Discussion:
The Cult of Roman Catholicism - A Vile, Disgusting Cancer On Mankind
Add Reply
Byker
2018-09-09 13:37:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Mike Pence" wrote in message news:***@178.63.61.175...
>
> Roman Catholicism, although teaching that faith in Jesus Christ is
> necessary for salvation, actually denies the truth of the Gospel by adding
> sacraments, good works, and purgatory as additional requirements for
> forgiveness of sin and for eternal life. This amounts to the preaching of
> a false Gospel which places the Roman Catholic Church under God's curse.
> (Galatians 1:6-10)
>
> Thus, by Scriptural standards, the Roman Catholic Church is a false church
> and a cult that can only expect God's judgment, not a true church that can
> claim God's blessing. No amount of outward change should be permitted to
> obscure this fact. Roman Catholicism is nothing more than Babylonian
> paganism that has been whitewashed and made to appear Christian.

When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, the laity could see for
themselves that nowhere in the Good Book are indulgences, purgatory, or even
popes mentioned. His Holiness must've foamed at the mouth:
https://tinyurl.com/nmur96p
duke
2018-09-09 14:20:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 08:37:05 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:

>"Mike Pence" wrote in message news:***@178.63.61.175...
>>
>> Roman Catholicism, although teaching that faith in Jesus Christ is
>> necessary for salvation, actually denies the truth of the Gospel by adding
>> sacraments, good works, and purgatory as additional requirements for
>> forgiveness of sin and for eternal life. This amounts to the preaching of
>> a false Gospel which places the Roman Catholic Church under God's curse.
>> (Galatians 1:6-10)
>>
>> Thus, by Scriptural standards, the Roman Catholic Church is a false church
>> and a cult that can only expect God's judgment, not a true church that can
>> claim God's blessing. No amount of outward change should be permitted to
>> obscure this fact. Roman Catholicism is nothing more than Babylonian
>> paganism that has been whitewashed and made to appear Christian.
>
>When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, the laity could see for
>themselves that nowhere in the Good Book are indulgences, purgatory, or even
>popes mentioned. His Holiness must've foamed at the mouth:
>https://tinyurl.com/nmur96p

We know where they are in scripture.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Byker
2018-09-09 14:49:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"duke" wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...

On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 08:37:05 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>
>> When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, the laity could see
>> for themselves that nowhere in the Good Book are indulgences, purgatory,
>> or even popes mentioned. His Holiness must've foamed at the mouth:
>> https://tinyurl.com/nmur96p
>
> We know where they are in scripture.

Chapter? Verse?
Patrick
2018-09-09 15:59:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 09:49:24 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:

>"duke" wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
>
>On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 08:37:05 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, the laity could see
>>> for themselves that nowhere in the Good Book are indulgences, purgatory,
>>> or even popes mentioned. His Holiness must've foamed at the mouth:
>>> https://tinyurl.com/nmur96p
>>
>> We know where they are in scripture.
>
>Chapter? Verse?

Luther translated the entire bible (eventually) into German with the
help of others. This includes the Apocrypha books. They were
included. https://www.christian-history.org/martin-luther-bible.html

deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha. They are Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2
Maccabees, Wisdom (Ecclesiasticus), Sirach, and Baruch. The Catholic
Bible also includes additions to the books of Esther and Daniel.
Should the Apocrypha be included in the Bible? There was significant
debate in the early Christian church,

The Apocrypha was not formally/officially made a part of the Catholic
Bible, though, until the Council of Trent, in response to the
Protestant Reformation

In the 1600s it was normal for the KJB to include the books of the
Apocrypha, which were regarded as edifying books, though not
authoritative, in the Anglican Church.

So the original KJB included roughly all the books that are found in
Catholic Bibles, though separating the Apocryphal books from the rest
of the Old Testament. The usual versions of the KJB printed today, by
leaving out the Apocrypha, are more obviously different to Catholic
versions of the Bible by having fewer books. Most readers of the KJB
would not even be aware that the original KJB contained more books
than their bibles do. But it is the KJB that effectively moved away
from the Apocrypha over time, not the Catholic bible.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-King-James-bible-and-the-Roman-Catholic-version
GLOBALIST
2018-09-09 16:07:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 9:49:32 AM UTC-5, Byker wrote:
> "duke" wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
>
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 08:37:05 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, the laity could see
> >> for themselves that nowhere in the Good Book are indulgences, purgatory,
> >> or even popes mentioned. His Holiness must've foamed at the mouth:
> >> https://tinyurl.com/nmur96p
> >
> > We know where they are in scripture.
>
> Chapter? Verse?

It is lie that no one could read Scripture in their own
native language before Luther. Latin was "the legal language, in the
entire Roman empire.
So it only figures that priests, monks, scholars could translate Latin into their own language. And that is how they could give their sermons etc.
Just as English is the legal language here and all legal documents must
be in English, we now have lawyers that can translate Spanish and
even our phone service give you the option to use Spanish. If you
call Quebec you will get a French speaking operator.
All native priests/monks knew Latin but didn't speak it.
duke
2018-09-09 16:21:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 09:49:24 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:

>"duke" wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
>
>On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 08:37:05 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, the laity could see
>>> for themselves that nowhere in the Good Book are indulgences, purgatory,
>>> or even popes mentioned. His Holiness must've foamed at the mouth:
>>> https://tinyurl.com/nmur96p

>> We know where they are in scripture.

>Chapter? Verse?

You look first.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
2018-09-09 16:33:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/9/2018 9:21 AM, duke wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 09:49:24 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>
>> "duke" wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 08:37:05 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, the laity could see
>>>> for themselves that nowhere in the Good Book are indulgences, purgatory,
>>>> or even popes mentioned. His Holiness must've foamed at the mouth:
>>>> https://tinyurl.com/nmur96p
>
>>> We know where they are in scripture.
>
>> Chapter? Verse?
>
> You look first.

It's not there.

>
> the doucher, smug fat prick and congenital liar
>
> *****
> The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
> the OT, but instead to flim-flam gullible credulous dopes like me
> *****
Street
2018-09-09 17:12:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois <***@la-tech.edu> wrote:
> On 9/9/2018 9:21 AM, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 09:49:24 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>>> "duke" wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 08:37:05 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, the laity could see
>>>>> for themselves that nowhere in the Good Book are indulgences, purgatory,
>>>>> or even popes mentioned. His Holiness must've foamed at the mouth:
>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/nmur96p
>>>>> We know where they are in scripture.
>>>> Chapter? Verse?
>>> You look first.
>
> It's not there.


Idiotic Duke always pulls that shit. The Biblically illiterate moron has no
clue what the Bible really says, so he just makes shit up.
Patrick
2018-09-09 18:08:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 09 Sep 2018 17:12:00 GMT, Street <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois <***@la-tech.edu> wrote:
>> On 9/9/2018 9:21 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 09:49:24 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>>>> "duke" wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 08:37:05 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, the laity could see
>>>>>> for themselves that nowhere in the Good Book are indulgences, purgatory,
>>>>>> or even popes mentioned. His Holiness must've foamed at the mouth:
>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/nmur96p
>>>>>> We know where they are in scripture.
>>>>> Chapter? Verse?
>>>> You look first.
>>
>> It's not there.
>
>
>Idiotic Duke always pulls that shit. The Biblically illiterate moron has no
>clue what the Bible really says, so he just makes shit up.

So perhaps you could indicate your high knowlege by also telling us
what is NOT in the Bible. For example, does the Bible ever mention
the "Bible?" Does the Bible ever mention the "Trinity?" Does the
Bible ever mention the names of Jesus' brothers and sisters? C'mon,
be the man... you can tell us this shit, can't you?
Siri Cruise
2018-09-09 18:52:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>,
Patrick <***@woh.rr.com> wrote:

> So perhaps you could indicate your high knowlege by also telling us
> what is NOT in the Bible. For example, does the Bible ever mention
> the "Bible?"

That's a latin word, so not likely in a work of greek, hebrew, and aramaic.
Actually we have historic records of the pulling together of disparate books
into a single collection around 300.

> Does the Bible ever mention the "Trinity?"

Exodus is one of the place were at least a duality is revealed. Since the holy
ghost part of the trinity could not join with humans until after Jesus's death,
it would make sense if it were not revealed earlier.

> Does the
> Bible ever mention the names of Jesus' brothers and sisters?

Other than James? Did you notice Joseph disappears by the time of the ministry.
And Mary disappears after the crucifiction. It's almost as if it's not a
personal history of Jesus so it doesn't mention personal details not relevant to
his ministry.

> C'mon,
> be the man... you can tell us this shit, can't you?

Questions are a burden on others.

Answers are a prison for oneself.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
An almond doesn't lactate. This post / \
Yet another supercilious snowflake for justice. insults Islam. Mohammed
Patrick
2018-09-09 21:39:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 09 Sep 2018 11:52:48 -0700, Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <***@4ax.com>,
> Patrick <***@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> So perhaps you could indicate your high knowlege by also telling us
>> what is NOT in the Bible. For example, does the Bible ever mention
>> the "Bible?"
>
>That's a latin word, so not likely in a work of greek, hebrew, and aramaic.
>Actually we have historic records of the pulling together of disparate books
>into a single collection around 300.
>
>> Does the Bible ever mention the "Trinity?"
>
>Exodus is one of the place were at least a duality is revealed. Since the holy
>ghost part of the trinity could not join with humans until after Jesus's death,
>it would make sense if it were not revealed earlier.
>
>> Does the
>> Bible ever mention the names of Jesus' brothers and sisters?
>
>Other than James? Did you notice Joseph disappears by the time of the ministry.
>And Mary disappears after the crucifiction. It's almost as if it's not a
>personal history of Jesus so it doesn't mention personal details not relevant to
>his ministry.
>
>> C'mon,
>> be the man... you can tell us this shit, can't you?
>
>Questions are a burden on others.
>
>Answers are a prison for oneself.


That is why I ask you the questions.
And you, loke a good little dog, .... answer them.
Siri Cruise
2018-09-09 21:45:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>,
Patrick <***@woh.rr.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 09 Sep 2018 11:52:48 -0700, Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <***@4ax.com>,
> > Patrick <***@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> So perhaps you could indicate your high knowlege by also telling us
> >> what is NOT in the Bible. For example, does the Bible ever mention
> >> the "Bible?"
> >
> >That's a latin word, so not likely in a work of greek, hebrew, and aramaic.
> >Actually we have historic records of the pulling together of disparate books
> >into a single collection around 300.
> >
> >> Does the Bible ever mention the "Trinity?"
> >
> >Exodus is one of the place were at least a duality is revealed. Since the
> >holy
> >ghost part of the trinity could not join with humans until after Jesus's
> >death,
> >it would make sense if it were not revealed earlier.
> >
> >> Does the
> >> Bible ever mention the names of Jesus' brothers and sisters?
> >
> >Other than James? Did you notice Joseph disappears by the time of the
> >ministry.
> >And Mary disappears after the crucifiction. It's almost as if it's not a
> >personal history of Jesus so it doesn't mention personal details not
> >relevant to
> >his ministry.
> >
> >> C'mon,
> >> be the man... you can tell us this shit, can't you?
> >
> >Questions are a burden on others.
> >
> >Answers are a prison for oneself.
>
>
> That is why I ask you the questions.

You ask assuming you'll get no answers and use that to claim how misunderstood
you are. Instead, since you got answers, you are revealed how much you
misunderstand the bible.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
An almond doesn't lactate. This post / \
Yet another supercilious snowflake for justice. insults Islam. Mohammed
Patrick
2018-09-10 00:26:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> wrote:


>> >Questions are a burden on others.
>> >Answers are a prison for oneself.

>> That is why I ask you the questions.

>You ask assuming you'll get no answers and use that to claim how misunderstood
>you are. Instead, since you got answers, you are revealed how much you
>misunderstand the bible.

You are the one being burdened.
Now, go do your homework.
Byker
2018-09-10 16:31:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Patrick" wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
>
> Does the Bible ever mention the names of Jesus' brothers and sisters?

HALF-brothers and sisters
Patrick
2018-09-10 16:33:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:31:27 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:

>"Patrick" wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>>
>> Does the Bible ever mention the names of Jesus' brothers and sisters?
>
>HALF-brothers and sisters

Does it say "half?"
Byker
2018-09-10 16:52:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Patrick" wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...

On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:31:27 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>
>>"Patrick" wrote in message
>>news:***@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Does the Bible ever mention the names of Jesus' brothers and sisters?
>>
>>HALF-brothers and sisters
>
> Does it say "half?"

I believe they were fathered by Joseph, not God...
MattB
2018-09-10 20:13:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:52:21 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:

>"Patrick" wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>
>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:31:27 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Patrick" wrote in message
>>>news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> Does the Bible ever mention the names of Jesus' brothers and sisters?
>>>
>>>HALF-brothers and sisters
>>
>> Does it say "half?"
>
>I believe they were fathered by Joseph, not God...


The Bible also mentions sisters but doesn't name them.
Patrick
2018-09-10 22:08:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:13:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:52:21 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>
>>"Patrick" wrote in message
>>news:***@4ax.com...
>>
>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:31:27 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Patrick" wrote in message
>>>>news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the Bible ever mention the names of Jesus' brothers and sisters?
>>>>
>>>>HALF-brothers and sisters
>>>
>>> Does it say "half?"
>>
>>I believe they were fathered by Joseph, not God...
>
>
>The Bible also mentions sisters but doesn't name them.


The Meaning of Brother
The first thing to understand is that the term brother (Gk. adelphos)
has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological
brother, but it can also mean an extended relative, or even a
spiritual brother.

Take Genesis 13:8 for example. Here the word brother is being used to
describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who were not
biological brothers but uncle and nephew:

“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and
me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers” (Gen 13:8,
NIV; see also 14:12).

Because of the Bible’s broad semantic range of “brother,” we can rest
assured that although St. Paul writes, “[Jesus] appeared to more than
five hundred…brothers at the same time” (1 Cor. 15:6), we need not
infer from this verse that Mary gave birth to more than 500 children!

These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although
Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).

James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers”
(Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother
of Jesus.

After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he
writes:

“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had
followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary
Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of
the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).

The earliest explanation of the “brothers” of the Lord is found in a
document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written
around A.D. 150. It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her
youth, and of St. Joseph as an elderly widower with children who was
chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting
her while respecting her vow of virginity. Though this document is not
on the level of Sacred Scripture, it was written very early, and it
may contain accurate historical traditions.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jesus-had-brothers
MattB
2018-09-10 23:35:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 18:08:25 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:13:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:52:21 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Patrick" wrote in message
>>>news:***@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:31:27 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Patrick" wrote in message
>>>>>news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the Bible ever mention the names of Jesus' brothers and sisters?
>>>>>
>>>>>HALF-brothers and sisters
>>>>
>>>> Does it say "half?"
>>>
>>>I believe they were fathered by Joseph, not God...
>>
>>
>>The Bible also mentions sisters but doesn't name them.
>
>
> The Meaning of Brother
>The first thing to understand is that the term brother (Gk. adelphos)
>has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological
>brother, but it can also mean an extended relative, or even a
>spiritual brother.
>
>Take Genesis 13:8 for example. Here the word brother is being used to
>describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who were not
>biological brothers but uncle and nephew:
>
>“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and
>me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers” (Gen 13:8,
>NIV; see also 14:12).
>
>Because of the Bible’s broad semantic range of “brother,” we can rest
>assured that although St. Paul writes, “[Jesus] appeared to more than
>five hundred…brothers at the same time” (1 Cor. 15:6), we need not
>infer from this verse that Mary gave birth to more than 500 children!
>
>These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although
>Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).
>
>James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers”
>(Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother
>of Jesus.
>
>After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he
>writes:
>
>“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had
>followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary
>Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of
>the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).
>
>The earliest explanation of the “brothers” of the Lord is found in a
>document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written
>around A.D. 150. It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her
>youth, and of St. Joseph as an elderly widower with children who was
>chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting
>her while respecting her vow of virginity. Though this document is not
>on the level of Sacred Scripture, it was written very early, and it
>may contain accurate historical traditions.
>https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jesus-had-brothers


So you claim. Yet you can't prove. Why would Mary be married and
stay a virgin?
Patrick
2018-09-11 05:36:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 16:35:46 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 18:08:25 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:13:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:52:21 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Patrick" wrote in message
>>>>news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:31:27 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Patrick" wrote in message
>>>>>>news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does the Bible ever mention the names of Jesus' brothers and sisters?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>HALF-brothers and sisters
>>>>>
>>>>> Does it say "half?"
>>>>
>>>>I believe they were fathered by Joseph, not God...
>>>
>>>
>>>The Bible also mentions sisters but doesn't name them.
>>
>>
>> The Meaning of Brother
>>The first thing to understand is that the term brother (Gk. adelphos)
>>has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological
>>brother, but it can also mean an extended relative, or even a
>>spiritual brother.
>>
>>Take Genesis 13:8 for example. Here the word brother is being used to
>>describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who were not
>>biological brothers but uncle and nephew:
>>
>>“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and
>>me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers” (Gen 13:8,
>>NIV; see also 14:12).
>>
>>Because of the Bible’s broad semantic range of “brother,” we can rest
>>assured that although St. Paul writes, “[Jesus] appeared to more than
>>five hundred…brothers at the same time” (1 Cor. 15:6), we need not
>>infer from this verse that Mary gave birth to more than 500 children!
>>
>>These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although
>>Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).
>>
>>James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers”
>>(Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother
>>of Jesus.
>>
>>After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he
>>writes:
>>
>>“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had
>>followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary
>>Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of
>>the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).
>>
>>The earliest explanation of the “brothers” of the Lord is found in a
>>document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written
>>around A.D. 150. It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her
>>youth, and of St. Joseph as an elderly widower with children who was
>>chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting
>>her while respecting her vow of virginity. Though this document is not
>>on the level of Sacred Scripture, it was written very early, and it
>>may contain accurate historical traditions.
>>https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jesus-had-brothers
>
>
>So you claim. Yet you can't prove. Why would Mary be married and
>stay a virgin?

Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
MattB
2018-09-11 19:00:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 01:36:42 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 16:35:46 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 18:08:25 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:13:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:52:21 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Patrick" wrote in message
>>>>>news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:31:27 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Patrick" wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does the Bible ever mention the names of Jesus' brothers and sisters?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>HALF-brothers and sisters
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does it say "half?"
>>>>>
>>>>>I believe they were fathered by Joseph, not God...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The Bible also mentions sisters but doesn't name them.
>>>
>>>
>>> The Meaning of Brother
>>>The first thing to understand is that the term brother (Gk. adelphos)
>>>has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological
>>>brother, but it can also mean an extended relative, or even a
>>>spiritual brother.
>>>
>>>Take Genesis 13:8 for example. Here the word brother is being used to
>>>describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who were not
>>>biological brothers but uncle and nephew:
>>>
>>>“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and
>>>me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers” (Gen 13:8,
>>>NIV; see also 14:12).
>>>
>>>Because of the Bible’s broad semantic range of “brother,” we can rest
>>>assured that although St. Paul writes, “[Jesus] appeared to more than
>>>five hundred…brothers at the same time” (1 Cor. 15:6), we need not
>>>infer from this verse that Mary gave birth to more than 500 children!
>>>
>>>These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although
>>>Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).
>>>
>>>James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers”
>>>(Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother
>>>of Jesus.
>>>
>>>After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he
>>>writes:
>>>
>>>“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had
>>>followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary
>>>Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of
>>>the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).
>>>
>>>The earliest explanation of the “brothers” of the Lord is found in a
>>>document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written
>>>around A.D. 150. It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her
>>>youth, and of St. Joseph as an elderly widower with children who was
>>>chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting
>>>her while respecting her vow of virginity. Though this document is not
>>>on the level of Sacred Scripture, it was written very early, and it
>>>may contain accurate historical traditions.
>>>https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jesus-had-brothers
>>
>>
>>So you claim. Yet you can't prove. Why would Mary be married and
>>stay a virgin?
>
>Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.

Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.
Patrick
2018-09-11 18:57:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:00:03 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 01:36:42 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 16:35:46 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 18:08:25 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:13:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:52:21 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Patrick" wrote in message
>>>>>>news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:31:27 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Patrick" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does the Bible ever mention the names of Jesus' brothers and sisters?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>HALF-brothers and sisters
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does it say "half?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I believe they were fathered by Joseph, not God...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The Bible also mentions sisters but doesn't name them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Meaning of Brother
>>>>The first thing to understand is that the term brother (Gk. adelphos)
>>>>has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological
>>>>brother, but it can also mean an extended relative, or even a
>>>>spiritual brother.
>>>>
>>>>Take Genesis 13:8 for example. Here the word brother is being used to
>>>>describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who were not
>>>>biological brothers but uncle and nephew:
>>>>
>>>>“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and
>>>>me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers” (Gen 13:8,
>>>>NIV; see also 14:12).
>>>>
>>>>Because of the Bible’s broad semantic range of “brother,” we can rest
>>>>assured that although St. Paul writes, “[Jesus] appeared to more than
>>>>five hundred…brothers at the same time” (1 Cor. 15:6), we need not
>>>>infer from this verse that Mary gave birth to more than 500 children!
>>>>
>>>>These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although
>>>>Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).
>>>>
>>>>James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers”
>>>>(Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother
>>>>of Jesus.
>>>>
>>>>After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he
>>>>writes:
>>>>
>>>>“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had
>>>>followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary
>>>>Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of
>>>>the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).
>>>>
>>>>The earliest explanation of the “brothers” of the Lord is found in a
>>>>document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written
>>>>around A.D. 150. It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her
>>>>youth, and of St. Joseph as an elderly widower with children who was
>>>>chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting
>>>>her while respecting her vow of virginity. Though this document is not
>>>>on the level of Sacred Scripture, it was written very early, and it
>>>>may contain accurate historical traditions.
>>>>https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jesus-had-brothers
>>>
>>>
>>>So you claim. Yet you can't prove. Why would Mary be married and
>>>stay a virgin?
>>
>>Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>
>Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.


I didn't claim that.
You did. Very stupid.
MattB
2018-09-11 19:59:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:57:26 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:00:03 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 01:36:42 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 16:35:46 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 18:08:25 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:13:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:52:21 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Patrick" wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:31:27 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Patrick" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Does the Bible ever mention the names of Jesus' brothers and sisters?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>HALF-brothers and sisters
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does it say "half?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I believe they were fathered by Joseph, not God...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The Bible also mentions sisters but doesn't name them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Meaning of Brother
>>>>>The first thing to understand is that the term brother (Gk. adelphos)
>>>>>has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological
>>>>>brother, but it can also mean an extended relative, or even a
>>>>>spiritual brother.
>>>>>
>>>>>Take Genesis 13:8 for example. Here the word brother is being used to
>>>>>describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who were not
>>>>>biological brothers but uncle and nephew:
>>>>>
>>>>>“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and
>>>>>me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers” (Gen 13:8,
>>>>>NIV; see also 14:12).
>>>>>
>>>>>Because of the Bible’s broad semantic range of “brother,” we can rest
>>>>>assured that although St. Paul writes, “[Jesus] appeared to more than
>>>>>five hundred…brothers at the same time” (1 Cor. 15:6), we need not
>>>>>infer from this verse that Mary gave birth to more than 500 children!
>>>>>
>>>>>These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although
>>>>>Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).
>>>>>
>>>>>James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers”
>>>>>(Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother
>>>>>of Jesus.
>>>>>
>>>>>After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he
>>>>>writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had
>>>>>followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary
>>>>>Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of
>>>>>the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).
>>>>>
>>>>>The earliest explanation of the “brothers” of the Lord is found in a
>>>>>document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written
>>>>>around A.D. 150. It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her
>>>>>youth, and of St. Joseph as an elderly widower with children who was
>>>>>chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting
>>>>>her while respecting her vow of virginity. Though this document is not
>>>>>on the level of Sacred Scripture, it was written very early, and it
>>>>>may contain accurate historical traditions.
>>>>>https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jesus-had-brothers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So you claim. Yet you can't prove. Why would Mary be married and
>>>>stay a virgin?
>>>
>>>Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>>
>>Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.
>
>
>I didn't claim that.



>You did. Very stupid.

No I didn't. Why does the Bible even imply Mary needed to remain a
virgin? It doesn't but it is good for a selling point for the RCC.

Face if your RCC can't even follow the Bible.
Patrick
2018-09-11 21:53:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>

>>>> Why would Mary be married and>>stay a virgin?
>>>>
>>>>Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>>>
>>>Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.

>>I didn't claim that.
>>You did. Very stupid.
>
>No I didn't.

Yet you said: "Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept
her. Interesting."


>Why does the Bible even imply Mary needed to remain a
>virgin?

It didn't.
Why are you so stupid?


>It doesn't but it is good for a selling point for the RCC.

How?


>Face if your RCC can't even follow the Bible.

Do you?
MattB
2018-09-11 22:28:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:53:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>
>
>>>>> Why would Mary be married and>>stay a virgin?
>>>>>
>>>>>Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.
>
>>>I didn't claim that.
>>>You did. Very stupid.
>>
>>No I didn't.
>
>Yet you said: "Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept
>her. Interesting."

You are the one that said even though married to Joseph, Mary remained
a virgin her whole life. Under Jesus teaching could Joseph have
divorced Mary and got remarried?
>
>
>>Why does the Bible even imply Mary needed to remain a
>>virgin?
>
>It didn't.
>Why are you so stupid?
>
>
>>It doesn't but it is good for a selling point for the RCC.
>
>How?
>
>
>>Face if your RCC can't even follow the Bible.
>
>Do you?

I don't claim to have the powers of the RCC and I have never defended
Pedophiles like you do Patrick Barker.
Patrick
2018-09-12 12:56:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:28:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:53:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>>> Why would Mary be married and>>stay a virgin?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.
>>
>>>>I didn't claim that.
>>>>You did. Very stupid.
>>>
>>>No I didn't.
>>
>>Yet you said: "Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept
>>her. Interesting."
>
>You are the one that said even though married to Joseph, Mary remained
>a virgin her whole life. Under Jesus teaching could Joseph have
>divorced Mary and got remarried?

I don't believe Jesus taught that.




>>>Why does the Bible even imply Mary needed to remain a
>>>virgin?
>>
>>It didn't.
>>Why are you so stupid?
>>
>>
>>>It doesn't but it is good for a selling point for the RCC.
>>
>>How?
>>
>>
>>>Face if your RCC can't even follow the Bible.
>>
>>Do you?
>
>I don't claim to have the powers of the RCC and I have never defended
>Pedophiles like you do Patrick Barker.

I don't defend you or yer pappy, larry.

http://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/Sheriff/SexOffenders/117324.htm

Larry J Brooks
14180 Beaver Marsh RD, Mount Vernon, WA 98273
(360) 424-6617 is a land line phone
MattB
2018-09-12 18:04:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:28:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:53:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Why would Mary be married and>>stay a virgin?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.
>>>
>>>>>I didn't claim that.
>>>>>You did. Very stupid.
>>>>
>>>>No I didn't.
>>>
>>>Yet you said: "Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept
>>>her. Interesting."
>>
>>You are the one that said even though married to Joseph, Mary remained
>>a virgin her whole life. Under Jesus teaching could Joseph have
>>divorced Mary and got remarried?
>
>I don't believe Jesus taught that.

Then you are saying God forced Joseph to also live as a virgin or live
in sin?

>
>
>
>
>>>>Why does the Bible even imply Mary needed to remain a
>>>>virgin?
>>>
>>>It didn't.
>>>Why are you so stupid?
>>>
>>>
>>>>It doesn't but it is good for a selling point for the RCC.
>>>
>>>How?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Face if your RCC can't even follow the Bible.
>>>
>>>Do you?
>>
>>I don't claim to have the powers of the RCC and I have never defended
>>Pedophiles like you do Patrick Barker.
>
>I don't defend you or yer pappy, larry.
>
>http://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/Sheriff/SexOffenders/117324.htm
>
>Larry J Brooks
>14180 Beaver Marsh RD, Mount Vernon, WA 98273
>(360) 424-6617 is a land line phone

Lets see Patrick Barker of Dayton, OH.
Patrick will come visit me and is a expert with guns (turns out he
passed basic in the AF. LOL). Patrick will have a throw down weapon
so he thinks you can commit murder. Patrick didn't even know what a
Eagle was ROFL.

Patrick told me he knew where my kids were and I checked his Daughter
Melanie Berkmen did live within 1 mile of where my daughter goes to
school and worked for another University (Suffolk University). I
admit I did notify both schools of this incident.

Then he was are going to Montana and was to bring his son-in-law
either Christopher Kalt or Mehmet Berkmen who will all stay on
Malmstrom Air Force Base. So they can Shoot "injuns"

He also claims to be Rich a lie. Patrick also claims to have a copy
of my birth certificate yet doesn't know my middle name or my parents
real names. Doesn't even know where I was born apparently.

Patrick Barker is here to defend pedophilia within the Roman Catholic
Church.

That is strike 4
the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
2018-09-12 18:07:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/12/2018 11:04 AM, MattB wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:28:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:53:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> , Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why would Mary be married and>>stay a virgin?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.
>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't claim that.
>>>>>> You did. Very stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> No I didn't.
>>>>
>>>> Yet you said: "Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept
>>>> her. Interesting."
>>>
>>> You are the one that said even though married to Joseph, Mary remained
>>> a virgin her whole life. Under Jesus teaching could Joseph have
>>> divorced Mary and got remarried?
>>
>> I don't believe Jesus taught that.
>
> Then you are saying God forced Joseph to also live as a virgin or live
> in sin?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Why does the Bible even imply Mary needed to remain a
>>>>> virgin?
>>>>
>>>> It didn't.
>>>> Why are you so stupid?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't but it is good for a selling point for the RCC.
>>>>
>>>> How?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Face if your RCC can't even follow the Bible.
>>>>
>>>> Do you?
>>>
>>> I don't claim to have the powers of the RCC and I have never defended
>>> Pedophiles like you do Patrick Barker.
>>
>> I don't defend you or yer pappy, larry.
>>
>> http://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/Sheriff/SexOffenders/117324.htm
>>
>> Larry J Brooks
>> 14180 Beaver Marsh RD, Mount Vernon, WA 98273
>> (360) 424-6617 is a land line phone
>
> Lets see Patrick Barker of Dayton, OH.
> Patrick will come visit me and is a expert with guns (turns out he
> passed basic in the AF. LOL). Patrick will have a throw down weapon
> so he thinks you can commit murder. Patrick didn't even know what a
> Eagle was ROFL.
>
> Patrick told me he knew where my kids were and I checked his Daughter
> Melanie Berkmen did live within 1 mile of where my daughter goes to
> school and worked for another University (Suffolk University). I
> admit I did notify both schools of this incident.
>
> Then he was are going to Montana and was to bring his son-in-law
> either Christopher Kalt or Mehmet Berkmen who will all stay on
> Malmstrom Air Force Base. So they can Shoot "injuns"
>
> He also claims to be Rich a lie. Patrick also claims to have a copy
> of my birth certificate yet doesn't know my middle name or my parents
> real names. Doesn't even know where I was born apparently.
>
> Patrick Barker is here to defend pedophilia within the Roman Catholic
> Church.
>
> That is strike 4
>

Forget all that stalking bullshit and focus on what's important: Patsie
*still* is defending the church's ongoing coverup of rapist priests.
MattB
2018-09-12 18:33:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 11:07:28 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
<***@la-tech.edu> wrote:

>On 9/12/2018 11:04 AM, MattB wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:28:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:53:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> , Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why would Mary be married and>>stay a virgin?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't claim that.
>>>>>>> You did. Very stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No I didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet you said: "Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept
>>>>> her. Interesting."
>>>>
>>>> You are the one that said even though married to Joseph, Mary remained
>>>> a virgin her whole life. Under Jesus teaching could Joseph have
>>>> divorced Mary and got remarried?
>>>
>>> I don't believe Jesus taught that.
>>
>> Then you are saying God forced Joseph to also live as a virgin or live
>> in sin?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Why does the Bible even imply Mary needed to remain a
>>>>>> virgin?
>>>>>
>>>>> It didn't.
>>>>> Why are you so stupid?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't but it is good for a selling point for the RCC.
>>>>>
>>>>> How?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Face if your RCC can't even follow the Bible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you?
>>>>
>>>> I don't claim to have the powers of the RCC and I have never defended
>>>> Pedophiles like you do Patrick Barker.
>>>
>>> I don't defend you or yer pappy, larry.
>>>
>>> http://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/Sheriff/SexOffenders/117324.htm
>>>
>>> Larry J Brooks
>>> 14180 Beaver Marsh RD, Mount Vernon, WA 98273
>>> (360) 424-6617 is a land line phone
>>
>> Lets see Patrick Barker of Dayton, OH.
>> Patrick will come visit me and is a expert with guns (turns out he
>> passed basic in the AF. LOL). Patrick will have a throw down weapon
>> so he thinks you can commit murder. Patrick didn't even know what a
>> Eagle was ROFL.
>>
>> Patrick told me he knew where my kids were and I checked his Daughter
>> Melanie Berkmen did live within 1 mile of where my daughter goes to
>> school and worked for another University (Suffolk University). I
>> admit I did notify both schools of this incident.
>>
>> Then he was are going to Montana and was to bring his son-in-law
>> either Christopher Kalt or Mehmet Berkmen who will all stay on
>> Malmstrom Air Force Base. So they can Shoot "injuns"
>>
>> He also claims to be Rich a lie. Patrick also claims to have a copy
>> of my birth certificate yet doesn't know my middle name or my parents
>> real names. Doesn't even know where I was born apparently.
>>
>> Patrick Barker is here to defend pedophilia within the Roman Catholic
>> Church.
>>
>> That is strike 4
>>
>
>Forget all that stalking bullshit and focus on what's important: Patsie
>*still* is defending the church's ongoing coverup of rapist priests.


He always has defended the pedophiles and the cover up. He is using
one of the tactics the Church used with great success in the past.
Doesn't work as much anymore.

I'm surprised he hasn't started making shit up about you.

There is no excuse for the coverup.
the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
2018-09-12 19:02:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/12/2018 11:33 AM, MattB wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 11:07:28 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
> <***@la-tech.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 9/12/2018 11:04 AM, MattB wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:28:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:53:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> , Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why would Mary be married and>>stay a virgin?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I didn't claim that.
>>>>>>>> You did. Very stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No I didn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet you said: "Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept
>>>>>> her. Interesting."
>>>>>
>>>>> You are the one that said even though married to Joseph, Mary remained
>>>>> a virgin her whole life. Under Jesus teaching could Joseph have
>>>>> divorced Mary and got remarried?
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe Jesus taught that.
>>>
>>> Then you are saying God forced Joseph to also live as a virgin or live
>>> in sin?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Why does the Bible even imply Mary needed to remain a
>>>>>>> virgin?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It didn't.
>>>>>> Why are you so stupid?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It doesn't but it is good for a selling point for the RCC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Face if your RCC can't even follow the Bible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't claim to have the powers of the RCC and I have never defended
>>>>> Pedophiles like you do Patrick Barker.
>>>>
>>>> I don't defend you or yer pappy, larry.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/Sheriff/SexOffenders/117324.htm
>>>>
>>>> Larry J Brooks
>>>> 14180 Beaver Marsh RD, Mount Vernon, WA 98273
>>>> (360) 424-6617 is a land line phone
>>>
>>> Lets see Patrick Barker of Dayton, OH.
>>> Patrick will come visit me and is a expert with guns (turns out he
>>> passed basic in the AF. LOL). Patrick will have a throw down weapon
>>> so he thinks you can commit murder. Patrick didn't even know what a
>>> Eagle was ROFL.
>>>
>>> Patrick told me he knew where my kids were and I checked his Daughter
>>> Melanie Berkmen did live within 1 mile of where my daughter goes to
>>> school and worked for another University (Suffolk University). I
>>> admit I did notify both schools of this incident.
>>>
>>> Then he was are going to Montana and was to bring his son-in-law
>>> either Christopher Kalt or Mehmet Berkmen who will all stay on
>>> Malmstrom Air Force Base. So they can Shoot "injuns"
>>>
>>> He also claims to be Rich a lie. Patrick also claims to have a copy
>>> of my birth certificate yet doesn't know my middle name or my parents
>>> real names. Doesn't even know where I was born apparently.
>>>
>>> Patrick Barker is here to defend pedophilia within the Roman Catholic
>>> Church.
>>>
>>> That is strike 4
>>>
>>
>> Forget all that stalking bullshit and focus on what's important: Patsie
>> *still* is defending the church's ongoing coverup of rapist priests.
>
>
> He always has defended the pedophiles and the cover up.

I never got the sense he was really defending the rapist priests
themselves, although for sure he wasn't looking to see them punished.
Rather, he is doing everything he can to try to defend the rotten
corrupt church as an institution. He still refuses to acknowledge the
heinous moral crime of the *ongoing* massive coverup. Patsie, and
Douche Weber, *still* are condemning the thousands of victims, rather
than the rapists and the vile, corrupt institution that did everything
it could to enable the rapists to keep raping. Everything the rotten
corrupt RCC did was wrong.

* concealed and shuffled rapist priests around, so they could keep raping
* browbeat and intimidated the victims and their families
* suggested the victims were the ones at fault
* discouraged the victims from going to the police
* refused to bring in the cops
* continued the coverup for decades
* refuses to THIS DAY to acknowledge that the coverup, and all the
other wrong *institutional* behavior, is at least as bad as the
rapes themselves

Patsie, that lying filthy fat fuck, refuses to acknowledge any of that.
He's still trying to downplay and soft-peddle the entire thing, as if it
was no big deal.

There are people who have left the rotten vile corrupt RCC over this,
and there are countless others who are deeply anguished and have
contemplated leaving. Patsie and Douche show no moral discomfiture over
it at all. They're just angry that vile corruption of their institution
is being revealed in all its ugliness.

> He is using
> one of the tactics the Church used with great success in the past.
> Doesn't work as much anymore.
>
> I'm surprised he hasn't started making shit up about you.
>
> There is no excuse for the coverup.
>

Exactly right, but Patsie and Douche think there is. They're just pissy
that it finally was revealed.
MattB
2018-09-12 20:46:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 12:02:18 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
<***@la-tech.edu> wrote:

>On 9/12/2018 11:33 AM, MattB wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 11:07:28 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
>> <***@la-tech.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/12/2018 11:04 AM, MattB wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:28:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:53:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> , Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why would Mary be married and>>stay a virgin?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I didn't claim that.
>>>>>>>>> You did. Very stupid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No I didn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet you said: "Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept
>>>>>>> her. Interesting."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are the one that said even though married to Joseph, Mary remained
>>>>>> a virgin her whole life. Under Jesus teaching could Joseph have
>>>>>> divorced Mary and got remarried?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe Jesus taught that.
>>>>
>>>> Then you are saying God forced Joseph to also live as a virgin or live
>>>> in sin?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why does the Bible even imply Mary needed to remain a
>>>>>>>> virgin?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It didn't.
>>>>>>> Why are you so stupid?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It doesn't but it is good for a selling point for the RCC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Face if your RCC can't even follow the Bible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't claim to have the powers of the RCC and I have never defended
>>>>>> Pedophiles like you do Patrick Barker.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't defend you or yer pappy, larry.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/Sheriff/SexOffenders/117324.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Larry J Brooks
>>>>> 14180 Beaver Marsh RD, Mount Vernon, WA 98273
>>>>> (360) 424-6617 is a land line phone
>>>>
>>>> Lets see Patrick Barker of Dayton, OH.
>>>> Patrick will come visit me and is a expert with guns (turns out he
>>>> passed basic in the AF. LOL). Patrick will have a throw down weapon
>>>> so he thinks you can commit murder. Patrick didn't even know what a
>>>> Eagle was ROFL.
>>>>
>>>> Patrick told me he knew where my kids were and I checked his Daughter
>>>> Melanie Berkmen did live within 1 mile of where my daughter goes to
>>>> school and worked for another University (Suffolk University). I
>>>> admit I did notify both schools of this incident.
>>>>
>>>> Then he was are going to Montana and was to bring his son-in-law
>>>> either Christopher Kalt or Mehmet Berkmen who will all stay on
>>>> Malmstrom Air Force Base. So they can Shoot "injuns"
>>>>
>>>> He also claims to be Rich a lie. Patrick also claims to have a copy
>>>> of my birth certificate yet doesn't know my middle name or my parents
>>>> real names. Doesn't even know where I was born apparently.
>>>>
>>>> Patrick Barker is here to defend pedophilia within the Roman Catholic
>>>> Church.
>>>>
>>>> That is strike 4
>>>>
>>>
>>> Forget all that stalking bullshit and focus on what's important: Patsie
>>> *still* is defending the church's ongoing coverup of rapist priests.
>>
>>
>> He always has defended the pedophiles and the cover up.
>
>I never got the sense he was really defending the rapist priests
>themselves, although for sure he wasn't looking to see them punished.

Is not believing Priest can rape kids without consequences as if it is
their right as priest defending them?

>Rather, he is doing everything he can to try to defend the rotten
>corrupt church as an institution. He still refuses to acknowledge the
>heinous moral crime of the *ongoing* massive coverup. Patsie, and
>Douche Weber, *still* are condemning the thousands of victims, rather
>than the rapists and the vile, corrupt institution that did everything
>it could to enable the rapists to keep raping. Everything the rotten
>corrupt RCC did was wrong.
>
>* concealed and shuffled rapist priests around, so they could keep raping
>* browbeat and intimidated the victims and their families
>* suggested the victims were the ones at fault
>* discouraged the victims from going to the police
>* refused to bring in the cops
>* continued the coverup for decades
>* refuses to THIS DAY to acknowledge that the coverup, and all the
> other wrong *institutional* behavior, is at least as bad as the
> rapes themselves
>
>Patsie, that lying filthy fat fuck, refuses to acknowledge any of that.
>He's still trying to downplay and soft-peddle the entire thing, as if it
>was no big deal.

He wishes for the old days when people did not dare report or condemn
the pedophilia.
>
>There are people who have left the rotten vile corrupt RCC over this,
>and there are countless others who are deeply anguished and have
>contemplated leaving. Patsie and Douche show no moral discomfiture over
>it at all. They're just angry that vile corruption of their institution
>is being revealed in all its ugliness.
>
>> He is using
>> one of the tactics the Church used with great success in the past.
>> Doesn't work as much anymore.
>>
>> I'm surprised he hasn't started making shit up about you.
>>
>> There is no excuse for the coverup.
>>
>
>Exactly right, but Patsie and Douche think there is. They're just pissy
>that it finally was revealed.

So true.
the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
2018-09-12 21:04:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/12/2018 1:46 PM, MattB wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 12:02:18 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
> <***@la-tech.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 9/12/2018 11:33 AM, MattB wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 11:07:28 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
>>> <***@la-tech.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/12/2018 11:04 AM, MattB wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:28:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:53:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> , Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would Mary be married and>>stay a virgin?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I didn't claim that.
>>>>>>>>>> You did. Very stupid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No I didn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yet you said: "Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept
>>>>>>>> her. Interesting."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are the one that said even though married to Joseph, Mary remained
>>>>>>> a virgin her whole life. Under Jesus teaching could Joseph have
>>>>>>> divorced Mary and got remarried?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't believe Jesus taught that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you are saying God forced Joseph to also live as a virgin or live
>>>>> in sin?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why does the Bible even imply Mary needed to remain a
>>>>>>>>> virgin?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It didn't.
>>>>>>>> Why are you so stupid?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It doesn't but it is good for a selling point for the RCC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Face if your RCC can't even follow the Bible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't claim to have the powers of the RCC and I have never defended
>>>>>>> Pedophiles like you do Patrick Barker.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't defend you or yer pappy, larry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/Sheriff/SexOffenders/117324.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Larry J Brooks
>>>>>> 14180 Beaver Marsh RD, Mount Vernon, WA 98273
>>>>>> (360) 424-6617 is a land line phone
>>>>>
>>>>> Lets see Patrick Barker of Dayton, OH.
>>>>> Patrick will come visit me and is a expert with guns (turns out he
>>>>> passed basic in the AF. LOL). Patrick will have a throw down weapon
>>>>> so he thinks you can commit murder. Patrick didn't even know what a
>>>>> Eagle was ROFL.
>>>>>
>>>>> Patrick told me he knew where my kids were and I checked his Daughter
>>>>> Melanie Berkmen did live within 1 mile of where my daughter goes to
>>>>> school and worked for another University (Suffolk University). I
>>>>> admit I did notify both schools of this incident.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then he was are going to Montana and was to bring his son-in-law
>>>>> either Christopher Kalt or Mehmet Berkmen who will all stay on
>>>>> Malmstrom Air Force Base. So they can Shoot "injuns"
>>>>>
>>>>> He also claims to be Rich a lie. Patrick also claims to have a copy
>>>>> of my birth certificate yet doesn't know my middle name or my parents
>>>>> real names. Doesn't even know where I was born apparently.
>>>>>
>>>>> Patrick Barker is here to defend pedophilia within the Roman Catholic
>>>>> Church.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is strike 4
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Forget all that stalking bullshit and focus on what's important: Patsie
>>>> *still* is defending the church's ongoing coverup of rapist priests.
>>>
>>>
>>> He always has defended the pedophiles and the cover up.
>>
>> I never got the sense he was really defending the rapist priests
>> themselves, although for sure he wasn't looking to see them punished.
>
> Is not believing Priest can rape kids without consequences as if it is
> their right as priest defending them?

Patsie gives vague hints that he thinks priests raping children is bad;
just not bad enough that anything ought to be done about it.

>
>> Rather, he is doing everything he can to try to defend the rotten
>> corrupt church as an institution. He still refuses to acknowledge the
>> heinous moral crime of the *ongoing* massive coverup. Patsie, and
>> Douche Weber, *still* are condemning the thousands of victims, rather
>> than the rapists and the vile, corrupt institution that did everything
>> it could to enable the rapists to keep raping. Everything the rotten
>> corrupt RCC did was wrong.
>>
>> * concealed and shuffled rapist priests around, so they could keep raping
>> * browbeat and intimidated the victims and their families
>> * suggested the victims were the ones at fault
>> * discouraged the victims from going to the police
>> * refused to bring in the cops
>> * continued the coverup for decades
>> * refuses to THIS DAY to acknowledge that the coverup, and all the
>> other wrong *institutional* behavior, is at least as bad as the
>> rapes themselves
>>
>> Patsie, that lying filthy fat fuck, refuses to acknowledge any of that.
>> He's still trying to downplay and soft-peddle the entire thing, as if it
>> was no big deal.
>
> He wishes for the old days when people did not dare report or condemn
> the pedophilia.

*Correct*. If priests rape little children and the children's parents
learn of it, Patsie and Douche expects them to keep their mouths shut.
In effect, they both feel that raping children is simply a prerogative
of the priesthood.


>>
>> There are people who have left the rotten vile corrupt RCC over this,
>> and there are countless others who are deeply anguished and have
>> contemplated leaving. Patsie and Douche show no moral discomfiture over
>> it at all. They're just angry that vile corruption of their institution
>> is being revealed in all its ugliness.
>>
>>> He is using
>>> one of the tactics the Church used with great success in the past.
>>> Doesn't work as much anymore.
>>>
>>> I'm surprised he hasn't started making shit up about you.

He has done before.

>>>
>>> There is no excuse for the coverup.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly right, but Patsie and Douche think there is. They're just pissy
>> that it finally was revealed.
>
> So true.
>

Yes.
MattB
2018-09-12 22:59:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 14:04:21 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
<***@la-tech.edu> wrote:

>On 9/12/2018 1:46 PM, MattB wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 12:02:18 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
>> <***@la-tech.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/12/2018 11:33 AM, MattB wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 11:07:28 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois
>>>> <***@la-tech.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/12/2018 11:04 AM, MattB wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:28:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:53:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> , Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would Mary be married and>>stay a virgin?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't claim that.
>>>>>>>>>>> You did. Very stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No I didn't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yet you said: "Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept
>>>>>>>>> her. Interesting."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are the one that said even though married to Joseph, Mary remained
>>>>>>>> a virgin her whole life. Under Jesus teaching could Joseph have
>>>>>>>> divorced Mary and got remarried?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't believe Jesus taught that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you are saying God forced Joseph to also live as a virgin or live
>>>>>> in sin?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why does the Bible even imply Mary needed to remain a
>>>>>>>>>> virgin?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It didn't.
>>>>>>>>> Why are you so stupid?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't but it is good for a selling point for the RCC.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Face if your RCC can't even follow the Bible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't claim to have the powers of the RCC and I have never defended
>>>>>>>> Pedophiles like you do Patrick Barker.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't defend you or yer pappy, larry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/Sheriff/SexOffenders/117324.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Larry J Brooks
>>>>>>> 14180 Beaver Marsh RD, Mount Vernon, WA 98273
>>>>>>> (360) 424-6617 is a land line phone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lets see Patrick Barker of Dayton, OH.
>>>>>> Patrick will come visit me and is a expert with guns (turns out he
>>>>>> passed basic in the AF. LOL). Patrick will have a throw down weapon
>>>>>> so he thinks you can commit murder. Patrick didn't even know what a
>>>>>> Eagle was ROFL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patrick told me he knew where my kids were and I checked his Daughter
>>>>>> Melanie Berkmen did live within 1 mile of where my daughter goes to
>>>>>> school and worked for another University (Suffolk University). I
>>>>>> admit I did notify both schools of this incident.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then he was are going to Montana and was to bring his son-in-law
>>>>>> either Christopher Kalt or Mehmet Berkmen who will all stay on
>>>>>> Malmstrom Air Force Base. So they can Shoot "injuns"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He also claims to be Rich a lie. Patrick also claims to have a copy
>>>>>> of my birth certificate yet doesn't know my middle name or my parents
>>>>>> real names. Doesn't even know where I was born apparently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patrick Barker is here to defend pedophilia within the Roman Catholic
>>>>>> Church.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is strike 4
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Forget all that stalking bullshit and focus on what's important: Patsie
>>>>> *still* is defending the church's ongoing coverup of rapist priests.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He always has defended the pedophiles and the cover up.
>>>
>>> I never got the sense he was really defending the rapist priests
>>> themselves, although for sure he wasn't looking to see them punished.
>>
>> Is not believing Priest can rape kids without consequences as if it is
>> their right as priest defending them?
>
>Patsie gives vague hints that he thinks priests raping children is bad;
>just not bad enough that anything ought to be done about it.
>
>>
>>> Rather, he is doing everything he can to try to defend the rotten
>>> corrupt church as an institution. He still refuses to acknowledge the
>>> heinous moral crime of the *ongoing* massive coverup. Patsie, and
>>> Douche Weber, *still* are condemning the thousands of victims, rather
>>> than the rapists and the vile, corrupt institution that did everything
>>> it could to enable the rapists to keep raping. Everything the rotten
>>> corrupt RCC did was wrong.
>>>
>>> * concealed and shuffled rapist priests around, so they could keep raping
>>> * browbeat and intimidated the victims and their families
>>> * suggested the victims were the ones at fault
>>> * discouraged the victims from going to the police
>>> * refused to bring in the cops
>>> * continued the coverup for decades
>>> * refuses to THIS DAY to acknowledge that the coverup, and all the
>>> other wrong *institutional* behavior, is at least as bad as the
>>> rapes themselves
>>>
>>> Patsie, that lying filthy fat fuck, refuses to acknowledge any of that.
>>> He's still trying to downplay and soft-peddle the entire thing, as if it
>>> was no big deal.
>>
>> He wishes for the old days when people did not dare report or condemn
>> the pedophilia.
>
>*Correct*. If priests rape little children and the children's parents
>learn of it, Patsie and Douche expects them to keep their mouths shut.
>In effect, they both feel that raping children is simply a prerogative
>of the priesthood.

If a Parent says something then they are acting for Satan. Well
according to the RCC.
>
>
>>>
>>> There are people who have left the rotten vile corrupt RCC over this,
>>> and there are countless others who are deeply anguished and have
>>> contemplated leaving. Patsie and Douche show no moral discomfiture over
>>> it at all. They're just angry that vile corruption of their institution
>>> is being revealed in all its ugliness.
>>>
>>>> He is using
>>>> one of the tactics the Church used with great success in the past.
>>>> Doesn't work as much anymore.
>>>>
>>>> I'm surprised he hasn't started making shit up about you.
>
>He has done before.

Sad thing is he has never been able to get much right even though he
claims to have seen my discharge papers, School records, and more.

He can't even get my middle name right although many have seen it.
>
>>>>
>>>> There is no excuse for the coverup.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly right, but Patsie and Douche think there is. They're just pissy
>>> that it finally was revealed.
>>
>> So true.
>>
>
>Yes.
Patrick
2018-09-13 14:11:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>If a Parent says something then they are acting for Satan. Well
>according to the RCC.

OK then.
Tell me more.



>Sad thing is he has never been able to get much right even though he
>claims to have seen my discharge papers, School records, and more.
>He can't even get my middle name right although many have seen it.

It bugs you that I won't answer you on this.
And you must wonder how I know so much about your
discharge and the reason why you were refused re-enlistment.
MattB
2018-09-13 22:23:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:11:23 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>If a Parent says something then they are acting for Satan. Well
>>according to the RCC.
>
>OK then.
>Tell me more.
>
>
>
>>Sad thing is he has never been able to get much right even though he
>>claims to have seen my discharge papers, School records, and more.
>>He can't even get my middle name right although many have seen it.
>
>It bugs you that I won't answer you on this.

No just shows how much you will lie to defend pedophiles.

>And you must wonder how I know so much about your
>discharge and the reason why you were refused re-enlistment.

Not at all. So far you have gotten nothing right. You just believe
these lies help you defend pedophiles. You are desperate to defend
pedophiles and with your Catholic School upbringing it does explain
you being bow legged. Sadly I believe you just happened to like it.
Patrick
2018-09-12 23:09:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 11:04:46 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:28:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:53:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why would Mary be married and>>stay a virgin?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.
>>>>
>>>>>>I didn't claim that.
>>>>>>You did. Very stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>No I didn't.
>>>>
>>>>Yet you said: "Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept
>>>>her. Interesting."
>>>
>>>You are the one that said even though married to Joseph, Mary remained
>>>a virgin her whole life. Under Jesus teaching could Joseph have
>>>divorced Mary and got remarried?
>>
>>I don't believe Jesus taught that.
>
>Then you are saying God forced Joseph to also live as a virgin or live
>in sin?

Why would I say that?
The Gospel of Matthew explains that Jospeh was a “righteous man, yet
unwilling to expose [Mary]to shame” so he decided to “divorce her
quietly.” (Matthew 1:19). This indicates that although Joseph
generally respected the law, he did not want to subject Mary to
derision, judgment, and possible death. Though we don’t know a lot
about the logistics of what it means to divorce someone “quietly” at
this time, it presumably means that Joseph intended to dissolve their
union with as little fanfare as possible. It’s clear that he had no
desire to see her publicly humiliated or put to death for what he
believed to be her transgression.

The Gospel of Matthew then explains that an angel came to Joseph in a
dream and told him not to be afraid to take Mary into his home,
because the child Mary was carrying was not conceived with another
man, but through the power of the Holy Spirit. “She will bear a son
and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from
their sins.” (Matthew 1:21) This heavenly message changes everything,
and Joseph takes Mary into his home as initially planned.
MattB
2018-09-12 23:48:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 19:09:16 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 11:04:46 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:28:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:53:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why would Mary be married and>>stay a virgin?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I didn't claim that.
>>>>>>>You did. Very stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No I didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yet you said: "Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept
>>>>>her. Interesting."
>>>>
>>>>You are the one that said even though married to Joseph, Mary remained
>>>>a virgin her whole life. Under Jesus teaching could Joseph have
>>>>divorced Mary and got remarried?
>>>
>>>I don't believe Jesus taught that.
>>
>>Then you are saying God forced Joseph to also live as a virgin or live
>>in sin?
>
>Why would I say that?
> The Gospel of Matthew explains that Jospeh was a “righteous man, yet
>unwilling to expose [Mary]to shame” so he decided to “divorce her
>quietly.” (Matthew 1:19). This indicates that although Joseph
>generally respected the law, he did not want to subject Mary to
>derision, judgment, and possible death. Though we don’t know a lot
>about the logistics of what it means to divorce someone “quietly” at
>this time, it presumably means that Joseph intended to dissolve their
>union with as little fanfare as possible. It’s clear that he had no
>desire to see her publicly humiliated or put to death for what he
>believed to be her transgression.

So how does this apply to the reasons Jesus said you could divorce?
>
>The Gospel of Matthew then explains that an angel came to Joseph in a
>dream and told him not to be afraid to take Mary into his home,
>because the child Mary was carrying was not conceived with another
>man, but through the power of the Holy Spirit. “She will bear a son
>and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from
>their sins.” (Matthew 1:21) This heavenly message changes everything,
>and Joseph takes Mary into his home as initially planned.


What it comes down to is you just don't know. The Church of the
pedophile just says it knows. Like if you report a pedophile for
raping your kid you are working for Satan?
Patrick
2018-09-13 14:12:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:48:00 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 19:09:16 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 11:04:46 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:28:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:53:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why would Mary be married and>>stay a virgin?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I didn't claim that.
>>>>>>>>You did. Very stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No I didn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yet you said: "Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept
>>>>>>her. Interesting."
>>>>>
>>>>>You are the one that said even though married to Joseph, Mary remained
>>>>>a virgin her whole life. Under Jesus teaching could Joseph have
>>>>>divorced Mary and got remarried?
>>>>
>>>>I don't believe Jesus taught that.
>>>
>>>Then you are saying God forced Joseph to also live as a virgin or live
>>>in sin?
>>
>>Why would I say that?
>> The Gospel of Matthew explains that Jospeh was a “righteous man, yet
>>unwilling to expose [Mary]to shame” so he decided to “divorce her
>>quietly.” (Matthew 1:19). This indicates that although Joseph
>>generally respected the law, he did not want to subject Mary to
>>derision, judgment, and possible death. Though we don’t know a lot
>>about the logistics of what it means to divorce someone “quietly” at
>>this time, it presumably means that Joseph intended to dissolve their
>>union with as little fanfare as possible. It’s clear that he had no
>>desire to see her publicly humiliated or put to death for what he
>>believed to be her transgression.
>
>So how does this apply to the reasons Jesus said you could divorce?

Did Jesus really say that?



>>The Gospel of Matthew then explains that an angel came to Joseph in a
>>dream and told him not to be afraid to take Mary into his home,
>>because the child Mary was carrying was not conceived with another
>>man, but through the power of the Holy Spirit. “She will bear a son
>>and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from
>>their sins.” (Matthew 1:21) This heavenly message changes everything,
>>and Joseph takes Mary into his home as initially planned.
>
>
>What it comes down to is you just don't know. The Church of the
>pedophile just says it knows. Like if you report a pedophile for
>raping your kid you are working for Satan?

No. That would be you and larry.
MattB
2018-09-13 22:23:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:12:35 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:48:00 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 19:09:16 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 11:04:46 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:28:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:53:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why would Mary be married and>>stay a virgin?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I didn't claim that.
>>>>>>>>>You did. Very stupid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No I didn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yet you said: "Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept
>>>>>>>her. Interesting."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are the one that said even though married to Joseph, Mary remained
>>>>>>a virgin her whole life. Under Jesus teaching could Joseph have
>>>>>>divorced Mary and got remarried?
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't believe Jesus taught that.
>>>>
>>>>Then you are saying God forced Joseph to also live as a virgin or live
>>>>in sin?
>>>
>>>Why would I say that?
>>> The Gospel of Matthew explains that Jospeh was a “righteous man, yet
>>>unwilling to expose [Mary]to shame” so he decided to “divorce her
>>>quietly.” (Matthew 1:19). This indicates that although Joseph
>>>generally respected the law, he did not want to subject Mary to
>>>derision, judgment, and possible death. Though we don’t know a lot
>>>about the logistics of what it means to divorce someone “quietly” at
>>>this time, it presumably means that Joseph intended to dissolve their
>>>union with as little fanfare as possible. It’s clear that he had no
>>>desire to see her publicly humiliated or put to death for what he
>>>believed to be her transgression.
>>
>>So how does this apply to the reasons Jesus said you could divorce?
>
>Did Jesus really say that?

Jesus didn't say what?
>
>
>
>>>The Gospel of Matthew then explains that an angel came to Joseph in a
>>>dream and told him not to be afraid to take Mary into his home,
>>>because the child Mary was carrying was not conceived with another
>>>man, but through the power of the Holy Spirit. “She will bear a son
>>>and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from
>>>their sins.” (Matthew 1:21) This heavenly message changes everything,
>>>and Joseph takes Mary into his home as initially planned.
>>
>>
>>What it comes down to is you just don't know. The Church of the
>>pedophile just says it knows. Like if you report a pedophile for
>>raping your kid you are working for Satan?
>
>No. That would be you and larry.

Do you really believe lying and deception will help you defend
pedophiles?
Patrick
2018-09-13 23:13:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:12:35 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:48:00 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 19:09:16 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 11:04:46 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:28:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:53:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would Mary be married and>>stay a virgin?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I didn't claim that.
>>>>>>>>>>You did. Very stupid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No I didn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yet you said: "Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept
>>>>>>>>her. Interesting."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are the one that said even though married to Joseph, Mary remained
>>>>>>>a virgin her whole life. Under Jesus teaching could Joseph have
>>>>>>>divorced Mary and got remarried?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't believe Jesus taught that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then you are saying God forced Joseph to also live as a virgin or live
>>>>>in sin?
>>>>
>>>>Why would I say that?
>>>> The Gospel of Matthew explains that Jospeh was a “righteous man, yet
>>>>unwilling to expose [Mary]to shame” so he decided to “divorce her
>>>>quietly.” (Matthew 1:19). This indicates that although Joseph
>>>>generally respected the law, he did not want to subject Mary to
>>>>derision, judgment, and possible death. Though we don’t know a lot
>>>>about the logistics of what it means to divorce someone “quietly” at
>>>>this time, it presumably means that Joseph intended to dissolve their
>>>>union with as little fanfare as possible. It’s clear that he had no
>>>>desire to see her publicly humiliated or put to death for what he
>>>>believed to be her transgression.
>>>
>>>So how does this apply to the reasons Jesus said you could divorce?
>>
>>Did Jesus really say that?
>
>Jesus didn't say what?

Are you that absolutely that fucking stupid?
"the reasons Jesus said you could divorce?"
MattB
2018-09-14 01:33:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 19:13:38 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

> MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:12:35 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:48:00 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 19:09:16 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 11:04:46 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:28:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:53:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would Mary be married and>>stay a virgin?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I didn't claim that.
>>>>>>>>>>>You did. Very stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>No I didn't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yet you said: "Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept
>>>>>>>>>her. Interesting."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You are the one that said even though married to Joseph, Mary remained
>>>>>>>>a virgin her whole life. Under Jesus teaching could Joseph have
>>>>>>>>divorced Mary and got remarried?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't believe Jesus taught that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then you are saying God forced Joseph to also live as a virgin or live
>>>>>>in sin?
>>>>>
>>>>>Why would I say that?
>>>>> The Gospel of Matthew explains that Jospeh was a “righteous man, yet
>>>>>unwilling to expose [Mary]to shame” so he decided to “divorce her
>>>>>quietly.” (Matthew 1:19). This indicates that although Joseph
>>>>>generally respected the law, he did not want to subject Mary to
>>>>>derision, judgment, and possible death. Though we don’t know a lot
>>>>>about the logistics of what it means to divorce someone “quietly” at
>>>>>this time, it presumably means that Joseph intended to dissolve their
>>>>>union with as little fanfare as possible. It’s clear that he had no
>>>>>desire to see her publicly humiliated or put to death for what he
>>>>>believed to be her transgression.
>>>>
>>>>So how does this apply to the reasons Jesus said you could divorce?
>>>
>>>Did Jesus really say that?
>>
>>Jesus didn't say what?
>
>Are you that absolutely that fucking stupid?

How so?

>"the reasons Jesus said you could divorce?"

Did you ever read Mark 10?
Patrick
2018-09-14 12:28:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 18:33:10 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 19:13:38 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>> MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:12:35 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:48:00 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 19:09:16 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 11:04:46 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:28:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:53:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would Mary be married and>>stay a virgin?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I didn't claim that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>You did. Very stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>No I didn't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yet you said: "Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept
>>>>>>>>>>her. Interesting."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You are the one that said even though married to Joseph, Mary remained
>>>>>>>>>a virgin her whole life. Under Jesus teaching could Joseph have
>>>>>>>>>divorced Mary and got remarried?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I don't believe Jesus taught that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Then you are saying God forced Joseph to also live as a virgin or live
>>>>>>>in sin?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why would I say that?
>>>>>> The Gospel of Matthew explains that Jospeh was a “righteous man, yet
>>>>>>unwilling to expose [Mary]to shame” so he decided to “divorce her
>>>>>>quietly.” (Matthew 1:19). This indicates that although Joseph
>>>>>>generally respected the law, he did not want to subject Mary to
>>>>>>derision, judgment, and possible death. Though we don’t know a lot
>>>>>>about the logistics of what it means to divorce someone “quietly” at
>>>>>>this time, it presumably means that Joseph intended to dissolve their
>>>>>>union with as little fanfare as possible. It’s clear that he had no
>>>>>>desire to see her publicly humiliated or put to death for what he
>>>>>>believed to be her transgression.
>>>>>
>>>>>So how does this apply to the reasons Jesus said you could divorce?
>>>>
>>>>Did Jesus really say that?
>>>
>>>Jesus didn't say what?
>>
>>Are you that absolutely that fucking stupid?
>
>How so?
>
>>"the reasons Jesus said you could divorce?"
>
>Did you ever read Mark 10?

Did Jesus really say that?
Did Jesus really say that?
MattB
2018-09-14 19:15:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 08:28:29 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 18:33:10 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 19:13:38 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:12:35 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:48:00 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 19:09:16 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 11:04:46 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:28:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:53:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would Mary be married and>>stay a virgin?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I didn't claim that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>You did. Very stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>No I didn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you said: "Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept
>>>>>>>>>>>her. Interesting."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You are the one that said even though married to Joseph, Mary remained
>>>>>>>>>>a virgin her whole life. Under Jesus teaching could Joseph have
>>>>>>>>>>divorced Mary and got remarried?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I don't believe Jesus taught that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Then you are saying God forced Joseph to also live as a virgin or live
>>>>>>>>in sin?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why would I say that?
>>>>>>> The Gospel of Matthew explains that Jospeh was a “righteous man, yet
>>>>>>>unwilling to expose [Mary]to shame” so he decided to “divorce her
>>>>>>>quietly.” (Matthew 1:19). This indicates that although Joseph
>>>>>>>generally respected the law, he did not want to subject Mary to
>>>>>>>derision, judgment, and possible death. Though we don’t know a lot
>>>>>>>about the logistics of what it means to divorce someone “quietly” at
>>>>>>>this time, it presumably means that Joseph intended to dissolve their
>>>>>>>union with as little fanfare as possible. It’s clear that he had no
>>>>>>>desire to see her publicly humiliated or put to death for what he
>>>>>>>believed to be her transgression.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So how does this apply to the reasons Jesus said you could divorce?
>>>>>
>>>>>Did Jesus really say that?
>>>>
>>>>Jesus didn't say what?
>>>
>>>Are you that absolutely that fucking stupid?
>>
>>How so?
>>
>>>"the reasons Jesus said you could divorce?"
>>
>>Did you ever read Mark 10?
>
>Did Jesus really say that?
>Did Jesus really say that?

According to the Bible these are the words of Jesus.

“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits
adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries
another man, she commits adultery.”

Divorce
10 Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and
across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his
custom, he taught them.

2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a
man to divorce his wife?”

3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce
and send her away.”

5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this
law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made
them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his
father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8 and the two will
become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9
Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about
this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries
another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her
husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010&version=NIV
Patrick
2018-09-14 20:16:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:15:33 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 08:28:29 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 18:33:10 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 19:13:38 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:12:35 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:48:00 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 19:09:16 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 11:04:46 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:28:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:53:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would Mary be married and>>stay a virgin?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I didn't claim that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You did. Very stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>No I didn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you said: "Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept
>>>>>>>>>>>>her. Interesting."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>You are the one that said even though married to Joseph, Mary remained
>>>>>>>>>>>a virgin her whole life. Under Jesus teaching could Joseph have
>>>>>>>>>>>divorced Mary and got remarried?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I don't believe Jesus taught that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Then you are saying God forced Joseph to also live as a virgin or live
>>>>>>>>>in sin?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Why would I say that?
>>>>>>>> The Gospel of Matthew explains that Jospeh was a “righteous man, yet
>>>>>>>>unwilling to expose [Mary]to shame” so he decided to “divorce her
>>>>>>>>quietly.” (Matthew 1:19). This indicates that although Joseph
>>>>>>>>generally respected the law, he did not want to subject Mary to
>>>>>>>>derision, judgment, and possible death. Though we don’t know a lot
>>>>>>>>about the logistics of what it means to divorce someone “quietly” at
>>>>>>>>this time, it presumably means that Joseph intended to dissolve their
>>>>>>>>union with as little fanfare as possible. It’s clear that he had no
>>>>>>>>desire to see her publicly humiliated or put to death for what he
>>>>>>>>believed to be her transgression.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So how does this apply to the reasons Jesus said you could divorce?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Did Jesus really say that?
>>>>>
>>>>>Jesus didn't say what?
>>>>
>>>>Are you that absolutely that fucking stupid?
>>>
>>>How so?
>>>
>>>>"the reasons Jesus said you could divorce?"
>>>
>>>Did you ever read Mark 10?
>>
>>Did Jesus really say that?
>>Did Jesus really say that?
>
>According to the Bible these are the words of Jesus.
>
> “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits
>adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries
>another man, she commits adultery.”
>
>Divorce
>10 Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and
>across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his
>custom, he taught them.
>
>2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a
>man to divorce his wife?”
>
>3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.
>
>4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce
>and send her away.”
>
>5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this
>law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made
>them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his
>father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8 and the two will
>become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9
>Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
>
>10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about
>this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries
>another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her
>husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
>
>https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010&version=NIV


Excellent.
You now realize that you lied about what Jesus said.
MattB
2018-09-14 20:56:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 16:16:01 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:15:33 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 08:28:29 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 18:33:10 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 19:13:38 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:12:35 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:48:00 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 19:09:16 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 11:04:46 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:28:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:53:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would Mary be married and>>stay a virgin?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I didn't claim that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You did. Very stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No I didn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you said: "Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept
>>>>>>>>>>>>>her. Interesting."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>You are the one that said even though married to Joseph, Mary remained
>>>>>>>>>>>>a virgin her whole life. Under Jesus teaching could Joseph have
>>>>>>>>>>>>divorced Mary and got remarried?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I don't believe Jesus taught that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Then you are saying God forced Joseph to also live as a virgin or live
>>>>>>>>>>in sin?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Why would I say that?
>>>>>>>>> The Gospel of Matthew explains that Jospeh was a “righteous man, yet
>>>>>>>>>unwilling to expose [Mary]to shame” so he decided to “divorce her
>>>>>>>>>quietly.” (Matthew 1:19). This indicates that although Joseph
>>>>>>>>>generally respected the law, he did not want to subject Mary to
>>>>>>>>>derision, judgment, and possible death. Though we don’t know a lot
>>>>>>>>>about the logistics of what it means to divorce someone “quietly” at
>>>>>>>>>this time, it presumably means that Joseph intended to dissolve their
>>>>>>>>>union with as little fanfare as possible. It’s clear that he had no
>>>>>>>>>desire to see her publicly humiliated or put to death for what he
>>>>>>>>>believed to be her transgression.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So how does this apply to the reasons Jesus said you could divorce?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Did Jesus really say that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jesus didn't say what?
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you that absolutely that fucking stupid?
>>>>
>>>>How so?
>>>>
>>>>>"the reasons Jesus said you could divorce?"
>>>>
>>>>Did you ever read Mark 10?
>>>
>>>Did Jesus really say that?
>>>Did Jesus really say that?
>>
>>According to the Bible these are the words of Jesus.
>>
>> “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits
>>adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries
>>another man, she commits adultery.”
>>
>>Divorce
>>10 Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and
>>across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his
>>custom, he taught them.
>>
>>2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a
>>man to divorce his wife?”
>>
>>3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.
>>
>>4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce
>>and send her away.”
>>
>>5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this
>>law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made
>>them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his
>>father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8 and the two will
>>become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9
>>Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
>>
>>10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about
>>this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries
>>another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her
>>husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
>>
>>https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010&version=NIV
>
>
>Excellent.
>You now realize that you lied about what Jesus said.

How so? Can you provide evidence without creative editing of this
claimed lie. I doubt it.
Patrick
2018-09-14 21:54:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 13:56:53 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 16:16:01 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:15:33 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 08:28:29 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 18:33:10 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 19:13:38 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:12:35 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:48:00 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 19:09:16 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 11:04:46 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:28:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:53:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would Mary be married and>>stay a virgin?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I didn't claim that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You did. Very stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No I didn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you said: "Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>her. Interesting."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>You are the one that said even though married to Joseph, Mary remained
>>>>>>>>>>>>>a virgin her whole life. Under Jesus teaching could Joseph have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>divorced Mary and got remarried?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't believe Jesus taught that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Then you are saying God forced Joseph to also live as a virgin or live
>>>>>>>>>>>in sin?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Why would I say that?
>>>>>>>>>> The Gospel of Matthew explains that Jospeh was a “righteous man, yet
>>>>>>>>>>unwilling to expose [Mary]to shame” so he decided to “divorce her
>>>>>>>>>>quietly.” (Matthew 1:19). This indicates that although Joseph
>>>>>>>>>>generally respected the law, he did not want to subject Mary to
>>>>>>>>>>derision, judgment, and possible death. Though we don’t know a lot
>>>>>>>>>>about the logistics of what it means to divorce someone “quietly” at
>>>>>>>>>>this time, it presumably means that Joseph intended to dissolve their
>>>>>>>>>>union with as little fanfare as possible. It’s clear that he had no
>>>>>>>>>>desire to see her publicly humiliated or put to death for what he
>>>>>>>>>>believed to be her transgression.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So how does this apply to the reasons Jesus said you could divorce?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Did Jesus really say that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jesus didn't say what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are you that absolutely that fucking stupid?
>>>>>
>>>>>How so?
>>>>>
>>>>>>"the reasons Jesus said you could divorce?"
>>>>>
>>>>>Did you ever read Mark 10?
>>>>
>>>>Did Jesus really say that?
>>>>Did Jesus really say that?
>>>
>>>According to the Bible these are the words of Jesus.
>>>
>>> “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits
>>>adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries
>>>another man, she commits adultery.”
>>>
>>>Divorce
>>>10 Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and
>>>across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his
>>>custom, he taught them.
>>>
>>>2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a
>>>man to divorce his wife?”
>>>
>>>3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.
>>>
>>>4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce
>>>and send her away.”
>>>
>>>5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this
>>>law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made
>>>them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his
>>>father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8 and the two will
>>>become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9
>>>Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
>>>
>>>10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about
>>>this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries
>>>another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her
>>>husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
>>>
>>>https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010&version=NIV
>>
>>
>>Excellent.
>>You now realize that you lied about what Jesus said.
>
>How so? Can you provide evidence without creative editing of this
>claimed lie. I doubt it.
>

Find someone else to play your stupid games with.
I have a life.
MattB.
2018-09-14 22:19:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 17:54:25 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 13:56:53 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 16:16:01 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:15:33 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 08:28:29 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 18:33:10 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 19:13:38 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:12:35 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:48:00 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 19:09:16 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 11:04:46 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:28:05 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:53:57 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MattB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would Mary be married and>>stay a virgin?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mary accepted the role of being the mother of Jesus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept her. Interesting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I didn't claim that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You did. Very stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No I didn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yet you said: "Maybe. You claim God choose a man's wife and kept
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>her. Interesting."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You are the one that said even though married to Joseph, Mary remained
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>a virgin her whole life. Under Jesus teaching could Joseph have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>divorced Mary and got remarried?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't believe Jesus taught that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Then you are saying God forced Joseph to also live as a virgin or live
>>>>>>>>>>>>in sin?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Why would I say that?
>>>>>>>>>>> The Gospel of Matthew explains that Jospeh was a “righteous man, yet
>>>>>>>>>>>unwilling to expose [Mary]to shame” so he decided to “divorce her
>>>>>>>>>>>quietly.” (Matthew 1:19). This indicates that although Joseph
>>>>>>>>>>>generally respected the law, he did not want to subject Mary to
>>>>>>>>>>>derision, judgment, and possible death. Though we don’t know a lot
>>>>>>>>>>>about the logistics of what it means to divorce someone “quietly” at
>>>>>>>>>>>this time, it presumably means that Joseph intended to dissolve their
>>>>>>>>>>>union with as little fanfare as possible. It’s clear that he had no
>>>>>>>>>>>desire to see her publicly humiliated or put to death for what he
>>>>>>>>>>>believed to be her transgression.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>So how does this apply to the reasons Jesus said you could divorce?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Did Jesus really say that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Jesus didn't say what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Are you that absolutely that fucking stupid?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"the reasons Jesus said you could divorce?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Did you ever read Mark 10?
>>>>>
>>>>>Did Jesus really say that?
>>>>>Did Jesus really say that?
>>>>
>>>>According to the Bible these are the words of Jesus.
>>>>
>>>> “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits
>>>>adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries
>>>>another man, she commits adultery.”
>>>>
>>>>Divorce
>>>>10 Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and
>>>>across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his
>>>>custom, he taught them.
>>>>
>>>>2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a
>>>>man to divorce his wife?”
>>>>
>>>>3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.
>>>>
>>>>4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce
>>>>and send her away.”
>>>>
>>>>5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this
>>>>law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made
>>>>them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his
>>>>father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8 and the two will
>>>>become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9
>>>>Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
>>>>
>>>>10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about
>>>>this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries
>>>>another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her
>>>>husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
>>>>
>>>>https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010&version=NIV
>>>
>>>
>>>Excellent.
>>>You now realize that you lied about what Jesus said.
>>
>>How so? Can you provide evidence without creative editing of this
>>claimed lie. I doubt it.
>>
>
>Find someone else to play your stupid games with.
>I have a life.


Then like normal you can't back up your accusations you used to defend
pedophiles within the RCC. About what I believe most have come to
expect from Patrick Barker.
Patrick
2018-09-15 11:31:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
MattB. <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>Then like normal you can't back up your accusations you used to defend
>pedophiles within the RCC. About what I believe most have come to
>expect from Patrick Barker.

Most?
Come up with a new song and dance.
People have your number by now, and ignore your "chicken little"
routine.
MattB
2018-09-15 21:45:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 07:31:29 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

> MattB. <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Then like normal you can't back up your accusations you used to defend
>>pedophiles within the RCC. About what I believe most have come to
>>expect from Patrick Barker.
>
>Most?

Yep.

>Come up with a new song and dance.
>People have your number by now, and ignore your "chicken little"
>routine.

Notice you had to edit out what we are talking about. Don't blame you
actually as you will lie even about Jesus to defend your pedophiles.
If you are a Christian the Bible should have meaning to you more than
defending your pedophile priest and the coverup.
Patrick
2018-09-15 22:24:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 14:45:59 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 07:31:29 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>> MattB. <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Then like normal you can't back up your accusations you used to defend
>>>pedophiles within the RCC. About what I believe most have come to
>>>expect from Patrick Barker.
>>
>>Most?
>
>Yep.
>
>>Come up with a new song and dance.
>>People have your number by now, and ignore your "chicken little"
>>routine.
>
>Notice you had to edit out what we are talking about.

What are you whining about today?
Oh yes... the RCC is corrupt.
That is your usual whine...
MattB
2018-09-15 22:33:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 18:24:35 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 14:45:59 -0700, MattB <***@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 07:31:29 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> MattB. <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Then like normal you can't back up your accusations you used to defend
>>>>pedophiles within the RCC. About what I believe most have come to
>>>>expect from Patrick Barker.
>>>
>>>Most?
>>
>>Yep.
>>
>>>Come up with a new song and dance.
>>>People have your number by now, and ignore your "chicken little"
>>>routine.
>>
>>Notice you had to edit out what we are talking about.
>
>What are you whining about today?

You pedo fundies do like your creative editing you do it to the Bible
also to defend BS.

>Oh yes... the RCC is corrupt.

Well you are learning,
MattB
2018-09-10 20:12:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 12:33:56 -0400, Patrick <***@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:31:27 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>
>>"Patrick" wrote in message
>>news:***@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Does the Bible ever mention the names of Jesus' brothers and sisters?
>>
>>HALF-brothers and sisters
>
>Does it say "half?"


Goes it say they weren't. Was Joseph allowed to divorce Mary? Do you
believe a married man never had sex with his wife?
duke
2018-09-10 22:30:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 09 Sep 2018 17:12:00 GMT, Street <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois <***@la-tech.edu> wrote:
>> On 9/9/2018 9:21 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 09:49:24 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>>>> "duke" wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 08:37:05 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, the laity could see
>>>>>> for themselves that nowhere in the Good Book are indulgences, purgatory,
>>>>>> or even popes mentioned. His Holiness must've foamed at the mouth:
>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/nmur96p
>>>>>> We know where they are in scripture.
>>>>> Chapter? Verse?
>>>> You look first.
>>
>> It's not there.
>
>
>Idiotic Duke always pulls that shit. The Biblically illiterate moron has no
>clue what the Bible really says, so he just makes shit up.

No, really, they are in the bible.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Siri Cruise
2018-09-09 18:41:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>,
duke <***@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 09:49:24 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
>
> >"duke" wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
> >
> >On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 08:37:05 -0500, "Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, the laity could see
> >>> for themselves that nowhere in the Good Book are indulgences, purgatory,
> >>> or even popes mentioned. His Holiness must've foamed at the mouth:
> >>> https://tinyurl.com/nmur96p
>
> >> We know where they are in scripture.
>
> >Chapter? Verse?
>
> You look first.

No, Luke is on third.
Who is on first.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
An almond doesn't lactate. This post / \
Yet another supercilious snowflake for justice. insults Islam. Mohammed
Loading...