him, Thou sayest it.
>
> Luke:
>
> [3] And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he
> answered him and said, Thou sayest it.
>
> John:
>
> [33] Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus,
> and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
> [34] Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others
> tell it thee of me?
> [35] Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests
> have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
> [36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were
> of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be
> delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
> [37] Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered,
> Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause
> came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every
> one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
>
> If you have scripture to the contrary, please share it.
>
>> "I" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>> You're right, it is a jeep group,
>>> Then why did you bring up Memorial Day? Don't be a hypocrite: either
>>> the group speech is ONLY about Jeeps, or it's an open group.
>>>
>>>> but someone chose to cause a religious argument over the quote used in
>>>> the post of another.
>>> I chose to point out that you were talking out of your ass about a book
>>> you don't even know. Quick question: who does the New Testament say is
>>> Jesus's father in a technical sense?
>>>
>>>> So, who really should be "net nannied"? Not the OP.
>>> In other words, you're asserting special pleading for yourself. Nice.
>>>
>>>> Oh, wait, that's me.
>>>>
>>>> btw, there is not any difference in the true nature of YHVH between the
>>>> New and Old Testaments except that which people like you try to
>>>> imagine.
>>> Yaweh is never mentioned at all in the New Testament. There's no
>>> evidence the being called "God" is even the same being in the two sets
>>> of books.
>>>
>>>> Check www.aig.org or www.gotquestions.org for answers to your claim.
>>>>
>>>> Budd
>>> I have a better idea: try actually reading the Bible some time instead
>>> of claiming you know what it does or doesn't say on a given topic. You
>>> might be surprised how much you think you know about it is untrue.
>>> Here's a handy place to start:
>>>
>>> http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...ble/?hpt=hp_c1
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Larry" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> On May 31, 5:04 pm, "Budd Cochran" > wrote:
>>>>> The Geneva Bible:http://www.gotquestions.org/Geneva-Bible.html
>>>>>
>>>>> According to the article appears is neither more accruate or less
>>>>> accurate
>>>>> than the KJV or the NKJV, which I use.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you tried putting it back into context where you find the
>>>>> reference is
>>>>> actually to harlot Babylon who will be destroyed in the end times (see
>>>>> The
>>>>> Revelation of John)?
>>>>>
>>>>> The Old Testament also condoned the stoning of disobedient children
>>>>> ... do
>>>>> you? I don't and no true teacher of the Scriptures does.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't sound like you have to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mat. 7:5
>>>>>
>>>>> Budd
>>>>>
>>>>> "I" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>>>>> What the heck are you talking about?
>>>>>> I'm talking about the Holy Bible (in its multiple iterations).
>>>>>>> If you mean abortion, no it doesn't. If you mean the commandmaent, "
>>>>>>> Thou
>>>>>>> shalt not kill"; the Hebrew word is more correctly translated
>>>>>>> "murder".
>>>>>>> The King James translators are to blame there.
>>>>>> Does that mention children?
>>>>>>> But, no matter, the Bible does not condone murder of anyone and
>>>>>>> allows
>>>>>>> killing only in self-defense or in time of war.
>>>>>> I'm surprised at your ignorance about the very Bible you claim to
>>>>>> adore.
>>>>>> There are many, many verses that applaud killing in general, but I'm
>>>>>> speaking of one in particular here (though there are others).
>>>>>>> If you mean the so-called "collateral" deaths found in wartime ... I
>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>> from my own time in the srvice that our military would love to know
>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>> to fight a war and never kill an innocent party. Got any ideas? Send
>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>> to the Pentagon.
>>>>>> I see you're unable to keep your attention on the topic at hand and
>>>>>> feel
>>>>>> the need to bring up unrelated issues. This does not speak well for
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> ability to think.
>>>>>>> If you believe otherwise, you do not know the Bible.
>>>>>> I know "the Bible" (not that there is such a thing) better than you,
>>>>>> since
>>>>>> I know about the existence of its praise for child murder and you do
>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>> If you are in the US and just anti- US /military, feel free to
>>>>>>> emmigrate
>>>>>>> to a socialist country where you can be oppressed to your heart's
>>>>>>> desire
>>>>>>> ... nobody's gonna stop you.
>>>>>>> Budd
>>>>>> Once again you bring up unrelated issues. This is due no doubt to a
>>>>>> mental weakness on your part and an inability to treat with the
>>>>>> matter at
>>>>>> hand.
>>>>>> I direct you, sir, to read Psalms 137:9. Here is the text from the
>>>>>> Geneva
>>>>>> edition; the wording varies a bit from one edition to another but the
>>>>>> sentiment is the same in all translations:
>>>>>> Blessed shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy children against the
>>>>>> stones.
>>>>>> You may now apologize for being wrong both about what the Bible says
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> your knowledge about it.
>>>>>>> "I" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The Holy Bible says, "No greater love has any man than he be
>>>>>>>>> willing to
>>>>>>>>> die
>>>>>>>>> for a friend.(Jn 15:13 [paraphrased]) That's something our
>>>>>>>>> military has
>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>> in spades since the Revolutionary War.
>>>>>>>> Of course the Holy Bible also showers praise on those who murder
>>>>>>>> children. How do you feel about that?
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>>>>>> Aratzio
>>>>>>>> Spooge
>>>>>>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>>>>>>> Vince
>>>>>>>> Art Deco
>>>>>>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>>>>>>> Johnny Dollar
>>>>>>>> Kevin Cannon
>>>>>>>> yourfriend
>>>>>>>> Fred Hall
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>>>> Aratzio
>>>>>> Spooge
>>>>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>>>>> Vince
>>>>>> Art Deco
>>>>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>>>>> Johnny Dollar
>>>>>> Kevin Cannon
>>>>>> yourfriend
>>>>>> Fred Hall
>>>> I thought this was a jeep group not a religious forum; however the
>>>> history of the authorship of the gospels is an interesting subject and
>>>> if you only read the "canon gospels", you are really missing a lot of
>>>> interesting history. For example, ideas about nature of God and the
>>>> Afterlife was somewhat formalized at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD
>>>> when there was a meeting of all the known Christian bishops from the
>>>> known world. These were early Christian bishops and there was no
>>>> authoritative bible at that time, as the formalized canon gospels came
>>>> a few decades later. The irony is that these Christian bishops met
>>>> under the leadership of Emperor Constantine, essentially a pagan
>>>> emperor at the time of the meeting. However, according some church
>>>> fathers he did become a Christian on his death bed, probably hedging
>>>> his bets and not taking any chances.
>>>>
>>>> In fact the selection of the so called canon gospels you are
>>>> referring to were essentially arrived at by a politicization of
>>>> Christianity by pagan roman emperors. If you google Nag Hammadi
>>>> scrolls, you will find a lot more gospels that were ignored by the
>>>> political establishment in the mid to late 4th century.
>>>>
>>>> So, essentially early Christianity was largely influenced by the pagan
>>>> power structure of the time. (Think "Roman" Catholic Church)
>>>>
>>>> Also when while you are discussing the bible, have you noticed the
>>>> difference in the description of the nature of God between the Old and
>>>> New Testaments? The God in the New Testament is a more universal and
>>>> loving God compared to the god described in the Old Testament.
>>>>
>>>> Larry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>
>>> Aratzio
>>> Spooge
>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>> Vince
>>> Art Deco
>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>> Johnny Dollar
>>> Kevin Cannon
>>> yourfriend
>>> Fred Hall
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>
> Aratzio
> Spooge
> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
> Vince
> Art Deco
> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
> Johnny Dollar
> Kevin Cannon
> yourfriend
> Fred Hall

Budd Cochran wrote:
> Why are you insisting on arguing?

Why are you insisting on dodging the questions? Do they make you doubt
things too much?

> This is what is important:

So the Old Testament is not important? Its praise of murder, rape, and
other atrocities is perfectly all right by you?

> Jesus, the second part of the Trinity, was fully man and fully God, and was
> sinless before God. (symbolized by unblemished sacrificial animals)

So say you. Other Christians say different things. Why do you believe
your interpretation is correct and theirs is not?

> Jesus offered Himself for the sacrifice (The Lamb of God) for the sins of
> many (all that have or will believe on Him).

Jesus had no choice in the matter.

> He died and lay in the sealed tomb for three days ( The sign of Jonah)
> (symbolized by the broken Matzo which is hidden in the Passover Seder)

Unless of course he was in Hell during that time, as some believe.

> He rose on the first day of the week ( what we call Sunday) to bring Eternal
> life for those that believe.(symbolized by when the hidden bread is brought
> forth in the Passover Seder)

That's not what Jesus says in Matthew 19.

16 ¶ And behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good
thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good
but one, even God; but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He said to him, Which? And Jesus said, These, Thou shalt not kill;
Thou shalt not commit adultery; Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt not
bear false witness;
19 Honor thy father and mother; and Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

He does not say anything about believing in him. When the young man
says he has already done those things, Jesus says that to be perfect he
must do other things as well:

20 The young man said unto him, I have observed all these things from my
youth. What lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell that thou
hast, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven,
and come, and follow me.
22 And when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful; for
he had great possessions.

So according to Jesus is it possible to have eternal life without
following or even believing in him, and without following at least some
of the Ten Commandments. Only those who wish to be perfect need worry
about more than not killing, not committing adultery, not stealing, not
bearing false witness, honoring their parents and loving their neighbors.

> Paul spoke on Mars Hill to the philosophers who were worshiping at a
> multitude of idols, including one for the "unknown god". He never once used
> a single verse of Scripture, but he did teach about the Resurrection.

Paul's commentaries directly contradict some of Jesus' teachings and are
thus suspect.

> Therefore, the Scriptures prove the Scriptures aren't the important part of
> evangelism.

Jesus did not want you to evangelize for him.

> He taught Jesus is the only perfect being or god that ever willingly died
> for our sins and then rose again based on Nature.

Jesus had no say in the matter of whether or not he would be crucified.

> And that is what really matters about Scripture and their translations.

What matters is knowing the tenets of the religion you profess to
follow, not some cartoon version of it.

> And that, my friend, is the end of the discussion.

In other words, you have no answers for the problems I've pointed out
and are doing the Internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your
ears and saying "I can't hear you!"

> Everything else in the
> Scriptures, except for some historical or man-written bits,

Care to show how you can tell one from the other?

> essentially
> either predicted, symbolized, or detailed His life, ministry and
> Resurrection.

Tell me, which of those is taking place in Judges 4:21 where Heber's
wife drives a tent peg through his head and into the ground while he was
asleep, killing him?

> Goodbye (which, in it's original form was, "God be with ye").
>
> Budd

Chicken.

> "I" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>> Ya know, there is one big difference between us besides our source for
>>> scriptures ... I don't claim to be a Scripture expert and you do
>> I don't claim to be an expert; I claim that I know more about it than you
>> do, which is an important distinction since you refer to it as "holy" yet
>> clearly have no answer for the many passages in which it applauds horrible
>> things happening to people. I've only touched on a couple of them; there
>> are many many more. You still have yet to answer how smashing children
>> against rocks is a good thing.
>>
>>> and you shove it down people's throats with a vengance Christ never used
>>> on anyone except the moneychangers in the Temple.
>> Christ did what he did because the Jews had allowed their holy Tabernacle
>> to be corrupted. You clearly do not understand the difference between
>> manly temper and Godly anger. I do what I do for similar, if not
>> identical, reasons. There is no vengeance here, only an attempt to get
>> you to think.
>>
>>> And the only difference there was he was justified, you're not..
>> So says the man who lied about what his Bible says WRT killing children.
>>
>>> According to the KJV, NIV, NKJV, as I understand it, Father God, YHVH,
>>> thru the actions of the Third Person of the Trinity (Elohim) was the
>>> father of the child Jesus who was fully God and fully Man.
>> Then you do not understand it. The Bible says many times that the Holy
>> Ghost is the father of Jesus. Read Matthew, Mark, and Luke again. Wait,
>> here they are from the online KJV:
>>
>> Matthew:
>>
>> [18] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother
>> Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with
>> child of the Holy Ghost.
>> [19] Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make
>> her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
>> [20] But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord
>> appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not
>> to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of
>> the Holy Ghost.
>>
>> Mark:
>>
>> [8] I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with
>> the Holy Ghost.
>> [9] And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of
>> Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
>> [10] And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens
>> opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
>> [11] And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son,
>> in whom I am well pleased.
>> [12] And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
>>
>> Luke:
>>
>> [31] And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
>> and shalt call his name JESUS.
>> [32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and
>> the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
>> [33] And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his
>> kingdom there shall be no end.
>> [34] Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a
>> man?
>> [35] And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come
>> upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore
>> also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son
>> of God.
>>
>> Note that the angel specifically says that the Holy Ghost will place the
>> child in her womb but the child will be CALLED the Son of God, not that he
>> is the son of God (presumably Yahweh).
>>
>> Note too that the Holy Ghost then goes and knocks someone else up right
>> after that:
>>
>> [41] And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of
>> Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy
>> Ghost:
>> [42] And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among
>> women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
>>
>> Finally, note what Jesus has to say about forgiveness of sin:
>>
>> [31] Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be
>> forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be
>> forgiven unto men.
>> [32] And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be
>> forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not
>> be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
>>
>> That's his Father he's talking about. Remember when Pilate confronts him
>> about being the Son of GOD he does not admit that.
>>
>>> And if you disagree, then you disagree.
>>>
>>> Budd
>> If you have read the New Testament, then you realize that even Jesus does
>> not say he is the son of Yahweh.
>>
>> Matthew:
>>
>> [11] And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him,
>> saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou
>> sayest.
>>
>> Mark:
>>
>> [2] And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering
>> said unto him, Thou sayest it.
>>
>> Luke:
>>
>> [3] And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he
>> answered him and said, Thou sayest it.
>>
>> John:
>>
>> [33] Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus,
>> and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
>> [34] Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others
>> tell it thee of me?
>> [35] Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests
>> have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
>> [36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were
>> of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be
>> delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
>> [37] Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered,
>> Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause
>> came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every
>> one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
>>
>> If you have scripture to the contrary, please share it.
>>
>>> "I" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>>> You're right, it is a jeep group,
>>>> Then why did you bring up Memorial Day? Don't be a hypocrite: either
>>>> the group speech is ONLY about Jeeps, or it's an open group.
>>>>
>>>>> but someone chose to cause a religious argument over the quote used in
>>>>> the post of another.
>>>> I chose to point out that you were talking out of your ass about a book
>>>> you don't even know. Quick question: who does the New Testament say is
>>>> Jesus's father in a technical sense?
>>>>
>>>>> So, who really should be "net nannied"? Not the OP.
>>>> In other words, you're asserting special pleading for yourself. Nice.
>>>>
>>>>> Oh, wait, that's me.
>>>>>
>>>>> btw, there is not any difference in the true nature of YHVH between the
>>>>> New and Old Testaments except that which people like you try to
>>>>> imagine.
>>>> Yaweh is never mentioned at all in the New Testament. There's no
>>>> evidence the being called "God" is even the same being in the two sets
>>>> of books.
>>>>
>>>>> Check www.aig.org or www.gotquestions.org for answers to your claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> Budd
>>>> I have a better idea: try actually reading the Bible some time instead
>>>> of claiming you know what it does or doesn't say on a given topic. You
>>>> might be surprised how much you think you know about it is untrue.
>>>> Here's a handy place to start:
>>>>
>>>> http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...ble/?hpt=hp_c1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Larry" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> On May 31, 5:04 pm, "Budd Cochran" > wrote:
>>>>>> The Geneva Bible:http://www.gotquestions.org/Geneva-Bible.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to the article appears is neither more accruate or less
>>>>>> accurate
>>>>>> than the KJV or the NKJV, which I use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you tried putting it back into context where you find the
>>>>>> reference is
>>>>>> actually to harlot Babylon who will be destroyed in the end times (see
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> Revelation of John)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Old Testament also condoned the stoning of disobedient children
>>>>>> ... do
>>>>>> you? I don't and no true teacher of the Scriptures does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't sound like you have to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mat. 7:5
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Budd
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>>>>>> What the heck are you talking about?
>>>>>>> I'm talking about the Holy Bible (in its multiple iterations).
>>>>>>>> If you mean abortion, no it doesn't. If you mean the commandmaent, "
>>>>>>>> Thou
>>>>>>>> shalt not kill"; the Hebrew word is more correctly translated
>>>>>>>> "murder".
>>>>>>>> The King James translators are to blame there.
>>>>>>> Does that mention children?
>>>>>>>> But, no matter, the Bible does not condone murder of anyone and
>>>>>>>> allows
>>>>>>>> killing only in self-defense or in time of war.
>>>>>>> I'm surprised at your ignorance about the very Bible you claim to
>>>>>>> adore.
>>>>>>> There are many, many verses that applaud killing in general, but I'm
>>>>>>> speaking of one in particular here (though there are others).
>>>>>>>> If you mean the so-called "collateral" deaths found in wartime ... I
>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>> from my own time in the srvice that our military would love to know
>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>> to fight a war and never kill an innocent party. Got any ideas? Send
>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>> to the Pentagon.
>>>>>>> I see you're unable to keep your attention on the topic at hand and
>>>>>>> feel
>>>>>>> the need to bring up unrelated issues. This does not speak well for
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> ability to think.
>>>>>>>> If you believe otherwise, you do not know the Bible.
>>>>>>> I know "the Bible" (not that there is such a thing) better than you,
>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>> I know about the existence of its praise for child murder and you do
>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>> If you are in the US and just anti- US /military, feel free to
>>>>>>>> emmigrate
>>>>>>>> to a socialist country where you can be oppressed to your heart's
>>>>>>>> desire
>>>>>>>> ... nobody's gonna stop you.
>>>>>>>> Budd
>>>>>>> Once again you bring up unrelated issues. This is due no doubt to a
>>>>>>> mental weakness on your part and an inability to treat with the
>>>>>>> matter at
>>>>>>> hand.
>>>>>>> I direct you, sir, to read Psalms 137:9. Here is the text from the
>>>>>>> Geneva
>>>>>>> edition; the wording varies a bit from one edition to another but the
>>>>>>> sentiment is the same in all translations:
>>>>>>> Blessed shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy children against the
>>>>>>> stones.
>>>>>>> You may now apologize for being wrong both about what the Bible says
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> your knowledge about it.
>>>>>>>> "I" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The Holy Bible says, "No greater love has any man than he be
>>>>>>>>>> willing to
>>>>>>>>>> die
>>>>>>>>>> for a friend.(Jn 15:13 [paraphrased]) That's something our
>>>>>>>>>> military has
>>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>>> in spades since the Revolutionary War.
>>>>>>>>> Of course the Holy Bible also showers praise on those who murder
>>>>>>>>> children. How do you feel about that?
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>>>>>>> Aratzio
>>>>>>>>> Spooge
>>>>>>>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>>>>>>>> Vince
>>>>>>>>> Art Deco
>>>>>>>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>>>>>>>> Johnny Dollar
>>>>>>>>> Kevin Cannon
>>>>>>>>> yourfriend
>>>>>>>>> Fred Hall
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>>>>> Aratzio
>>>>>>> Spooge
>>>>>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>>>>>> Vince
>>>>>>> Art Deco
>>>>>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>>>>>> Johnny Dollar
>>>>>>> Kevin Cannon
>>>>>>> yourfriend
>>>>>>> Fred Hall
>>>>> I thought this was a jeep group not a religious forum; however the
>>>>> history of the authorship of the gospels is an interesting subject and
>>>>> if you only read the "canon gospels", you are really missing a lot of
>>>>> interesting history. For example, ideas about nature of God and the
>>>>> Afterlife was somewhat formalized at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD
>>>>> when there was a meeting of all the known Christian bishops from the
>>>>> known world. These were early Christian bishops and there was no
>>>>> authoritative bible at that time, as the formalized canon gospels came
>>>>> a few decades later. The irony is that these Christian bishops met
>>>>> under the leadership of Emperor Constantine, essentially a pagan
>>>>> emperor at the time of the meeting. However, according some church
>>>>> fathers he did become a Christian on his death bed, probably hedging
>>>>> his bets and not taking any chances.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact the selection of the so called canon gospels you are
>>>>> referring to were essentially arrived at by a politicization of
>>>>> Christianity by pagan roman emperors. If you google Nag Hammadi
>>>>> scrolls, you will find a lot more gospels that were ignored by the
>>>>> political establishment in the mid to late 4th century.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, essentially early Christianity was largely influenced by the pagan
>>>>> power structure of the time. (Think "Roman" Catholic Church)
>>>>>
>>>>> Also when while you are discussing the bible, have you noticed the
>>>>> difference in the description of the nature of God between the Old and
>>>>> New Testaments? The God in the New Testament is a more universal and
>>>>> loving God compared to the god described in the Old Testament.
>>>>>
>>>>> Larry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>>
>>>> Aratzio
>>>> Spooge
>>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>>> Vince
>>>> Art Deco
>>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>>> Johnny Dollar
>>>> Kevin Cannon
>>>> yourfriend
>>>> Fred Hall
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>
>> Aratzio
>> Spooge
>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>> Vince
>> Art Deco
>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>> Johnny Dollar
>> Kevin Cannon
>> yourfriend
>> Fred Hall
>
>


--

Greg's wrong guesses so far:

Aratzio
Spooge
Mad As A Box Of Frogs
Vince
Art Deco
Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
Johnny Dollar
Kevin Cannon
yourfriend
Fred Hall

On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 02:59:08 -0700, I > wrote:

>Budd Cochran wrote:
>> Ya know, there is one big difference between us besides our source for
>> scriptures ... I don't claim to be a Scripture expert and you do
>
>I don't claim to be an expert; I claim that I know more about it than
>you do, which is an important distinction since you refer to it as
>"holy" yet clearly have no answer for the many passages in which it
>applauds horrible things happening to people. I've only touched on a
>couple of them; there are many many more. You still have yet to answer
>how smashing children against rocks is a good thing.
>
>> and you
>> shove it down people's throats with a vengance Christ never used on anyone
>> except the moneychangers in the Temple.
>
>Christ did what he did because the Jews had allowed their holy
>Tabernacle to be corrupted. You clearly do not understand the
>difference between manly temper and Godly anger. I do what I do for
>similar, if not identical, reasons. There is no vengeance here, only an
>attempt to get you to think.
>
>> And the only difference there was he was justified, you're not..
>
>So says the man who lied about what his Bible says WRT killing children.
>
>> According to the KJV, NIV, NKJV, as I understand it, Father God, YHVH, thru
>> the actions of the Third Person of the Trinity (Elohim) was the father of
>> the child Jesus who was fully God and fully Man.
>
>Then you do not understand it. The Bible says many times that the Holy
>Ghost is the father of Jesus. Read Matthew, Mark, and Luke again.
>Wait, here they are from the online KJV:
>
>Matthew:
>
>[18] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother
>Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found
>with child of the Holy Ghost.
>[19] Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make
>her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
>[20] But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord
>appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear
>not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her
>is of the Holy Ghost.
>
>Mark:
>
>[8] I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with
>the Holy Ghost.
>[9] And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of
>Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
>[10] And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens
>opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
>[11] And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved
>Son, in whom I am well pleased.
>[12] And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
>
>Luke:
>
>[31] And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a
>son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
>[32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and
>the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
>[33] And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his
>kingdom there shall be no end.
>[34] Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
>a man?
>[35] And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come
>upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore
>also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son
>of God.
>
>Note that the angel specifically says that the Holy Ghost will place the
> child in her womb but the child will be CALLED the Son of God, not
>that he is the son of God (presumably Yahweh).
>
>Note too that the Holy Ghost then goes and knocks someone else up right
>after that:
>
>[41] And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of
>Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the
>Holy Ghost:
>[42] And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou
>among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
>
>Finally, note what Jesus has to say about forgiveness of sin:
>
>[31] Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be
>forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be
>forgiven unto men.
>[32] And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be
>forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall
>not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
>
>That's his Father he's talking about. Remember when Pilate confronts
>him about being the Son of GOD he does not admit that.
>
>> And if you disagree, then you disagree.
>>
>> Budd
>
>If you have read the New Testament, then you realize that even Jesus
>does not say he is the son of Yahweh.
>
>Matthew:
>
>[11] And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him,
>saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.
>
>Mark:
>
>[2] And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he
>answering said unto him, Thou sayest it.
>
>Luke:
>
>[3] And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he
>answered him and said, Thou sayest it.
>
>John:
>
>[33] Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus,
>and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
>[34] Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did
>others tell it thee of me?
>[35] Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests
>have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
>[36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were
>of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be
>delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
>[37] Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus
>answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for
>this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the
>truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
>
>If you have scripture to the contrary, please share it.
>
>> "I" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>> You're right, it is a jeep group,
>>> Then why did you bring up Memorial Day? Don't be a hypocrite: either the
>>> group speech is ONLY about Jeeps, or it's an open group.
>>>
>>>> but someone chose to cause a religious argument over the quote used in
>>>> the post of another.
>>> I chose to point out that you were talking out of your ass about a book
>>> you don't even know. Quick question: who does the New Testament say is
>>> Jesus's father in a technical sense?
>>>
>>>> So, who really should be "net nannied"? Not the OP.
>>> In other words, you're asserting special pleading for yourself. Nice.
>>>
>>>> Oh, wait, that's me.
>>>>
>>>> btw, there is not any difference in the true nature of YHVH between the
>>>> New and Old Testaments except that which people like you try to imagine.
>>> Yaweh is never mentioned at all in the New Testament. There's no evidence
>>> the being called "God" is even the same being in the two sets of books.
>>>
>>>> Check www.aig.org or www.gotquestions.org for answers to your claim.
>>>>
>>>> Budd
>>> I have a better idea: try actually reading the Bible some time instead of
>>> claiming you know what it does or doesn't say on a given topic. You might
>>> be surprised how much you think you know about it is untrue. Here's a
>>> handy place to start:
>>>
>>> http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...ble/?hpt=hp_c1
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Larry" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> On May 31, 5:04 pm, "Budd Cochran" > wrote:
>>>>> The Geneva Bible:http://www.gotquestions.org/Geneva-Bible.html
>>>>>
>>>>> According to the article appears is neither more accruate or less
>>>>> accurate
>>>>> than the KJV or the NKJV, which I use.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you tried putting it back into context where you find the reference
>>>>> is
>>>>> actually to harlot Babylon who will be destroyed in the end times (see
>>>>> The
>>>>> Revelation of John)?
>>>>>
>>>>> The Old Testament also condoned the stoning of disobedient children ...
>>>>> do
>>>>> you? I don't and no true teacher of the Scriptures does.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't sound like you have to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mat. 7:5
>>>>>
>>>>> Budd
>>>>>
>>>>> "I" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>>>>> What the heck are you talking about?
>>>>>> I'm talking about the Holy Bible (in its multiple iterations).
>>>>>>> If you mean abortion, no it doesn't. If you mean the commandmaent, "
>>>>>>> Thou
>>>>>>> shalt not kill"; the Hebrew word is more correctly translated
>>>>>>> "murder".
>>>>>>> The King James translators are to blame there.
>>>>>> Does that mention children?
>>>>>>> But, no matter, the Bible does not condone murder of anyone and allows
>>>>>>> killing only in self-defense or in time of war.
>>>>>> I'm surprised at your ignorance about the very Bible you claim to
>>>>>> adore.
>>>>>> There are many, many verses that applaud killing in general, but I'm
>>>>>> speaking of one in particular here (though there are others).
>>>>>>> If you mean the so-called "collateral" deaths found in wartime ... I
>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>> from my own time in the srvice that our military would love to know
>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>> to fight a war and never kill an innocent party. Got any ideas? Send
>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>> to the Pentagon.
>>>>>> I see you're unable to keep your attention on the topic at hand and
>>>>>> feel
>>>>>> the need to bring up unrelated issues. This does not speak well for
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> ability to think.
>>>>>>> If you believe otherwise, you do not know the Bible.
>>>>>> I know "the Bible" (not that there is such a thing) better than you,
>>>>>> since
>>>>>> I know about the existence of its praise for child murder and you do
>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>> If you are in the US and just anti- US /military, feel free to
>>>>>>> emmigrate
>>>>>>> to a socialist country where you can be oppressed to your heart's
>>>>>>> desire
>>>>>>> ... nobody's gonna stop you.
>>>>>>> Budd
>>>>>> Once again you bring up unrelated issues. This is due no doubt to a
>>>>>> mental weakness on your part and an inability to treat with the matter
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> hand.
>>>>>> I direct you, sir, to read Psalms 137:9. Here is the text from the
>>>>>> Geneva
>>>>>> edition; the wording varies a bit from one edition to another but the
>>>>>> sentiment is the same in all translations:
>>>>>> Blessed shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy children against the
>>>>>> stones.
>>>>>> You may now apologize for being wrong both about what the Bible says
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> your knowledge about it.
>>>>>>> "I" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The Holy Bible says, "No greater love has any man than he be willing
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> die
>>>>>>>>> for a friend.(Jn 15:13 [paraphrased]) That's something our military
>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>> in spades since the Revolutionary War.
>>>>>>>> Of course the Holy Bible also showers praise on those who murder
>>>>>>>> children. How do you feel about that?
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>>>>>> Aratzio
>>>>>>>> Spooge
>>>>>>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>>>>>>> Vince
>>>>>>>> Art Deco
>>>>>>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>>>>>>> Johnny Dollar
>>>>>>>> Kevin Cannon
>>>>>>>> yourfriend
>>>>>>>> Fred Hall
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>>>> Aratzio
>>>>>> Spooge
>>>>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>>>>> Vince
>>>>>> Art Deco
>>>>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>>>>> Johnny Dollar
>>>>>> Kevin Cannon
>>>>>> yourfriend
>>>>>> Fred Hall
>>>> I thought this was a jeep group not a religious forum; however the
>>>> history of the authorship of the gospels is an interesting subject and
>>>> if you only read the "canon gospels", you are really missing a lot of
>>>> interesting history. For example, ideas about nature of God and the
>>>> Afterlife was somewhat formalized at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD
>>>> when there was a meeting of all the known Christian bishops from the
>>>> known world. These were early Christian bishops and there was no
>>>> authoritative bible at that time, as the formalized canon gospels came
>>>> a few decades later. The irony is that these Christian bishops met
>>>> under the leadership of Emperor Constantine, essentially a pagan
>>>> emperor at the time of the meeting. However, according some church
>>>> fathers he did become a Christian on his death bed, probably hedging
>>>> his bets and not taking any chances.
>>>>
>>>> In fact the selection of the so called canon gospels you are
>>>> referring to were essentially arrived at by a politicization of
>>>> Christianity by pagan roman emperors. If you google Nag Hammadi
>>>> scrolls, you will find a lot more gospels that were ignored by the
>>>> political establishment in the mid to late 4th century.
>>>>
>>>> So, essentially early Christianity was largely influenced by the pagan
>>>> power structure of the time. (Think "Roman" Catholic Church)
>>>>
>>>> Also when while you are discussing the bible, have you noticed the
>>>> difference in the description of the nature of God between the Old and
>>>> New Testaments? The God in the New Testament is a more universal and
>>>> loving God compared to the god described in the Old Testament.
>>>>
>>>> Larry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>
>>> Aratzio
>>> Spooge
>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>> Vince
>>> Art Deco
>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>> Johnny Dollar
>>> Kevin Cannon
>>> yourfriend
>>> Fred Hall
>>
>>


I lurk here for Jeep content
<plonk>

wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 02:59:08 -0700, I > wrote:
>
>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>> Ya know, there is one big difference between us besides our source for
>>> scriptures ... I don't claim to be a Scripture expert and you do
>> I don't claim to be an expert; I claim that I know more about it than
>> you do, which is an important distinction since you refer to it as
>> "holy" yet clearly have no answer for the many passages in which it
>> applauds horrible things happening to people. I've only touched on a
>> couple of them; there are many many more. You still have yet to answer
>> how smashing children against rocks is a good thing.
>>
>>> and you
>>> shove it down people's throats with a vengance Christ never used on anyone
>>> except the moneychangers in the Temple.
>> Christ did what he did because the Jews had allowed their holy
>> Tabernacle to be corrupted. You clearly do not understand the
>> difference between manly temper and Godly anger. I do what I do for
>> similar, if not identical, reasons. There is no vengeance here, only an
>> attempt to get you to think.
>>
>>> And the only difference there was he was justified, you're not..
>> So says the man who lied about what his Bible says WRT killing children.
>>
>>> According to the KJV, NIV, NKJV, as I understand it, Father God, YHVH, thru
>>> the actions of the Third Person of the Trinity (Elohim) was the father of
>>> the child Jesus who was fully God and fully Man.
>> Then you do not understand it. The Bible says many times that the Holy
>> Ghost is the father of Jesus. Read Matthew, Mark, and Luke again.
>> Wait, here they are from the online KJV:
>>
>> Matthew:
>>
>> [18] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother
>> Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found
>> with child of the Holy Ghost.
>> [19] Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make
>> her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
>> [20] But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord
>> appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear
>> not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her
>> is of the Holy Ghost.
>>
>> Mark:
>>
>> [8] I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with
>> the Holy Ghost.
>> [9] And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of
>> Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
>> [10] And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens
>> opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
>> [11] And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved
>> Son, in whom I am well pleased.
>> [12] And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
>>
>> Luke:
>>
>> [31] And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a
>> son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
>> [32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and
>> the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
>> [33] And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his
>> kingdom there shall be no end.
>> [34] Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
>> a man?
>> [35] And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come
>> upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore
>> also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son
>> of God.
>>
>> Note that the angel specifically says that the Holy Ghost will place the
>> child in her womb but the child will be CALLED the Son of God, not
>> that he is the son of God (presumably Yahweh).
>>
>> Note too that the Holy Ghost then goes and knocks someone else up right
>> after that:
>>
>> [41] And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of
>> Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the
>> Holy Ghost:
>> [42] And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou
>> among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
>>
>> Finally, note what Jesus has to say about forgiveness of sin:
>>
>> [31] Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be
>> forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be
>> forgiven unto men.
>> [32] And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be
>> forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall
>> not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
>>
>> That's his Father he's talking about. Remember when Pilate confronts
>> him about being the Son of GOD he does not admit that.
>>
>>> And if you disagree, then you disagree.
>>>
>>> Budd
>> If you have read the New Testament, then you realize that even Jesus
>> does not say he is the son of Yahweh.
>>
>> Matthew:
>>
>> [11] And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him,
>> saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.
>>
>> Mark:
>>
>> [2] And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he
>> answering said unto him, Thou sayest it.
>>
>> Luke:
>>
>> [3] And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he
>> answered him and said, Thou sayest it.
>>
>> John:
>>
>> [33] Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus,
>> and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
>> [34] Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did
>> others tell it thee of me?
>> [35] Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests
>> have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
>> [36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were
>> of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be
>> delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
>> [37] Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus
>> answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for
>> this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the
>> truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
>>
>> If you have scripture to the contrary, please share it.
>>
>>> "I" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>>> You're right, it is a jeep group,
>>>> Then why did you bring up Memorial Day? Don't be a hypocrite: either the
>>>> group speech is ONLY about Jeeps, or it's an open group.
>>>>
>>>>> but someone chose to cause a religious argument over the quote used in
>>>>> the post of another.
>>>> I chose to point out that you were talking out of your ass about a book
>>>> you don't even know. Quick question: who does the New Testament say is
>>>> Jesus's father in a technical sense?
>>>>
>>>>> So, who really should be "net nannied"? Not the OP.
>>>> In other words, you're asserting special pleading for yourself. Nice.
>>>>
>>>>> Oh, wait, that's me.
>>>>>
>>>>> btw, there is not any difference in the true nature of YHVH between the
>>>>> New and Old Testaments except that which people like you try to imagine.
>>>> Yaweh is never mentioned at all in the New Testament. There's no evidence
>>>> the being called "God" is even the same being in the two sets of books.
>>>>
>>>>> Check www.aig.org or www.gotquestions.org for answers to your claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> Budd
>>>> I have a better idea: try actually reading the Bible some time instead of
>>>> claiming you know what it does or doesn't say on a given topic. You might
>>>> be surprised how much you think you know about it is untrue. Here's a
>>>> handy place to start:
>>>>
>>>> http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...ble/?hpt=hp_c1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Larry" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> On May 31, 5:04 pm, "Budd Cochran" > wrote:
>>>>>> The Geneva Bible:http://www.gotquestions.org/Geneva-Bible.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to the article appears is neither more accruate or less
>>>>>> accurate
>>>>>> than the KJV or the NKJV, which I use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you tried putting it back into context where you find the reference
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> actually to harlot Babylon who will be destroyed in the end times (see
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> Revelation of John)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Old Testament also condoned the stoning of disobedient children ...
>>>>>> do
>>>>>> you? I don't and no true teacher of the Scriptures does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't sound like you have to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mat. 7:5
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Budd
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>>>>>> What the heck are you talking about?
>>>>>>> I'm talking about the Holy Bible (in its multiple iterations).
>>>>>>>> If you mean abortion, no it doesn't. If you mean the commandmaent, "
>>>>>>>> Thou
>>>>>>>> shalt not kill"; the Hebrew word is more correctly translated
>>>>>>>> "murder".
>>>>>>>> The King James translators are to blame there.
>>>>>>> Does that mention children?
>>>>>>>> But, no matter, the Bible does not condone murder of anyone and allows
>>>>>>>> killing only in self-defense or in time of war.
>>>>>>> I'm surprised at your ignorance about the very Bible you claim to
>>>>>>> adore.
>>>>>>> There are many, many verses that applaud killing in general, but I'm
>>>>>>> speaking of one in particular here (though there are others).
>>>>>>>> If you mean the so-called "collateral" deaths found in wartime ... I
>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>> from my own time in the srvice that our military would love to know
>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>> to fight a war and never kill an innocent party. Got any ideas? Send
>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>> to the Pentagon.
>>>>>>> I see you're unable to keep your attention on the topic at hand and
>>>>>>> feel
>>>>>>> the need to bring up unrelated issues. This does not speak well for
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> ability to think.
>>>>>>>> If you believe otherwise, you do not know the Bible.
>>>>>>> I know "the Bible" (not that there is such a thing) better than you,
>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>> I know about the existence of its praise for child murder and you do
>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>> If you are in the US and just anti- US /military, feel free to
>>>>>>>> emmigrate
>>>>>>>> to a socialist country where you can be oppressed to your heart's
>>>>>>>> desire
>>>>>>>> ... nobody's gonna stop you.
>>>>>>>> Budd
>>>>>>> Once again you bring up unrelated issues. This is due no doubt to a
>>>>>>> mental weakness on your part and an inability to treat with the matter
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>> hand.
>>>>>>> I direct you, sir, to read Psalms 137:9. Here is the text from the
>>>>>>> Geneva
>>>>>>> edition; the wording varies a bit from one edition to another but the
>>>>>>> sentiment is the same in all translations:
>>>>>>> Blessed shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy children against the
>>>>>>> stones.
>>>>>>> You may now apologize for being wrong both about what the Bible says
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> your knowledge about it.
>>>>>>>> "I" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The Holy Bible says, "No greater love has any man than he be willing
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> die
>>>>>>>>>> for a friend.(Jn 15:13 [paraphrased]) That's something our military
>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>>> in spades since the Revolutionary War.
>>>>>>>>> Of course the Holy Bible also showers praise on those who murder
>>>>>>>>> children. How do you feel about that?
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>>>>>>> Aratzio
>>>>>>>>> Spooge
>>>>>>>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>>>>>>>> Vince
>>>>>>>>> Art Deco
>>>>>>>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>>>>>>>> Johnny Dollar
>>>>>>>>> Kevin Cannon
>>>>>>>>> yourfriend
>>>>>>>>> Fred Hall
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>>>>> Aratzio
>>>>>>> Spooge
>>>>>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>>>>>> Vince
>>>>>>> Art Deco
>>>>>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>>>>>> Johnny Dollar
>>>>>>> Kevin Cannon
>>>>>>> yourfriend
>>>>>>> Fred Hall
>>>>> I thought this was a jeep group not a religious forum; however the
>>>>> history of the authorship of the gospels is an interesting subject and
>>>>> if you only read the "canon gospels", you are really missing a lot of
>>>>> interesting history. For example, ideas about nature of God and the
>>>>> Afterlife was somewhat formalized at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD
>>>>> when there was a meeting of all the known Christian bishops from the
>>>>> known world. These were early Christian bishops and there was no
>>>>> authoritative bible at that time, as the formalized canon gospels came
>>>>> a few decades later. The irony is that these Christian bishops met
>>>>> under the leadership of Emperor Constantine, essentially a pagan
>>>>> emperor at the time of the meeting. However, according some church
>>>>> fathers he did become a Christian on his death bed, probably hedging
>>>>> his bets and not taking any chances.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact the selection of the so called canon gospels you are
>>>>> referring to were essentially arrived at by a politicization of
>>>>> Christianity by pagan roman emperors. If you google Nag Hammadi
>>>>> scrolls, you will find a lot more gospels that were ignored by the
>>>>> political establishment in the mid to late 4th century.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, essentially early Christianity was largely influenced by the pagan
>>>>> power structure of the time. (Think "Roman" Catholic Church)
>>>>>
>>>>> Also when while you are discussing the bible, have you noticed the
>>>>> difference in the description of the nature of God between the Old and
>>>>> New Testaments? The God in the New Testament is a more universal and
>>>>> loving God compared to the god described in the Old Testament.
>>>>>
>>>>> Larry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>>
>>>> Aratzio
>>>> Spooge
>>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>>> Vince
>>>> Art Deco
>>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>>> Johnny Dollar
>>>> Kevin Cannon
>>>> yourfriend
>>>> Fred Hall
>>>
>
>
> I lurk here for Jeep content
> <plonk>

So why did you feel the need to announce that?

--

Greg's wrong guesses so far:

Aratzio
Spooge
Mad As A Box Of Frogs
Vince
Art Deco
Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
Johnny Dollar
Kevin Cannon
yourfriend
Fred Hall

I > wrote in
:

> wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 02:59:08 -0700, I > wrote:
>>
>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>> Ya know, there is one big difference between us besides our source
>>>> for scriptures ... I don't claim to be a Scripture expert and you
>>>> do
>>> I don't claim to be an expert; I claim that I know more about it
>>> than you do, which is an important distinction since you refer to it
>>> as "holy" yet clearly have no answer for the many passages in which
>>> it applauds horrible things happening to people. I've only touched
>>> on a couple of them; there are many many more. You still have yet
>>> to answer how smashing children against rocks is a good thing.
>>>
>>>> and you
>>>> shove it down people's throats with a vengance Christ never used on
>>>> anyone except the moneychangers in the Temple.
>>> Christ did what he did because the Jews had allowed their holy
>>> Tabernacle to be corrupted. You clearly do not understand the
>>> difference between manly temper and Godly anger. I do what I do for
>>> similar, if not identical, reasons. There is no vengeance here,
>>> only an attempt to get you to think.
>>>
>>>> And the only difference there was he was justified, you're not..
>>> So says the man who lied about what his Bible says WRT killing
>>> children.
>>>
>>>> According to the KJV, NIV, NKJV, as I understand it, Father God,
>>>> YHVH, thru the actions of the Third Person of the Trinity (Elohim)
>>>> was the father of the child Jesus who was fully God and fully Man.
>>> Then you do not understand it. The Bible says many times that the
>>> Holy Ghost is the father of Jesus. Read Matthew, Mark, and Luke
>>> again. Wait, here they are from the online KJV:
>>>
>>> Matthew:
>>>
>>> [18] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his
>>> mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she
>>> was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
>>> [19] Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to
>>> make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
>>> [20] But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the
>>> Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of
>>> David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is
>>> conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
>>>
>>> Mark:
>>>
>>> [8] I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you
>>> with the Holy Ghost.
>>> [9] And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth
>>> of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
>>> [10] And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens
>>> opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
>>> [11] And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved
>>> Son, in whom I am well pleased.
>>> [12] And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
>>>
>>> Luke:
>>>
>>> [31] And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a
>>> son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
>>> [32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest:
>>> and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
>>> [33] And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his
>>> kingdom there shall be no end.
>>> [34] Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know
>>> not a man?
>>> [35] And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall
>>> come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:
>>> therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be
>>> called the Son of God.
>>>
>>> Note that the angel specifically says that the Holy Ghost will place
>>> the
>>> child in her womb but the child will be CALLED the Son of God, not
>>> that he is the son of God (presumably Yahweh).
>>>
>>> Note too that the Holy Ghost then goes and knocks someone else up
>>> right after that:
>>>
>>> [41] And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation
>>> of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with
>>> the Holy Ghost:
>>> [42] And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou
>>> among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
>>>
>>> Finally, note what Jesus has to say about forgiveness of sin:
>>>
>>> [31] Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall
>>> be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall
>>> not be forgiven unto men.
>>> [32] And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall
>>> be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it
>>> shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the
>>> world to come.
>>>
>>> That's his Father he's talking about. Remember when Pilate
>>> confronts him about being the Son of GOD he does not admit that.
>>>
>>>> And if you disagree, then you disagree.
>>>>
>>>> Budd
>>> If you have read the New Testament, then you realize that even Jesus
>>> does not say he is the son of Yahweh.
>>>
>>> Matthew:
>>>
>>> [11] And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked
>>> him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him,
>>> Thou sayest.
>>>
>>> Mark:
>>>
>>> [2] And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he
>>> answering said unto him, Thou sayest it.
>>>
>>> Luke:
>>>
>>> [3] And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And
>>> he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.
>>>
>>> John:
>>>
>>> [33] Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called
>>> Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
>>> [34] Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did
>>> others tell it thee of me?
>>> [35] Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief
>>> priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
>>> [36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom
>>> were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not
>>> be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
>>> [37] Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus
>>> answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and
>>> for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness
>>> unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
>>>
>>> If you have scripture to the contrary, please share it.
>>>
>>>> "I" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>>>> You're right, it is a jeep group,
>>>>> Then why did you bring up Memorial Day? Don't be a hypocrite:
>>>>> either the group speech is ONLY about Jeeps, or it's an open
>>>>> group.
>>>>>
>>>>>> but someone chose to cause a religious argument over the quote
>>>>>> used in the post of another.
>>>>> I chose to point out that you were talking out of your ass about a
>>>>> book you don't even know. Quick question: who does the New
>>>>> Testament say is Jesus's father in a technical sense?
>>>>>
>>>>>> So, who really should be "net nannied"? Not the OP.
>>>>> In other words, you're asserting special pleading for yourself.
>>>>> Nice.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, wait, that's me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> btw, there is not any difference in the true nature of YHVH
>>>>>> between the New and Old Testaments except that which people like
>>>>>> you try to imagine.
>>>>> Yaweh is never mentioned at all in the New Testament. There's no
>>>>> evidence the being called "God" is even the same being in the two
>>>>> sets of books.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Check www.aig.org or www.gotquestions.org for answers to your
>>>>>> claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Budd
>>>>> I have a better idea: try actually reading the Bible some time
>>>>> instead of claiming you know what it does or doesn't say on a
>>>>> given topic. You might be surprised how much you think you know
>>>>> about it is untrue. Here's a handy place to start:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...-the-bible/?hp
>>>>> t=hp_c1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Larry" > wrote in message
>>>>>> .
>>>>>> com... On May 31, 5:04 pm, "Budd Cochran" >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> The Geneva Bible:http://www.gotquestions.org/Geneva-Bible.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to the article appears is neither more accruate or
>>>>>>> less accurate
>>>>>>> than the KJV or the NKJV, which I use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you tried putting it back into context where you find the
>>>>>>> reference is
>>>>>>> actually to harlot Babylon who will be destroyed in the end
>>>>>>> times (see The
>>>>>>> Revelation of John)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Old Testament also condoned the stoning of disobedient
>>>>>>> children ... do
>>>>>>> you? I don't and no true teacher of the Scriptures does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doesn't sound like you have to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mat. 7:5
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Budd
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>>>>>>> What the heck are you talking about?
>>>>>>>> I'm talking about the Holy Bible (in its multiple iterations).
>>>>>>>>> If you mean abortion, no it doesn't. If you mean the
>>>>>>>>> commandmaent, " Thou
>>>>>>>>> shalt not kill"; the Hebrew word is more correctly translated
>>>>>>>>> "murder".
>>>>>>>>> The King James translators are to blame there.
>>>>>>>> Does that mention children?
>>>>>>>>> But, no matter, the Bible does not condone murder of anyone
>>>>>>>>> and allows killing only in self-defense or in time of war.
>>>>>>>> I'm surprised at your ignorance about the very Bible you claim
>>>>>>>> to adore.
>>>>>>>> There are many, many verses that applaud killing in general,
>>>>>>>> but I'm speaking of one in particular here (though there are
>>>>>>>> others).
>>>>>>>>> If you mean the so-called "collateral" deaths found in wartime
>>>>>>>>> ... I know
>>>>>>>>> from my own time in the srvice that our military would love to
>>>>>>>>> know how
>>>>>>>>> to fight a war and never kill an innocent party. Got any
>>>>>>>>> ideas? Send them
>>>>>>>>> to the Pentagon.
>>>>>>>> I see you're unable to keep your attention on the topic at hand
>>>>>>>> and feel
>>>>>>>> the need to bring up unrelated issues. This does not speak well
>>>>>>>> for your
>>>>>>>> ability to think.
>>>>>>>>> If you believe otherwise, you do not know the Bible.
>>>>>>>> I know "the Bible" (not that there is such a thing) better than
>>>>>>>> you, since
>>>>>>>> I know about the existence of its praise for child murder and
>>>>>>>> you do not.
>>>>>>>>> If you are in the US and just anti- US /military, feel free to
>>>>>>>>> emmigrate
>>>>>>>>> to a socialist country where you can be oppressed to your
>>>>>>>>> heart's desire
>>>>>>>>> ... nobody's gonna stop you.
>>>>>>>>> Budd
>>>>>>>> Once again you bring up unrelated issues. This is due no doubt
>>>>>>>> to a mental weakness on your part and an inability to treat
>>>>>>>> with the matter at
>>>>>>>> hand.
>>>>>>>> I direct you, sir, to read Psalms 137:9. Here is the text from
>>>>>>>> the Geneva
>>>>>>>> edition; the wording varies a bit from one edition to another
>>>>>>>> but the sentiment is the same in all translations:
>>>>>>>> Blessed shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy children
>>>>>>>> against the stones.
>>>>>>>> You may now apologize for being wrong both about what the Bible
>>>>>>>> says and
>>>>>>>> your knowledge about it.
>>>>>>>>> "I" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The Holy Bible says, "No greater love has any man than he be
>>>>>>>>>>> willing to
>>>>>>>>>>> die
>>>>>>>>>>> for a friend.(Jn 15:13 [paraphrased]) That's something our
>>>>>>>>>>> military has
>>>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>>>> in spades since the Revolutionary War.
>>>>>>>>>> Of course the Holy Bible also showers praise on those who
>>>>>>>>>> murder children. How do you feel about that?
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>>>>>>>> Aratzio
>>>>>>>>>> Spooge
>>>>>>>>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>>>>>>>>> Vince
>>>>>>>>>> Art Deco
>>>>>>>>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>>>>>>>>> Johnny Dollar
>>>>>>>>>> Kevin Cannon
>>>>>>>>>> yourfriend
>>>>>>>>>> Fred Hall
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>>>>>> Aratzio
>>>>>>>> Spooge
>>>>>>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>>>>>>> Vince
>>>>>>>> Art Deco
>>>>>>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>>>>>>> Johnny Dollar
>>>>>>>> Kevin Cannon
>>>>>>>> yourfriend
>>>>>>>> Fred Hall
>>>>>> I thought this was a jeep group not a religious forum; however
>>>>>> the history of the authorship of the gospels is an interesting
>>>>>> subject and if you only read the "canon gospels", you are really
>>>>>> missing a lot of interesting history. For example, ideas about
>>>>>> nature of God and the Afterlife was somewhat formalized at the
>>>>>> Council of Nicea in 325 AD when there was a meeting of all the
>>>>>> known Christian bishops from the known world. These were early
>>>>>> Christian bishops and there was no authoritative bible at that
>>>>>> time, as the formalized canon gospels came a few decades later.
>>>>>> The irony is that these Christian bishops met under the
>>>>>> leadership of Emperor Constantine, essentially a pagan emperor at
>>>>>> the time of the meeting. However, according some church fathers
>>>>>> he did become a Christian on his death bed, probably hedging
>>>>>> his bets and not taking any chances.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact the selection of the so called canon gospels you are
>>>>>> referring to were essentially arrived at by a politicization of
>>>>>> Christianity by pagan roman emperors. If you google Nag Hammadi
>>>>>> scrolls, you will find a lot more gospels that were ignored by
>>>>>> the political establishment in the mid to late 4th century.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, essentially early Christianity was largely influenced by the
>>>>>> pagan power structure of the time. (Think "Roman" Catholic
>>>>>> Church)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also when while you are discussing the bible, have you noticed
>>>>>> the difference in the description of the nature of God between
>>>>>> the Old and New Testaments? The God in the New Testament is a
>>>>>> more universal and loving God compared to the god described in
>>>>>> the Old Testament.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>>>
>>>>> Aratzio
>>>>> Spooge
>>>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>>>> Vince
>>>>> Art Deco
>>>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>>>> Johnny Dollar
>>>>> Kevin Cannon
>>>>> yourfriend
>>>>> Fred Hall
>>>>
>>
>>
>> I lurk here for Jeep content
>> <plonk>
>
> So why did you feel the need to announce that?

Because he was forced to read it. Obviously he doesn't believe jHeaps
were the product of gHod.

--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.****nozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"So what, spinics were defeated 7 years ago, and THAT did no good
either, they still say the same thing." - Edmo the Defeated.