[geocentrism] Re: Zeitgeist : Jesus-Christ assumed to be a false God
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:10:23 +0000 (GMT)
Philip M
After sending my last, I realised I had not made any reference to your
specific points.
Your strongest point -- and that of many others -- that He rose from the dead
occurred at a point in time with which we have reasonable continuity and thus
the witnesses at first sight might seem plausible. However the only record of
the Resurrection is found in the Bible and that was written by those with a
vested interest in its being believed. The official records of the time --
Roman -- I understand contain a reference to Jesus' Crucifixion but not his
Resurrection.
The contents of -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea -- give
some idea of how the current christian theology came about -- essentially by
democratic action of men.
Then there is the 'fixing' of the contents of the Bible. I didn't find a
reference for that but I didn't look very hard -- I'm sure several of you here
can enlighten me. It is all about silencing the minority, the tyranny of the
majority. It aims to define orthodoxy -- the greatest short term strength and
the greatest long term weakness of any philosophy.
Paul D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
________________________________
From: John Roodt <johnroodt@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, 20 October, 2008 11:53:52 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Zeitgeist : Jesus-Christ assumed to be a false God
Hi Phil, and Paul
I'm in Sydney, Phil.
Also, I wasn't angered or offended by the word "brainwashed" -- it was
amusing. I'm not surprised that you and Marc consider me as brainwashed -- and
vice versa. But isn't that what deception implies? One or other party is
sincere and almost right. But a miss is a miss? The tragedy of deception is
that the victim sincerely believes that he is correct -- but isn't?
It's understandable that Paul wonders at the conflict amongst the different
groups who share the same Bible. I'd respond to Paul but I think he's having a
dig at us and probably isn't interested in an answer.
Am I right Paul?
John
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 7:58 PM, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On second thoughts, Paul, though I am reluctant to print during my happy hour,
and this has been a four hour binge, I was nevertheless inspired to make a
comment immediately.
Your question is exactly the same in principle, as that thrown at Jesus on the
Cross.. "If you are God, then deliver yourself from the cross and we will
believe you..."
Now how far do you think christianity upon which the calandar you use today was
based , would have lasted if He had done that, and came down off the cross?
He did better... He rose from the dead as promised, on Sunday, your first day
of the week, before many and enough witnesses.. That is what started it.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 6:13 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Zeitgeist : Jesus-Christ assumed to be a false God
Greetings all
I usually pass over the theology stuff but this one seems tailor made for me.
We are told God not only exists but is Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent.
You'd think that He would be capable of protecting Himself from the efforts of
His detractors but it seems that this is not so since the only way these
detractors come to grief is if His followers visit harm upon them. Oddly, many
of these detractors claim also to be His followers. One would think this OOO
God would have been able to communicate His needs unambiguously to His
creatures so that they would know, and could demonstrate unequivocally, who was
a detractor and who a follower.
Paul D
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
