The greatest man in history

jesuscreed

Advertisements

77 thoughts on “The greatest man in history

    • Bit dubious about your thesis, Bryan. A very glib unthinking passage.

      The greatest Man in history is Jesus.

      He had no servants, yet they called him Master.
      But loads of teachers and gurus have been called Master.

      He had no degree, yet they called him Teacher.
      But loads of Masters, Rabbis, Preachers etc have had no degree in today’s
      terms but have been known as Teachers.

      He had no medicines yet they called him Healer.
      Loads of spiritual healers without medicines have practiced in the world
      through all history. – (in the Old Testament, – Elijah? Elisha?) In any case, I
      recall Jesus utilizing Saliva as a medicine in one healing situation.

      He had no army, yet kings feared Him.
      Cant recall any king who ever feared him. – (that is, other than some odd
      Christian Kings who were taught to fear him by the Church.)

      He won no military battles, yet He conquered the world.
      There is no indication of Jesus ever conquering the world in any verifiable
      historical fashion.

      He committed no crime, yet they crucified Him.
      If Jesus truly committed Blasphemy against Jewish Law, then he was
      correctly condemned to death by the Jews. And if he really claimed to be any
      sort of King and had followers who appeared to be fomenting rebellion, then
      the Romans were correct in crucifying him under Roman law.
      .
      He was buried in a tomb, yet He lives today.
      This contention is a matter of belief and faith, but not verifiable
      historical fact.

      With Respect, Rian.

      Like

      • Try to think outside you literal box Rian.

        Cant recall any king who ever feared him.

        try Herod for a start

        He was buried in a tomb, yet He lives today.
        This contention is a matter of belief and faith, but not verifiable
        historical fact.
        .

        You probably wouldn’t believe it I showed you the facts Rian. You’ve decided it ain’t true

        Like

      • Bryan,
        I’ve just looked up all the references to Herod in the Christian Scriptures, and there is no indication of any special FEAR that either one of the Herods held for JESUS in particular. Sure, when the Magi came looking for the BABY born King of the Jews, we are told that Herod was TROUBLED. But he would be troubled about any possible kingly rival, wouldnt he?

        Then the other Herod was PERPLEXED on hearing of the works of Jesus, and wanted to see him. No suggestion of him being afraid then, or of having any fear when Jesus appeared before him .

        We ARE told however that Herod was definitely afraid of (the adult) John Baptist. So no, Bryan, there is no Biblical basis for the idea that Herod was afraid of Jesus the man. And you are unable to back up your quote that KINGS feared him???

        Do you have some relevant Scriptural quotes that are not included in my Cruden’s?

        In regard to Jesus as ‘LIVING TO THIS DAY’, it must be admitted that regardless of even whether he ‘rose from the dead’ or not, there is no verifiable evidence that would stand up in any court or scientific investigation to prove that contention. You simply cannot show any FACTS. Sure there are innumerable anecdotes and personal experiences that have convinced people over 2000 years about Jesus living, but you simply cannot marshall any literal evidence.

        Oh, just one other thing, you may notice that I raised no objection or argument about the title of your piece. For all I know, Jesus MAY BE the greatest man in history. But you brought up no evidence there to demonstrate it. (By the way, I must make it plain that I am not averse to any possibility of ‘miracles’ occurring. But I am skeptical about individual instances that may be mooted.

        Finally, it was only one of my points that you made any attempt to answer. You obviously cant tackle any of the others with any counter evidence.

        Now, if my immortal soul is at stake, Bryan, please do SHOW ME THE FACTS.

        Cheers, Rian.

        Like

      • Matthew’s Gospel tells us that after hearing about the birth of Jesus, Herod was frightened (2:3). Peasant Babies don’t usually strike fear into king’s hearts, even those who are “troubled” , so what’s up? The Greek word translated “troubled” in verse three means “to be greatly agitated” or “stirred up.” It carries the idea of total panic. Herod panicked. Herod gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under/ Fear? He was certainly afraid.

        Like

      • Not really adequate, Bryan,
        Herod was agitated over and over again through his rule. That’s why he murdered so many people, including members of his own family. Now at that particular point of time, that he is supposed to have learnt about the Magi looking for a king that was newly born, he would have had no idea at all that the baby was a peasant child, would he? (all this of course is regardless of whether the Matthean account of the Infancy bears any validity, anyway)

        He was simply and clearly troubled at the idea of ANY threat to his kingship, real or imagined. According to Matthew’s story, he was quite confident that he could eliminate the danger by killing all the young children under two. He was not any sort of a Jewish believer, was he? All he could go on would be what was accepted as prophecy in the Jewish Scriptures and what it would mean in the eyes of believers. And he had to be told about that by the experts.

        Are you going to tell me, Bryan, that this was the ONLY occasion when Herod was troubled/panicked about the rumour or news of a rival king OR of a Messiah? Palestine was riddled with Messianic claimants through that century, wasnt it? ANYONE who sounded like a possible rival was a worry. It has absolutely NO relation to a fear of Jesus himself. It is not likely that he ever even got to know the name of Jesus at all. And then Herod died soon afterwards.

        So at no time was either of the Kings Herod reported as being personally afraid of Jesus! Or any other King that I’ve ever heard of! And you DID say that kings (plural) were afraid of him. Or do you withdraw that now?

        During the last week or so, you have confronted our old mate Dabbles with the challenge to put up or shut up concerning his claims about charity giving. I’m challenging you in exactly the same way. You tell me that I wouldnt believe even if you ‘showed me the facts’. Bryan, put your money where your mouth is, and SHOW ME THE FACTS about Jesus living today. But you will need more than anecdote and tradition, – more than healings and visions. If you quote those as evidence or facts, then you must be desperate and I shall debate you.

        Cheers, Rian.

        Like

      • The evidence of Jesus living today is in the testimony of those who experience Jesus today. That’s something you cannot deny. That you personally cannot experience it – and I believe that is perhaps a result of your own struggles – is not evidence it doesn’t exist.

        Like

      • “The evidence of Jesus living today is in the testimony of those who experience Jesus today.”

        Yep and if that amounted to an objective hill’o’ beans you might have something……

        Like

      • You are right Bryan,
        I dont deny people’s visions and experiences. And sure, I certainly havent experienced it. And for all I know, it may be true that Jesus is alive today.

        Strictly speaking, I have to admit that with my own conviction about an afterlife, I would say with confidence that whoever or whatever Jesus was some 2000 years back, he lives today. That conviction doesnt automatically make him to be ‘God’ in any sense.

        But of course, I well know that you are not meaning that he lives – just in the way that anyone might ‘live’ in the heaven state.

        Anyway, since you place full confidence in the spiritual visions and experiences of Christian folk over some 2000 years that signal the validity of a singularly unique Jesus, you then just have to acknowledge the equal validity of the visions held by oodles of Catholic Christians over many hundreds of years, identified as being of the Virgin Mary. The only Christians who dont seem to ever experience Mary, would appear to be those of the Protestant camp. And i understand that it has for centuries been Catholic teaching that without giving due recognition and worship (Hyperdulia) to the Blessed Mother of God, one is not properly respecting and worshipping her Son Jesus.

        Miracles and inspiration due to Mary’s help and intercession are there in great abundance in devotee’s lives. Just read through the lives and experiences of the Saints. Do you believe all that as well?? Hm?

        Anyway, however factual it might be that people have had and will continue to have wondrous visionary experiences of a living Jesus (or Mary), we are still not talking fact when we come to the theory and explanations of it all. We are thus talking Doctrine, Faith theory, etc, in such cases, and not Fact. The experiences may well be real, but it is in the interpretations that the problems show up.

        Anyway, enough of this topic. I notice that you were totally unable to answer my last comments about kings being afraid of Jesus. And of course all the other answers I gave to the points in your thesis as well. Out of the 7 clauses in my comments, you only tackled two of them. One on the KIng stuff was not very convincing, and it is typical stalemate when it comes to Jesus living today, which is all subjective.

        I guess it largely finishes there with Game Set and Match to me. (Oh boy, I know what you are likely to answer to that… ‘Well if that makes you happy, Rian…’) But it does shock and disappoint me rather that you cant defend everything you said.

        Cheers, Rian.

        Like

      • Eian, I think you have a psychological block when it comes this subject. You won’t budge because you can’t budge.
        You assume that YOUR experience – strange as it must have been – is the experience of all people. It’s not so. You are, in a sense, an alien when it comes to spiritual matters. You just don’t get it.
        BTW I pointed out why Herod was afraid of the arrival of Jesus – to the extent that he ordered the killing of babies – but you can’t see the evidence.

        Like

      • Bryan.
        You are clearly avoiding any attempt to answer my points about conquering the world, and some of the others. I repeat what I saId before. Herod was not afraid of Jesus per se. He knew nothing about this baby that apparently had been born. He was acting in total conformity with his character in making an attempt to kill a possible rival for the throne. You were implying that Herod was uniquely afraid of JESUS.

        Again, you have still quoted only ONE king, however poorly argued, and you are unable to tell me of any other king, when you distinctly stated that kingS were afraid of him. Why cant you be honest enough to admit that you exaggerated?

        Wasnt I right in my comment about how if the Gospel stories are accurate, Jesus did offend against Jewish law? Further to what I said about him offending against Roman law, think of it this way. When an incredibly large squad of police or soldiers or whatever went to arrest Jesus, one of the disciples is described as drawing a sword and injuring one of the party. Do you honestly believe that the followers of Jesus (as well as their MASTER) would NOT have been seen and proven as causing insurrection and rebellion against both Rome and Judaea? Do you really think that every one of the disciples who were present would not have been arrested with him? Since Pilate erected a Titulus over the head of the crucified Jesus, that plainly described his offense under Roman law, there clearly was a criminal situation.

        Heck, Bryan, I have NEVER believed that my ‘experience’ (whatever that may have been) is the same as for all others. But for Gnostics of many varieties, it (and far far more than I have known) is very normal and typical.

        You do suffer from the short-sightedness of just about all traditional Christians, believing as you do that the visions common to their own denomination represent the only truth. You made no attempt to comment on the way in which powerful visions had by Catholics for centuries, that involve the Blessed Virgin Mary (or even certain Saints) just have to be seen as equivalent to visions of Jesus? That must be just too difficult for you. With your arguing style, you wouldnt last any time in a formal debate.

        What you are doing over and over in these few postings, is putting over a very clear Christian ‘one-upmanship’ job on me. ‘Poor poor Rian, he is on the outside and refuses to consider the inside.’ Look I KNOW very well that recipients of Jesus visions find them overwhelming and convincing. But if you are going to admit all of them as being uniquely legitimate, why have they varied in all sorts of ways over the centuries, and just why, again, are parallel visions and messages from the Virgin Mary illegitimate?

        If these visions or experiences of Jesus are ‘known’ to the world (??) as FACT, then you and your ilk are perfectly justified in creating a Theocracy, just as Calvin did in Geneva, and just as certain of the Popes did at various times. I challenge you again to SHOW ME THE FACTS, not just the anecdotal and circumstantial evidence.

        Cheers, Rian.

        Like

      • Quote from Napoleon.
        “Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded his empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for him.”

        Like

      • Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms, conquered more millions than Alexander the Great, Caesar, Mohammed, and Napoleon; without science and learning, he shed more light on things human and divine than all philosophers and scholars combined; without the eloquence of school, he spoke such words of life as were never spoken before or since, and produced effects which lie beyond the reach of orator or poet; without writing a single line, he set more pens in motion, and furnished themes for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned volumes, works of art, and songs of praise than the whole army of great men of ancient and modern times. –Philip Schaff

        I am an historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history.–H.G. Wells

        As the centuries pass, the evidence is accumulating that, measured by His effect on history, Jesus is the most influential life ever lived on this planet. — Historian Kenneth Scott Latourette

        He is the Centerpiece of the human race and the Leader of the column of progress. I am within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, and all the navies that ever were built, and all the parliaments that ever sat, and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that One Solitary Life.James C. Hefley

        Like

      • 1. The evidence of Jesus living today is in the testimony of those who experience Jesus today

        2. You assume that YOUR experience – strange as it must have been – is the experience of all people.

        Hmm can anybody else spot the problem here ????

        Like

      • Well there we are Bryan,
        It wasnt all that tough, was it? up until that latest posting of yours, you had deliverered me some 60 lines. You could have answered right at the beginning and averted most of them.

        Now as far as the attachment quote is concerned, I still cant find it particularly persuasive. Herod (junior) is perplexed, which I take it is being interpreted as fearful by you and the writer. He has wanted to see Jesus in person, which doesnt really sound particularly like agitation. Then when Pilate sends Jesus over to him, Herod though having hoped for some magical entertainment, just seems to get just totally bored with him and sends him back.

        So any fear he felt, if he really felt any at all, was temporary and immediately dispelled as soon as he saw Jesus. But we are assured that he had been in fear of John. Very different situation, and very different wording.

        Clearly Jesus didnt frighten him at all in person. I suggest really that both Herod Senior and Herod Junior were never afraid of Jesus. Jesus just represented to both of them threats of uprisings, of which there were very many in those days. Any and every popular preacher, especially from Gallilee, rang alarm bells.

        Cant quite get the drift of the Pharisees being frightened of Jesus. The Jewish power people in Judaea, were the Sadducees. I think that any fear either of the parties had about Jesus was based mainly on the threat of reprisals from the Romans if he caused trouble. The Priests may have been upset and angry with Jesus because of his insulting words, but that was not a capital crime.

        As I said before, and no-one has commented on it as yet, that IF Jesus did commit genuine Blasphemy as the Gospels tell us he did, (though such Blasphemy is not actually quoted) then the Sadduceean High Priest was perfectly justified in condemning Jesus to death. He was completely obligated to do so by law.

        I still cant see how Jesus ‘conquered the world’.

        Cheers,

        Like

      • ?? “….and at this hour millions of men would die for him.”
        …proving once again that Napoleon wasn’t all that bright. 😉

        Like

    • Rian,
      Show us from scripture not Catholic tradition why we should worship Mary.

      As for Jesus breaking Roman Law, have you not read that Pilate himself said:
      – I have not found Jesus guilty.
      – What shall I do with Jesus?
      – I wash my hands of the matter, crucify him yourselves?

      The reason why Pilate put a sign on top of Jesus cross was because the jews had said they had no king but Caesar, in order to put Jesus to death.

      Hence, Pilate showed them what would happen to anyone claiming to be the king of the Jews. Thus they would have no excuse for Elazar Ben Iair, Simon Bar Kochba, or anyone else leading an uprising against Rome.

      The Jewish leadership protested against the inscription put on Jesus’ cross. They wanted to put Jesus to death, but they still wanted to reserve their right to rise up against Rome without being guilty of lying when they said that they had no king but Caesar.

      So nothing in the story of Jesus’ crucifixion proves any transgression of Roman law.

      But you can go and tell yourself that Jesus broke Roman law. Maybe Mary will come in a vision and help support your claim.

      Like

      • Good on ya, davinci,
        You fell into a real trap there, you know.

        Understand that I in no way am a devotee of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of course you are correct for once, – there is simply no way that the Cult of Mary (legitimate Catholic terms there) can really be supported by Scripture. I quoted the ‘worship’ of Mary, because the practice is well supported within Catholicism, by millions and millions of devotees through centuries, many of whom have had profound visions and ‘experiences’ of the Holy Mother. You prove yourself to be very partisan in your Christianity, by only validating extreme Protestant approaches.

        Those same visions and experiences of Mary, are to those devotees every bit as real and convincing as the visions and experiences of Jesus to the faithful over these 2000 years. Those who have had such experiences know that they are absolutely real for them, and carry a conviction that the Christian path they tread is the true one.

        Now as for the matter of Jesus and Roman law. — Well, I would remind you that the Gospels were composed or/and edited with many agendas. It was absolutely necessary for the burgeoning Christianity to make no waves against the Roman Empire. Rome must be whitewashed, and Judaism blackened. And so as has been pointed out many times by historians, the image of Pilate in the Gospels is totally unrealistic, just as the image there of the Roman occupation is unrealistic. And the idea that the Procurator/Prefect would treat a problematical Galillean prisoner with kid gloves is just crazy.

        just about everything described in the trial of Jesus before Pilate makes no sense. I pointed out that the scene on the Mount when Jesus was taken, was one of dangerous hostility; and the soldiers would undoubtedly have arrested all of the disciples there on the spot, following that action of Peter’s with the sword.
        Jesus’ action in the Temple with the money changers would have been quite sufficient to have him arrested and charged. (if it all really happened).

        Interesting though davinci, you didnt query my contention that IF Jesus actually did commit Blasphemy according to Jewish law, then he was rightly condemned by the High Priest. Indeed, there is nothing else that Caiaphas would have been allowed to do, would there?

        Cheers, Rian.

        Like

      • Okay Bryan, let’s get a couple of things straight here.

        I dont claim to know who or what Jesus was/is. And so in general I deliberately avoid discussing him in his person. But I do analyse and argue out the things that are said and written about him. You made a number of points in your column there that are rather careless as I stated, and over generalized.

        Let’s look at the quotes you just gave. Napoleon: – ‘at this hour millions of men would die for him’. Interesting. I recall certain of our forum members getting slaughtered for suggesting that religion rather than politics happens to be responsible for most wars in the past. You appear to be denying that now, as you quote Nap. as suggesting that wars are fought by millions for the religion of Jesus. Or is Napoleon talking about literal Martyrs? Doubt it!

        Also, there is a further problem in the quote, since through the Napoleonic wars, it was essentially one or more Jesus worshipping countries bitterly fighting against other Jesus worshipping countries. This ‘empire founded on love’ sounds most suspect there. During the terrible conflicts between Catholic and Protestant camps through the Reformation period, it strikes me as just how strange the disunity between Jesus devotees can become, as well as how unloving.

        Okay, reading the quote from Schweitzer, it strikes me that all the talk you and the other Christians engage in on this forum regarding Jesus, clearly says much more about you all rather than about Jesus himself.

        Now with that quote from Latourette, I would agree with one big reservation. Rather than Jesus HIMSELF being the ‘most influential life… ‘, I would say that the image, and the reported words and actions of Jesus represent the big influence in the world, and that is undoubtedly true. Just to remind you of what I said above. – I dont actually say much about Jesus, but I do discuss very carefully what is said and written about him.

        None of the quotes you give confirm your rash comment that Jesus ‘conquered THE WORLD’. To this day two thirds of the world remains non-Christian. During the Reformation, there was a desperate battle going on between the Catholics and the Protestants to rule the world – and each party determined that the world rule involved should be of their own interpretation. So are you going to acknowledge at last that Jesus has not ‘conquered the world’? Hm?

        The Philip Schaff quote just tosses in the blithe generalized ideas that have characterized Christian apologetics since the year dot. It is actually not at all hard to pull to pieces a number of the sayings attributed to Jesus and show them to be unworkable or even silly, no matter how ‘beautiful’.

        Once more, Bryan, when are you going to detail at least one other king beside Herod who was ‘afraid of Jesus’? You cant, can you? To toss back one of your favourite quotes at you, in order to avoid the issue, you indulged in your loveable little sidestep!

        Cheers, Rian

        Like

      • Rian. you’re clearly looking for an argument/ I just don’t have time to indulge your fantasies right now.
        Let’s just say I disagree with most of your opinions stated above. That’s all they are — opinions.

        Like

      • No Rian,
        I fell in no such trap.

        I maintain with Louis de Berquin and other Protestant founding fathers that when it comes to deciding what constitutes genuine Christianity, there is no safeguard outside the Scriptures.

        I maintain with Jesus that no matter what the vision, if it does not conform with the Scriptures, it is useless. When Jesus met the devil in the wilderness, He countered all temptations and visions that the devil showed Him with the Scriptures.

        Hence it doesn’t matter what my visions or your visions say, if they are not in conformance with the Scriptures, they are about as useful as testicles on the pope.

        As for your comments that the gospels were whitewashed to blacken the Jews and justify the Romans. That is absolutely not true. You have played fast and loose with the facts again.

        We can reconstruct the gospels from the quotes that the Church Fathers used in their debates with none other than your religionist, the Gnostics. In fact if we follow the debates that the Church Fathers had with the Gnostics, we find that the Scriptures they quote are the same scriptures we call the New Testament.

        You have failed to mention that whilst the Church Fathers were quoting the same New Testament we have today, their interpretations of the same New Testament tended to whitewash the Romans and blacken the Jews. The prime example of this is the change from Sabbath to Sunday.

        But interpreting the scriptures differently to what they actually say is not the same thing. However I do not expect you as a Gnostic to understand the difference between quoting the Scripture and interpreting the Scripture.

        Like

      • Hi Rian,

        Sorry friend, but I think your reaction (accusations/attack?) to Bryan’s thread is way over the top. You have heard of this poem ‘One Solitary Life’ before, haven’t you? I know that just about every educated Christian has. The poem is attributed to Dr. James Allen Francis. “In his account of the “one solitary life” that changed the world forever, Francis captures not only the awesome profundity of the Christian religion, but the inestimable value of each and every human life.” And of course, I couldn’t agree more with the sentiments stated in ‘One Solitary Life’. Thank you Bryan for putting it on your blog. It’s one of my favourites.

        https://nickvoss.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/one-solitary-life-2-5-min-video/

        Like

      • Just briefly for the moment, davinci.

        Yes you did fall into the trap. You wrongly assumed (just reread your previous posting to me) that I was commending the worship of the Virgin Mary.

        Now you were only half right in your mention of the criticisms of the Gnostics, waged by the Church Fathers. Those long attacks were occurring about 185 AD by Irenaeus, and Hippolytus about 230. Followed in the 4th century by Epiphanius about 375.

        Any of the sanitising of the Gospels and presumably of Paul’s Epistles was done in between the end of the 1st century and the time of Irenaeus at the end of the 2nd century. You are right that by the time those Church fathers were writing, the Gospels were no doubt set in stone and were being quoted accurately by those Fathers. We have very little information during the early part of the 2nd century about the content of the Gospels. Justin Martyr has but few possible quotes to make out of what he describes vaguely as the Memoirs of the Apostles.

        cheers Rian

        Like

      • Oh yes Mon,
        I have been familiar with that beautiful poem for many years. Bryan simply refused to give me straight answers. Can you? Yes, I was well and truly on the attack, and Bryan could so easily have answered early in the piece.

        Just quickly let me comment there. Sure, I do agree that the image and teachings ascribed to Jesus have happily inspired world changing events and concepts.

        But can you or anyone else tell me how and in what way Jesus literally and factually conquered the world? Especially while today after 2000 years of Anno Domini, some two thirds of the world’s population are still non-Christian.

        And can you or anyone else tell me how kings (plural) were frightened of Jesus? I say again that Herod was not afraid of Jesus. He didnt even know his name, did he?. He was afraid and alarmed at the rumour of a new rival king being born. And that sort of fear was not unique in his life, was it? Bryan stated that kings plural were afraid of Jesus. Just what other king or kings?

        Cheers as ever,
        Rian.

        Like

      • Herod was not afraid of Jesus? It’s a nice fantasy but not true Rian

        Do you remember the way Herod the Great reacted when the wise men came looking for a child born to be king. “When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him.” (Matthew 2:3)And what does a frightened king do? “He sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under.” (Matthew 2:16)

        That’s just what powerful kings, powerful nations and global empires do when they fear that their security is threatened. We even have a name for it. We call it “collateral damage.” It’s just the way this world’s power operates.

        Thirty years later, Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, was on the throne as a puppet king under the oppressive rule of Rome. Don’t let the campy portrayal of him in “Jesus Christ Superstar” fool you. He was an insecure and therefore brutal ruler who had inherited his father’s fear of anyone that might undermine his power.

        In chapter 8, Luke tells the gory story of Herod beheading John the Baptist. In chapter 9, Luke says that when Herod heard about Jesus he wondered if Jesus might be John the Baptist raised from the dead … which would be enough to scare anyone.

        I think Herod got it.

        It was enough to make Herod and the Pharisees afraid.

        It was enough to make them want to nail him to a cross.

        Read more about that here http://www.hydeparkumc.org/all-news/feb-24-2013-why-were-kings-afraid-of-jesus-harnish/

        Like

      • Hope this helps Rian.

        John 16:33 (AMP)
        “I have told you these things, so that in Me you may have [perfect] peace and confidence. In the world you will have tribulations and trials and distress and frustration; but be of good cheer [take courage; be confident, certain, undaunted]! For I HAVE OVERCOME THE WORLD. [I have deprived it of power to harm you and have conquered it for you.]”

        “What does it mean that Jesus has overcome the world? The words “have overcome” translates νενίκηκα the Perfect Tense, Indicative Mood, Active Voice form of νικάω or nikaō, “to conquer, overcome, vanquish, subdue, to be victorious.””

        “”I have overcome the world”: Satan, the god and prince of the world, with all his principalities and powers, which Christ has led captive, ransomed his people from, and delivers them from the power of; and all that is in the world, the lusts and sins of it, their damning power by the sacrifice of himself, and their governing power by his Spirit and grace; and the men of the world with all their rage and fury, restrains by his power; in all which conquests he makes his people share, and even makes them more than conquerors, through himself: so that they have nothing to fear from the world; nor any reason to be cast down by the tribulation they meet within it”….. Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

        “Christ’s victory is a Christian triumph. Christ overcame the prince of this world, disarmed him, and cast him out; and still treads Satan under our feet. He overcame the children of this world, by the conversion of many to the faith and obedience of his gospel, making them the children of his kingdom. When he sends his disciples to preach the gospel to all the world, “Be of good cheer,” says he, “I have overcome the world as far as I have gone, and so shall you; though you have tribulation in the world, yet you shall gain your point, and captivate the world,” Rev. 6:2.

        He overcame the wicked of the world, for many a time he put his enemies to silence, to shame; “And be you of good cheer, for the Spirit will enable you to do so too.” He overcame the evil things of the world by submitting to them; he endured the cross, despising it and the shame of it; and he overcame the good things of it by being wholly dead to them; its honours had no beauty in his eye, its pleasures no charms. Never was there such a conqueror of the world as Christ was, and we ought to be encouraged by it, (1.) Because Christ has overcome the world before us; so that we may look upon it as a conquered enemy, that has many a time been baffled. Nay, (2.) He has conquered it for us, as the captain of our salvation. We are interested in his victory; by his cross the world is crucified to us , which bespeaks it completely conquered and put into our possession; all is yours, even the world. Christ having overcome the world , believers have nothing to do but to pursue their victory, and divide the spoil; and this we do by faith, 1 Jn. 5:4. We are more than conquerors through him that loved us.” ……. Matthew Henry Bible Commentary

        Like

      • Rian,
        How on earth do you know they were sanitised? Furthermore how do you know that they were sanitised to blacken the Jews and put the romans in a favourable light?

        In fact, the reason why Jesus was regarded as a Messiah, was not by His claims and miracles, but the Old Testament prophecies. On the Road to Emmaus, He used Old Testament Scriptures to enlighten His disciples of how the crucifixion fit in with their hopes in Jesus as the Messiah.

        In fact, the reason that the High Priest saw Jesus as committing blasphemy is that he was ignoring the very Scriptures that pointed to Jesus as the Messiah. Furthermore when the High Priest rent his garments in outrage he was ignoring passages of Scripture that condemned the High Priest from rending his clothes (see Lev 10:6).

        Now we come to the Romans. When Pilate questioned Jesus, he was made to understand that Jesus’ kingdom was not of this world (otherwise Pilate would have had a war on his hand). Pilate admitted that Jesus was innocent, but in order to save his political career, he was quite happy to have an innocent man whipped, ridiculed and eventually crucified. This does not put the romans in a favourable light does it?

        Like

      • Well davinci,
        I think there is a very good case for the whitewashing of the Romans, against the demonizing of the Jews, within the pages of the Christian Scriptures. For starters, we do actually know a very great deal about Pontius Pilate. He was a tough cruel and impulsive guy who eventually got recalled to Rome to face the music when he had gone overboard in harshness to the Jews.

        Points in the Gospels about him and about Roman Law and customs include the following, and in no particular order. There was absolutely no precedent within Roman practice to ‘wash your hands of a particular matter’. That was however an acknowledged Jewish image. There was absolutely no custom of releasing a prisoner to the Jews in Jerusalem. For Pilate to have released a duly arrested and obviously condemned brigand, would have brought down the wrath of the Emperor on his head.

        The idea of a Roman Governor like Pilate pausing in the middle of interrogating a prisoner to confer with a Jewish mob is unthinkable. It is pretty hard to conceive of Pilate engaging in any sort of a philosophical discussion with a prisoner, however brief. So those few words about ‘truth’ simply don’t ring true.

        The Temple Guard carried no jurisdiction outside the walls of Jerusalem, so as it appears from certain of the terms in the Gospel accounts of the arrest of Jesus, it just had to have been a troop of Roman soldiers, who may well have had some Jewish guards with them. And further, IF Roman soldiers were despatched to do the arrest, it would just have to had Pilate’s authority to do so, which means that Jesus was already a marked man to the Romans. Then when they did arrest him, we are told that Peter struck out with his sword. Do you honestly think and affirm that these soldiers would simply have ignored this action? Just think.

        And with such resistance by one of Jesus’ Lieutenants, obviously Jesus and his group were marked men and labelled as rebels and resistance fighters. Pilate just HAD to take that on board, and as I said, knowing what we know about Pilate, he could not have found Jesus innocent. The Gospels are way out on that one.

        While on the matter of Pilate, let us think back to that disgraceful verse that quotes the Jewish mob as declaring ‘His blood be on us and on our children.’ Very few scholars outside the Bible Inerrantists take this as being true. Clearly one of the big indications inserted in the Gospel to demonize the Jews. In any case, a Jewish mob could not really speak for the whole of the Jewish people could they?

        I shall complete this discussion in a second posting.
        Cheers, Rian.

        Like

      • part 2

        Okay davinci,
        Now having dealt with the Gospel figure of Pilate, let’s get onto the general matter of Jews and Romans in the Christian Scriptures. There are very few and astoundingly few references in the Gospels to the Roman occupation, and the hardships and cruelties endured by the Jews of the time. It is terribly easy to falsely imagine a bucolic happy peaceful country lifestyle engaged in by the Jewish people, with just a few Romans hovering in the background.

        When the Gospels started to be seen and scrutinized by Church figures in the late 1st and early 2nd century, they were becoming very much influenced by the person and ideas of Paul. Notice just how pally Paul is with Roman authorities.. It is unbelievably huge numbers of Roman guards who look after and protect him; and he makes very appeasing references to the way one should kow tow to the Roman authorities. Paul never confronts or attacks the Romans the way he does with the Jews.

        Recall too that Paul is hand in glove (to start with) with the Sadduceean High Priest. And those Sadducees were lackeys of the Roman occupiers. Then whereas Jesus was recommending that the followers of The Way should obey all of the Law, and exceed in their righteousness the standards of the Scribes and Pharisees, Paul went ahead after his turn around, to disparage the Law, thereby antagonizing the Jewish authorities. No wonder he was turned out of the Synagogues and actively persecuted. He even went on in his writings to claim that it was the Jews who crucified Jesus. Whereas it was with a Roman punishment for a Roman crime that Jesus was executed. And in the process the pro-Torah centred Jerusalem Christians went through all sorts of difficulties with Paul.

        So in this Roman world, with Jerusalem and the ancient Temple cult destroyed in AD70 odd, it became politic for Christianity to ingratiate itself with Rome. So the Gospels pictured Rome AND the Governor Pilate to be nice kind folk, while the dastardly Jews had to be demonized. So it was at this point, many scholars maintain, that through to the mid/late 2nd century, the Christian Scriptural documents were watered down, sanitized and edited for political purposes. Then the Ebionites, who were the last straggling survivors of the Jerusalem Torah Christians, progressively got classed by the Fathers as Heretics, and Paul’s new fangled system won the day.

        Interesting to notice that in the most Jewish of the Books of the Christian Scriptures, – the Revelations of St John, the view of Rome and its rule was reversed, and became the big evil symbol. And in the long run, Rome won out, Christianity became the rule of the new Empire and the visions of Revelation were forgotten and misunderstood No wonder as historians point out that Revelations was the very last book of the NT to be accepted universally in the Christian world.
        I would point out davinci, that outside the narrow circles of strict Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christianity, Bible Inerrancy is not the norm, so I have a very strong backing from most scholars today on all this. I am not any sort of lone voice claiming that the Gospel records have many faults.

        Cheers, Rian

        Like

      • Hi Mon,
        That certainly gives a good coverage of the reasons that Christians will maintain that Jesus conquered the world. So thanks for going to the trouble.

        However of course, as one line in the discourse put it, – Christ’s victory is a Christian triumph. That really puts it plainly that it will only be Christians who can recognize this conquering of the world. Absolutely no one else will spot or recognize it. Those of us who are Atheists and Dissenters wont grasp the concept at all. We still want to see signs in this difficult and dangerous world that it has actually been different world the Incarnation. We identify the world as being that terrain and system that surrounds us. Just no signs there.

        To the independent onlooker, there are just no indications whatsoever that any conquest of the world has been achieved. There are hypotheses of a spiritual nature, there is faith expressed in it by the Christian, but there are no events or material facts to be seen, or that can be presented to a Scientist, or a Politician to convince him of it.

        Cheers, Rian.

        Like

      • DOH! :- “That’s just what powerful kings, powerful nations and global empires do when they fear that their security is threatened.”

        That’s just a basic, natural defensive instinct that reduces to the territorial instinct:- The more you have to lose the antsier you become.
        Dogs too display it as well: the bigger the bone the more ferocious the warning growl at anybody who goes near it. And THEY’VE never heard of Jesus.
        Even the god’s are never free from the territorial jitters (aka ‘,market share’:- I AM the lord thy god; thou shalt have NO other gods….

        ANY anomaly raises suspicion.
        Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown…..said Bill.

        Like

      • Yes Rian,

        But Jesus did say “My kingdom is not of this world” and as Christians we live and reign in ‘heavenly’ places now, in the natural world, taken hold of by our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, amen.

        Like

      • Hi Mon,
        All very true for the Christian. But I rather assume that the spiritual world that is occupied by the Islamic or the Hindu is every bit as foreign to the Atheist or the Dissenter as Christianity. And similarly, those same spiritual worlds are pretty foreign (though to them as totally real) and will be non existent to the Christian.

        Cheers, Rian.

        Like

      • Rian, you’re talking about the validity of visions. Just a thought to consider. Perhaps Heaven is where we get what we want, according to our belief, and visions also could be in a like category. NDEs show that those brought up to love Jesus, will be welcomed by him in their near death experience. . Catholics also may experience Mary’s welcome. People of other religions see figures they worship. Others will be welcomed by their loved ones – not all people from their past, but those they loved. And so on.

        If this is the reward of Heaven, do we create it ourselves with our thoughts? Do we get what we expect, even if it’s hell? Thought is a very powerful thing. Or is it granted to us, independent of our will?

        We know so little, and faith I’m sure will help us. I believe it’s wrong to destroy anyone’s positive faith, unless it can be replaced with one just as positive. BTW, I regard the faith you show as positive!

        Like

      • Well davinci,
        Here is the third and final installment on the whitewashing of the Romans and the demonization of the Jews in early Christianity.

        Perhaps you are not aware that the Greek Orthodox church made Pontius Pilate into a Saint, as did also the Ethiopian Church. (The Roman church didnt follow suit however.) It was claimed that Pilate was duly converted to Christianity and in turn nearly succeeded in converting the Emperor Tiberius.

        The popular and widely read Epistle of Barnabas, probably the most virulently anti-Jewish of all Christian documents, just escaped by a whisker from being included in the official Canon; but was included in the oldest complete New Testament that we have, – the Codex Sinaiaticus. Penned somewhere in the first decades of the 2nd century, the writer declared that all of the Law given by God in the Torah was purely allegorical. None of the laws, he said, were intended to be followed out physically, and not even the keeping of the Sabbath day.

        In the mid 2nd century, Justin beloved and revered as the second great martyr Saint following Ignatius, stated that the reason God commanded the Jews to practice circumcision was so that the Jews would be readily recognized, so that they might more easily be persecuted.

        About the end of the 2nd century, the great Lawyer and Apologist Tertullian maintained that the sacking of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple was specifically punishment by God for the killing of Jesus.

        Finally Mileto of Sardis again late in the century, echoed and emphasised that little verse of St Paul’s in which he claimed that the Jews personally executed Jesus and that therefore the Jews were collectively guilty of ‘Deicide’, in other words of killing God. Sounds a bit like the sort of peculiar thinking that brought the Roman Catholic Church to translate the Marian title of Theotokos, as ‘Mother of God’.

        Extra information and references will be found in these books… ‘The Popes against the Jews’ by David Kertzer, and ‘Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil’ by Hyam Maccoby.

        There my case rests, Rian.

        Like

    • Hello Rian, I am interested in what you say about” those of us who are Atheists and Dissenters wont grasp the concept at all” in the light of your struggle with Aspergers..
      Catherine Caldwell-Harris, a professor of psychology at Boston University, has stated that individuals with Asperger’s syndrome were more likely to say they had constructed their own religious systems.
      An implication of her studies is that those with Asperger’s will be more likely to be atheists or agnostics.
      Of course, there’s a plethora of individuality out there and not all people with Asperger’s syndrome sit at extremes but there does seem to be a bit of a trend nevertheless..

      Like

      • thanks Cathi,
        Yes, I would say that can well be true in many cases. We Aspies are individualists in many ways, and can well exercise considered choice in regard to just what doctrines and theories we find acceptable. And we often do construct our own version of a religious system.

        I have to admit that there is only a limited number of the many Aspies I’ve known who have told me personally of their religious persuasions; but among those that I have learnt about either in person or from their writings, I’ve observed no major trend towards either the spiritual or the disbeliever.

        Just one little point to add here. It is not really accurate for many of us Aspies to describe us as either ‘suffering from’ Aspergers, or in your words – my ‘struggle with Aspergers’. For the greater number of us on the Spectrum with ‘High Functioning AS’, we dont consider ourselves to be afflicted or disabled. Modern research appears to be confirming the opinions of many of us that we simply represent something of a different version or variation of human kind.

        The struggle most of us have is not a fight with Aspergers, but rather a fight with the rest of the world, who march to a very different drum than we do. I recall an astute comment by Prof Tony Attwood, who stated that in general the easy way to ‘cure’ or help the average AS person who seems to be in trouble, is simply to leave us alone at the time. Our big difficulty lies in sharing any common understanding with our NT (‘normal’ or Neuro-typical) fellows.

        Cheers, and thanks for the comment, Rian. (79 year old Victorian)

        Like

    • “In the space of a moment, Job lost everything (all 10 of his children, 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, 500 donkeys, and an untold number of servants). Job was a blameless man who experienced an unparalleled tragedy; and what was his response? “Then Job stood up, tore his robe and shaved his head. He fell to the ground and worshiped, saying: Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will leave this life. The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away. Praise the name of the Lord (Job 1:20-21).”…….. Uplifting Christ—Jesus is Lord blog.

      “Job thought that good and bad came from God, but The Scriptures confirm all good things come from God and He can do no evil.”…… Freedom born—Aussie Christian Focus blog.

      Like

      • No Paddy,

        But I watched Natascha Kampusch tell her story about being abducted the other day, and I reckon she is suffering from Stockholm syndrome…..but I’m no psychiatrist. It disturbed me though listening to her. She kept making excuses for him. 😉

        Like

      • Really?? :- ““In the space of a moment, Job lost everything (all 10 of his children, 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, 500 donkeys, and an untold number of servants).”
        How careless of him!

        Like

      • “There is nothing funny about misogyny . He who thinks his masculinity depends on dominating women is twisted.”

        ….but not nearly as “twisted” as the illiterate automaton who reckons ‘misogyny’
        has ANYthing to do with ‘domination’.
        …and probably isn’t himself nearly as ‘masculine’ as Germie Greer (who wasn’t afraid of throwing the odd punch at people who annoyed her….. and took any retaliation on the chin, like a man.

        Like

      • Gosh, who wouldn’t want to be married to a “man” like Dabbles. He’s every girl’s dream. NOT!!!! I

        I prefer real men, not overgrown whining schoolboys who wouldn’t know how to please a real woman.

        Like

      • You’re lucky that the censor is apparently protecting you from my responses to your silly little (attempted) stirs, Karen.
        Have no doubt I can give as good as I get….or better.
        eg. the wisecrack “I prefer real men, not overgrown whining schoolboys who wouldn’t know how to please a real woman.”
        ……..makes me wonder why you’re not married to a ‘real man’ (unless, of course you are, and getting ‘real men’ on the side.

        Is it because you don’t REALLY want to be stuck with ‘a real man’, or that you can’t trap one?

        ps. I can see the difficulty for you.
        It used to be that the no-bra-or-knickers approach could attract a bloke in a second. But these days that’s so boringly common that ‘real men’ look for something more.
        Like a few brains.
        Rarity is ALWAYS attractive.

        Like

    • Y’know what makes hair grow on your palms, don’t you?
      ‘A Few Good Men’ would fix what ails her!
      Chastity is a sexual perversion!

      Like

      • And this sort of idiotic and cowardly macho/sexist comment reveals what a nasty little man you can be. I normally don’t post this sort of stuff from you (and there’s been a fair bit) but I want everyone here to finally realise what a misogynistic fool you really are.

        Like

      • There’s NOTHING misogynistic about the notion that living mammals are basically sexually-oriented and motivated creatures, and that EVERYTHING else in life is directed to that end. Our ONLY demonstrable reason for existence ~ and all the things we do to continue to exist has that purpose as it’s end.
        Your god himself said as much in Genesis.
        And according to the same god they have NO other purpose. The FIRST commandment:-
        “Go forth and multiply and fill the earth”.

        Pervert ANYthing from it’s originally intended function (‘created’ OR evolved) and you create conflict, frustration and a frenetic psychosis that may manifest in the sort of antics seen in the video-clip. It’s ONLY the socio-legal acceptance of that other psychotically-induced condition called ‘religion’ (and we see other endless other weird perversions practiced in its name!) that keeps this ‘nun’ out of a lunatic asylum.

        I’m no ‘misogynist’ ; I like women too much. (wanna see the photos??). But YOU are an uptight, anally-retentive, politically-correct, humourless zombie who can’t even see the joke in connecting the old ‘masturbation-causes-hair-to-grow-on-your palms’ threat with the outstretched palms and anguished expression of the (supposedly-celibate) nun.

        Ask Dom: he might be able to advise you where to look for a sense of humour….though you might have to learn to ride a camel.

        Like

      • A Few Good Men’ would fix what ails her!

        That’s infantile and demeaning. How often does someone have to use misogynistic language before one can be identified as a misogynist? Not all men think like you, thank God. Some have grown up to know women deserve more than to be treated as mere sex objects by chauvinist pigs.

        Like

      • So do I!

        I know you have no respect for your fellow man Dabs, but for goodness sakes, her ‘sacrifice’ for her faith leaves me in awe. I admire her. And I love that song and the way she sings it. If anyone has a perversion here, it’s you—your attitude stinks!

        Like

      • There is nothing funny about misogyny . He who thinks his masculinity depends on dominating women is twisted..

        Like

      • Has there been any acceptance by Dabbles of personal responsibility? No. I only see pathetic excuses made

        Like

      • “There is nothing funny about misogyny”

        Agreed, or any kind of bullying really.

        Like

      • Really?? —> “her ‘sacrifice’ for her faith leaves me in awe.”

        What ‘sacrifice’ is that, Toots?
        From this angle it looks as though she’s doing exactly what she WANTS to do.

        However, I’d be interested in hearing your reasoning (as much as a Western Australian ~ and a female to boot! ~ can ‘reason’ 😉 ) in denying that ‘chastity is a sexual perversion’. Perhaps (your?) granny Bryan can help out…..

        Like

      • Wow! So Monica agrees with y’all? I guess that settles it then.
        …I’m right and you’re wrong.

        And brainless hypocrites to boot.
        Brainless because, for one thing, you obviously don’t even know that ‘misogyny’ has NOTHING to do with ‘domination’.
        Hypocritical because the very god you profess to worship agrees with me right down the line.

        In the beginning god created Adam and Eve ~ not Adam and Steve as has been pointed out.

        “MALE AND FEMALE created He them.”
        ~ and in that very instant decreed and eternally established ‘Sexism’ :- AND legtimised it: the definitive DIFFERENCE between the sexes as the point from which all other relationship springs. (and Mother Nature established the same Rule, though it took her longer.)

        Males and females are so different ~ physically, physiologically, psychologically, emotionally, mentally (including ‘intellectually’ on every level) that a Martian could easily conclude they’re different species.
        What’s more, EVERY other warm-blooded animal ( and most reptiles and insects as well!) recognise and understand those differences (and not only in their own species!) and adapt their behaviours and social-structures to suit ~ in a way that benefits every member.

        …but back to the god you hypocrites pretend to espouse, but whose edicts and examples you’re either too thick to grasp or too girlishly wussie to adopt —>

        God created Adam, and only later on decided Adam needed a ‘helpmeat’ ( a word laden with significant meanings, but deliberately chosen).
        NOTE: The god of the universes (and ALSO his alter-ego Mother Nature) did NOT create Eve to be Adam’s ‘wife’ or ‘partner’, nor even ‘friend’ or ‘colleague’.
        And, most specifically, NOT as Adam’s ‘Equal’. (Apart from the obvious differences ~ which you PC-besotted morons apparently haven’t noticed in any case, given your querulous …..er, ‘bitching’)

        Presumably you’ll agree that God, being god, doesn’t make mistakes, right?
        And if that’s so you’ll be bound to admit that He DELIBERATELY and KNOWINGLY refrained from endowing Eve with ‘The Breath of Life’ (ie ‘Soul’) as he’d bestowed upon Adam alone in all the Creation.
        Though it wouldn’t need to be explained to anyone capable of original thought, I’ll just point out here that y’can’t get much more ‘different’ than that, can you? Nope!
        ….He simply created Eve “and gave unto the man” (in the same way as a a bride is still ‘given away’ by ‘the father’ (a human father these days) and ~ except for the perverted PC brigades ~ wouldn’t have it any other way.
        Even the nun the (rib!) ‘bone’ of current contention was ‘given’/’gave’ herself to Jesus and wears his ring of proprietorship, doesn’t she?
        (I note that Jesus doesn’t wear one in return.

        Then, immediately ~ without benefit of clergy, dowry, politically-correct exhortation or preambles or fervent lectures about ‘equality’, pre-natal agreements or status-contracts about who raises the kids or changes their shitty nappies ~ AND MOST CERTAINLY WITHOUT ANY FORM OF ‘CONSENT’ ~ He sends them off down the Garden Path to shag themselves stupid….enough to “fill the earth”. *

        So right then and there YOUR god dictated that Eve the female be seen and used as a ‘sex-object’; she served NO other purpose ~ her very creation was to be a “FEMALE” playmate for Adam and to be used as a sexual vehicle for populating the world. Period. There is NO other reason given for her creation.

        Nor for the existence of her daughter: the same god later confirmed the role of the female as a ‘sex-object’ by his use of Mary ~ without let or hindrance OR ‘consent’ ~ as a vehicle by which to produce his own son.
        The pattern is clear and indisputable.
        The question is will YOU acknowledge and adopt the edicts and teaching of the god you claim as your own, or do you ignore his examples and
        hypocritically come down on the side of Feminist/PC ratbaggery?

        *Presumably, given the enormity of that task, they, probably, just naturally assumed the (lying-down-restfully) ‘missionary position’ and/or ‘doggy-style’ ~ and didn’t for a moment consider the absolutely unnatural “female-superior positions” her kinky, post-feminist, ancestors would experiment with 6000 years later.

        Like

      • If a small thing has the power to make you that angry, does that not indicate something about your size?

        Like

      • I repeat (in case the first posting was accidentally censored:-

        “There is nothing funny about misogyny . He who thinks his masculinity depends on dominating women is twisted.”

        ….but not nearly as “twisted” as the illiterate automaton who reckons ‘misogyny’
        has ANYthing to do with ‘domination’.
        …and probably isn’t himself nearly as ‘masculine’ as Germie Greer (who wasn’t afraid of throwing the odd punch at people who annoyed her….. and took any retaliation on the chin, like a man!

        Like

      • “That’s infantile and demeaning” ~ sez who: and by what right?

        “How often does someone have to use misogynistic language before one can be identified as a misogynist?”
        I dunno. But I do know you haven’t a clue about what you’re going on about.
        Women have long been my favourite hobby, and as I said I can show you the photos to prove that if you like.
        Get a decent dictionary and look up ‘misogynist’, rather just spouting the party-line.
        ….and what’s ‘cowardly’ is letting the yapping yahoos insult me and not allowing a reply. Mean and miserable, too.

        Like

      • Hey Karen,

        So Dabbles would be “the least of your brethren” then.

        And how are the “Christians” here treating him??

        Like

      • Nice to know that he’s in your prayers.

        Does that make insulting him ok? Is the the model of behaviour for dealing with the least of your brethren ?

        Like

      • I don’t think Karen was trying to insult Dabbles. Just observing what he’s written and perhaps just saying what a lot of people thought. Do you read Dabbles’ posts and do you agree with them Bubba? Do you deny that Dabbles himself has been insulting and demeaning others here? Or is it because he’s a non-believer that whatever he says is ok?

        Like

      • So inadvertent insults are ok? That seems a funny way of doing it. Much like if a school yard bully is “just muckin around” then it’s all ok.

        Regarding Dabbles behaviour to the best of my knowledge he doesn’t claim to to be following any higher power that has some guidelines as to how to treat your fellow man.

        Earlier I agreed that there’s nothing funny about misogyny and added my own caveat that it could apply to any form of bullying.

        Yours or his. Two wrongs not making a right and all.

        Like

      • Do you read Dabbles’ posts and do you agree with them Bubba?

        – Which ones? He puts in a heck of a lot of posts when he’s on a roll. I don’t read them all are there any specific posts that you’d like to know if I agree with him or not.

        Do you deny that Dabbles himself has been insulting and demeaning others here?

        – Nope

        Or is it because he’s a non-believer that whatever he says is ok?

        – No

        Like

    • A christian women dedicates herself to God and covers up; she is treated with respect. A Muslim women does the same and covers up and she is in danger for her life.

      People use the argument that they want to free Muslim women from oppression. All they are doing is making them targets.

      Like

  1. The treatment of Jesus pbuh is the major contention between the three Abrahamic religions. Jesus pbuh will return to set the record straight.

    Like

    • I wonder will he agree with St. Augustine.

      A friend couldn’t resist historian James Boyce’s Writers Week book ‘Born Bad’ – on the influence of the concept of original sin on western culture.

      Apparently St Augustine came up with the idea in the late C4 or early C5. (Theologians don’t have much to do except sit around and come up with theological ideas). But he needed to have a mechanism by which this sin could be transmitted. He decided it must be carried (like some pathogen) in the semen.

      That way, Jesus Christ – whose conception was miraculously semen-free – could be born without the taint of original sin. Neat.

      Like

  2. yada yada yada…–> “Impotent rage again. Pffffft!”

    Nothing ‘rageful’ about it ~ and I challenge you to point to any aspect of my (held-up) post that indicates ‘rage’.
    Nor “impotent”. Quite the contrary, in fact. Potent enough that the Li’l Ol’ Ladies (though some are far from ‘Ladylike!) here could not find a SINGLE point of my commentary to rebut, so relied on character-attack yet again. Pffffft!

    Are none of you Old Dears educated or articulate enough to address the issue or the questions raised?
    Ditto the ‘Judas’ subject.
    ie:- Since ‘John’ was with the group comprised of Jesus and the disciples, and was reporting the conversation within that group, WHO WAS IT THAT WAS FOLLOWING THEM AT A DISTANCE and was the subject of the discussion? We KNOW it wasn’t ‘John’, because ‘John’ TELLS US that it was “the disciple that Jesus loved”.

    Impotence is as impotence does.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s