From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:56:53 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <ksand-081092174258@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <70498@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
|Pitts) wrote:
|> |So you frankly believe people were not that keen to listen and hear
|> |on gossip and fantastic events 2000 years ago? C'mon, you know quite
|> |well that even if we didn't have newspapers, the cultures had all kinds
|> |of other channels they used to distribute information. Not to speak
|> 
|> Agreed.  And we have Christianity spread thoughout the world.  It spread 
|> from Jerusalem out rather quickly.  Within a few days of Pentecost there
|> were 3,000 (Acts 2:41) and then 5,000 (Acts 4:4) believers within 
|> Jerusalem.  
|
|So isnt' it amazing that we have thig huge mass movement, and both
|Jews and Romans are not keen to record it. Think about it.

Let's see - Luke a greek, Paul a Roman citizen by birth, Peter, James,
and John were Jews.  I guess it wasn't recorded.  Oh, you men recorded
by people that deny the events or something like that, correct?
 
|> |about all the historical recordings people wrote. It's a known problem
|> |that for a man that was such a special being, there's hardly anything
|> |recorded.
|> 
|> Oh.  What is the volume of books we call the Bible that predicts and
|> confirms this one man Jesus the Christ as he was to come, was here,
|> and will come again?  I understand that's not enough.  
|
|We have great many other religious books, like the book of Mormon,
|that accurately (heh) predicts events. What's the difference, I could

Give some of their prophecies.  Check with the Jehovah Witnesses, too.

|myself write a book that accurately predicts what will happen 3000
|years from now. The key is to make things really diffuse, and never,
|never mention true names! Don't mention United States,  mention something
|like the eagle. Don't mention the bold eagle, eagle is diffuse enough
|to point at any possible empire 3000 years from now.

Thats' right.  Knowing about the future is not a trivial thing. 
Some were specific and some weren't.  Remember that a thousand years with
the Lord is a day and a day is as a thousand years.  Part of prophecy
is knowing what to and what not to say.

|> |Well, Osiris rose from the dead, Mitras died weekly in the Mitras cult
|> Where are their bodies today?   Jesus never died again - he is alive.
|
|And where is Jesus' body? Don't you see the similarities? According
|to your standards Mitras is far more mightier than Jesus, because 
|he died during each Mitras ritual...

What I looked up said that Mitras was not a historical figure.  Where
do you get your information - is it in the encyclopedia?
 
|>> |is an early religious idea. Actually it's even a requirement so the
|> |worshipped entity will get followers.
|> 
|> A afterlife is promised for all who follow Jesus.  Jesus rose and proved
|> there was life beyond the grave and death had no more power over him nor
|> will it have power over those who believe, for we will overcome death
|> at the resurrection.
|
|And he's not the only God-figure that achieved this. I still maintain
|that it was a requirement for any aspiring mystery cult to have a God
|that was capable of escaping death. If you didn't have one, you didn't

Name one and give the documentation reference.

|get any followers due to lack of miracle support.

There is no question that the resurrection of Jesus the Christ is
the center of our faith.  It was a miracle.  For without the resurrection,
we would have no reason to pursue this course.  Why do you think
Stephen (Acts 7-8), was was with them from the beginning (Acts 3:) died
for his faith, if it wasn't true.

|> Who said there was an earthly father even know his name?  All of the
|> information and understanding I have says that Mary conceived - if
|> God can created mankind, then surely he can cause a woman to conceive,
|> without a man.
|
|Let me know where in the Bible it is stated that the ancestory line
|is ascended from Mary, if you could do that I will shut up. If you
|can't then you should shut up. A simple deal, or what.

Here is Matthew record.  Note that the men from Abraham to Joseph
were listed as the father of the next person, except for Joseph who
is listed as the husband of Mary not the father of Jesus.  Mary is
the one to whom Jesus was born.

   Mat 1:1   A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the
      son of Abraham:
   Mat 1:2   Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob
      the father of Judah and his brothers,
   ...
   Mat 1:16   and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was  
      born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke's account says that Jesus was the son "so it was thought" of Joseph,
but it doesn't qualify the others (Mary's ancestors) with "so it was
thought", for he was their son through Mary.

   Luke 3:23   Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his
      ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,

|> They had them figured out.  Joseph was not the father.  Mary was the
|> mother.  The legal line came through Joseph, as Matthew presents it.
|> Matthew does not say Joseph was Jesus' father.  Luke gives the
|> male ancestorial line and so the blood line of Jesus through Mary to 
|> David -  Jesus was the son of each of those in Luke's geneology.  Both 
|> of them mention Joseph.
|
|I'm not interested in speculation, I want the word of the Bible,
|thanks.

See above.

|Cheers,
|Kent

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |