[continued from previous message]   
      
   So disagreement with you has become "nonsense"?  And you know I was   
   raised as a Christian, so you can't talk to me like I've never heard   
   about the plan of salvation.  And you can't explain why I can't make a   
   decision for Christ *after* I die rather than now.   
      
   >> > I may have read more “scholars” writings than you, as well as bible   
   >> > commentators as well. I know the strengths and weaknesses of many. But I   
   >> > would far rather base my understanding upon the words of God, learn what   
   he   
   >> > has to say, and make it mine, Than to use the words of others. Yet I have   
   >> > used the words of others many times, for a variety of reasons. One being   
   to   
   >> > show what others say so that they might know and understand that it is not   
   >> > just my understanding. That others know the same as well as more than I.   
   >> > People sometimes turn against the message because of the messenger. I have   
   >> > seen that happen on more than one occasion when my entire reply to a   
   >> > question   
   >> > or two was answered solely by quoting the Bible and what it said that   
   would   
   >> > answer their questions. Yet their response was against it because it was   
   my   
   >> > interpretation of the scripture. In spite of the fact that they fully knew   
   >> > it was a direct quote.   
   >>   
   >> You've read Biblical scholarship but have never heard of the Suffering   
   >> Servant?   
   >   
   >Only vaguely, and it was never a biblical expression.   
      
   Of course.  It's an expression used by Biblical studies, not the Bible   
   itself  -- which you claimed to be familiar with.   
      
   >Not that it matters, it is only theological, meaning from the mind of men,   
   >not God.   
      
   No, theology is itself the study  of God.   
      
   >> > There are many better versed with the word of God than I. But what I do   
   know,   
   >> > I know. Because of experiences, trust, and the leading of the Lord. And I   
   am   
   >> > happy and very content to follow his lead. And learn new things.   
   >>   
   >> There's no reason to believe the Lord is leading you.   
   >   
   >You have no way of determining that. You have not had an experiential   
   >relationship with God so as to know one way or the other, as you have been   
   >shunning that your entire life.   
      
   I determine that by observing that a supposed relationship with God is   
   really just a psychological artifact of wishful thinking.   
      
   >> > > > Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to   
   be a   
   >> > > > Christian.   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > Act 26:29 And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also   
   all   
   >> > > > that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am,   
   >> > > > except these bonds.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > So?   
   >> >   
   >> > It was part of an answer that you requested.   
   >>   
   >> When did I ever request anything like that?   
   >   
   >If you were to pour over this thread, perhaps going back in time a few days   
   >ago when I responded with the info then you might see it. But I understand   
   >from you that you are against going over things to see and understand, even   
   >if it is what you wrote. And since you constantly break up paragraphs into   
   >sound bites in order to tear thought continuity apart, it is difficult to   
   >carry on any meaningful conversation with you as you lose even your own train   
   >of thought.   
      
   That's "pore" over, not "pour over".  And I only break up paragraphs   
   when you have them broken up first.   
      
   >> > > > > > Scripture also speaks from the perspective of the Romans who   
   found no   
   >> > > > > > fault   
   >> > > > > > in him. No sedition, nothing. Also verified from Roman history   
   which   
   >> > > > > > many   
   >> > > > > > try to discredit so as to destroy the truth for an anti-Jesus   
   narrative.   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > The Romans knew what a Messiah was supposed to do. They decided to   
   >> > > > > nip it in the bud before things got worse.   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > Nope. Although there was one local ruler In Judea that was of that   
   >> > > > mindset,   
   >> > > > and killed every child and baby under the age of 2 for miles around   
   for   
   >> > > > fear   
   >> > > > he would lose his rulership. And went down in history noted for that   
   deed.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > You're talking about Herod the Great. It would've been characteristic   
   >> > > of him to do something like that, but he probably never did, for a   
   >> > > variety of reasons.   
   >> >   
   >> > Pure conjecture on your part. But he earned a nickname because of what he   
   >> > did, that no doubt many have heard but did not understand why he was known   
   >> > by that.   
   >>   
   >> From   
   >>   
   >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents   
   >>   
   >> "The historicity of the Matthew account is not accepted by modern   
   >> sources.[7][2][8] The story of the massacre is found in no gospel   
   >> other than Matthew, nor is it mentioned in the surviving works of   
   >> Nicolaus of Damascus (who was a personal friend of Herod the Great),   
   >> nor in Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, despite his recording many   
   >> of Herod's misdeeds, including the murder of three of his own sons.[9]   
   >> The early 5th-century account of Macrobius—that "on hearing that the   
   >> son of Herod, king of the Jews, had been slain when Herod ordered that   
   >> all boys in Syria under the age of two be killed, [Augustus] said,   
   >> 'It's better to be Herod's pig than his son'"—has been discounted as   
   >> extra-biblical evidence for the event due to its later authorship,   
   >> possible influence by the gospel narrative, and the confused nature of   
   >> the account.[10] In view of the lack of independent confirmation that   
   >> the event occurred, the story acts as a kind of folklore inspired by   
   >> Herod's reputation.[8] As a matter of understanding what the myth is   
   >> trying to communicate, its lack of historicity is unsurprising given   
   >> that gospels were primarily written as theological documents rather   
   >> than chronological timelines.[11][12][13][14]"   
   >   
   >Odd that they recount the historic evidences of it, yet deny its existence.   
   >Herod's personal friends were that only as long as they agreed with him. And   
   >what you also quoted showed the ridiculous nature of this article. boys in   
   >Syria under the age of two be killed, [Augustus] said, 'It's better to be   
   >Herod's pig than his son’"   
      
   Which has nothing to do with the supposed massacre of the infants. Did   
   you read about how it wasn't mentioned in Nicolaus of Damascus, the   
   non-Matthean gospels, or Josephus?   
      
   >Even you should have been astute enough to catch that grievous error, unless   
   >like in other areas you always accept what seems to fit your agenda, and deny   
   >all else.   
      
   There was no grievous error, except on your part. Your agenda is   
   blinding you to that.   
      
   >> >> > > > > > You also learned these things when you were young, So what’s   
   with   
   >> > > > > > > > these lies?   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > Look, liar, you know it's stupid to place too much historical   
   weight   
   >> > > > > > > on the legends and stories in the gospels, and yet you continue   
   to do   
   >> > > > > > > it. Why is that?   
   >> > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > Liar? What did I lie about?   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > You lied by acting as if other people accept the Bible as being   
   >> > > > > authoritative, which isn't true, as you must surely know by now.   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > I know, as well as you, that many people believe that whether they be   
   >> > > > Christian or not.   
   >> > > > And that does not make me a liar. I also know that you, just like the   
   well   
   >> > > > known atheists leaders, who were given enough time to die on a   
   deathbed   
   >> > > > realized their mistake yet most felt they fully deserved the end   
   result as   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)