From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:58:08 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <70617@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> |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?

OK, if you want to spin on this thread, haven't you noticed that all
these men are members of the cult? I was mainly talking about the grey
masses, the objective historical witnesses that seem to not write much
about Jesus when he lived. Most likely because he wasn't an important
person, exactly.
> |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.

Talk with any Jehovah's witness, and you will notice that their
predictions are supposedly still valid. Actually they operate with
the same illumination of prophecy telling as some other cults.

> 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.

And especially how to write down prophecies so you don't make any 
blunders. Don't use real names, for instance.

> |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?

OK, I have to check with my literature back home about Mitras, if this
person was originally a supposedly historical person. Even if we stick
to historical persons, what do you think of people that believe that
St. Germain of the Wandering Jew are still living. Are these Gods as well
based on your logical thinking?
 

> 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.

It reminds a lot of Mitras and Osiris worshipping, worshipping someone
that dies and resurrects. The interesting fact is that this worshipping
is more ancient than Christianity. Also that Christianity most likely
stole the idea of Sunday from the Mitras cult, sort of a convenient
way of taking a better holiday than the Jewish culture based Saturday.
 
> |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.

See the line above, it *does not* say that the genealogy is from Mary. It
says that Joseph is the husband of Mary. So you should shut up now, because
as we made the deal that you would point out clearly that Mary's ancestory
line is the valid one, and you were not unable. I hope you will keep your
words, thanks.
 
> 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.

More speculative thinking. Please, use the word of Bible to state your
facts, and not your imagination.

I'm curious, why are you so keen to speculate instead of pointing logical
statements that clearly states that Mary's ancestory line is the valid one?
I maintain that lack of evidence makes people speculate. And that's not a
good sign concerning validation of a religion.

Cheers,
Kent 
PS: Have a nice day!
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.