[continued from previous message]   
      
   > > > > 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.   
   > >   
   > > That is not true and your posts reflect it. Spelling flames? Lol.   
   >   
   > It is true, and as for the spelling flame...now you know!   
      
   I would have recognized that when I reread it. :)   
   >   
   >   
   > > > > > > > > > > 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?   
   > >   
   > > You said you read the whole bible, Was Jesus born in Syria? Was Jerusalem   
   > > located in Syria?   
   >   
   > Jesus was born in Nazareth (being born in Bethlehem was just a later   
   > fiction created to make Jesus seem more like a Messiah). So of course   
   > Jesus wasn't born in Syria. You don't need to have Jesus born where   
   > you live in order to mention he was born there.   
      
   You really should reread the birth story of Christ, why they were there in   
   the first place. Where Herod actually was, an why he ordered the killing of   
   all children under the age of two, and that within a certain defined   
   perimeter.   
      
   Understand those things and you just might see how flawed your reasoning is   
   as well as that WIKI notation.   
   >   
   >   
   > > > > 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.   
   > >   
   > > There sure was. And you did not catch it. Your agenda blinded you to what   
   > > you read. You focused on things that fit your narrative.   
   >   
   > The idea of it being better to be a pig than a son has nothing to do   
   > with the supposed massacre of the infants.   
      
   Do you really mean and intend to say that the concept used in that saying   
   escapes you?   
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > OH? So you think you know from where peoples comments originate?   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > I know what groups it's being read in, which serves the purpose.   
   > > > >   
   > > > > And you know that how?   
   > > >   
   > > > How do I know what?   
   > >   
   > > LOL,, already lost track in just four lines?   
   >   
   > Are you still wondering how I could know what's being read in a   
   > newsgroup with cross-posts? LOL!   
      
   You don’t, you are far too lazy. ‘)   
   >   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > No, I don't follow any theological understanding. I'm an atheist,   
   > > > > > after all.   
   > > > >   
   > > > > Yet you have your own theology and religion, bearing in mind all the   
   > > > > things   
   > > > > you people have said, and stick to at least in front of others in your   
   > > > > church/group. Your favorite mantras, dogma’s etc.   
   > > >   
   > > > Any examples of these "mantras and dogmas"?   
   > >   
   > > Yes, the aa posts are full of them.   
   >   
   > That is not an "example."   
      
   So all your words mean nothing?   
   >   
   >   
   > > Time for some massive snipping of text here or start a new thread since DNA   
   > > is no longer the subject.   
   >   
   > Snip away all you please.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)