PDA

View Full Version : Church Vs. God.


TSA
09-14-2005, 09:10 PM
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m31n7ohdj91r7t19ro1_500.jpg Did they ever finish ODB's reality show?

Mosaic
09-14-2005, 10:02 PM
very good points. While I believe in the divinity of jesus christ it is important to put aside one's own prejudice and emotion aside and analyze things. You are right, Constantine did seek to unify the official roman religion and "erase" all ties to Judaism. The Edict of Milan of 313 AD. was the document declaring Christianity legal but it was not until Theodosius in 390 AD. that declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Many scholars, especially Edward Gibbon in his book Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire will argue that this conversion and abandonment of traditional pagan roman beliefs led to Rome's downfall but that's a different topic.
It is also true that the founders of Christianity did not intend for it to be what it is now. In fact, they had no clue that it would be what it is.
I'm not sure about your claim that it was the Romans who added or took away from the Scriptures to make Jesus more god-like. What i do know is that the very Gospels themselves (before any Roman intervention) already show an interesting contradiction. Contrary to common belief, Mark is known now to be the oldest of the Gospels. After which comes Mathew, Luke, and finally John. This order is attributed to the fact that Mathew "borrows" about 90% of Mark. Luke uses 50%. Mark has no birth story and portrays Jesus in his final years. Mathew introduces the virgin birth and portrays him more human. Luke is the popular x-mas story since it is soft and reader-friendly. John by far is the most mystical portrayal of Jesus.
The Gospels are believed the come from an unknown "source" book called Q or Quelle.

Also check out the variations of the crucifixion ending.
Mark & a Mathew ------"Father why have you forsaken me?"
Luke --------"Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit"
John-----------"It is finished"
Interesting how they don't exactly flow or agree with one another.
While I don't rule out the possibility that Rome had something to do with much of the "mutation" of the original Scripture, I don't think they had everything to do with it.
Nonetheless, an excellent post Shaolin Assassin.Sometimes in order to find the truth, we must question our own beliefs.

TSA
09-15-2005, 10:25 AM
well that's all nice but what about the reality show, dirts my nigga

MF Herbs
09-15-2005, 02:21 PM
well that's all nice but what about the reality show, dirts my nigga
LMAO..

iNtell3kT
09-15-2005, 09:57 PM
to me a church is a fucking building, just like a school, buisness a house wtv ect..., and "The Church" meaning the pope ect.. are just scamming people to belive in God, which is somthing people can do without money, peopel are soo ignorent, i swear it.......

fuck the church, i belive in god

Prince Rai
09-16-2005, 04:40 PM
to me a church is a fucking building, just like a school, buisness a house wtv ect..., and "The Church" meaning the pope ect.. are just scamming people to belive in God, which is somthing people can do without money, peopel are soo ignorent, i swear it.......

fuck the church, i belive in god
harsh but then its the truth

faith is free and not restricted to credit..


ok i see the church just as the building but the institution needs a change.. there i see the distinction.

peace and blessingz

Fragmented
09-16-2005, 04:52 PM
i don't believe in god or anything along those lines, but i think religion takes advantage of peoples insecurities and charges them money for the pleasure

religion = biggest business worldwide

Prince Rai
09-17-2005, 09:03 AM
i don't believe in god or anything along those lines, but i think religion takes advantage of peoples insecurities and charges them money for the pleasure

religion = biggest business worldwide
generalisation


religion is not united.. and ironically therefore assumes that religions have different ways of being what it is..


the religion u r most likely are talkin about is christianity, especially the catholic church.. tho in defence of christianity also.. not all the churches do that.. there are branches that dont agree with this business trend as u mentioned

peace n blessingz
pb

Fragmented
09-17-2005, 12:33 PM
actually all the main 4 religions have a tax of some sort involved

Prince Rai
09-17-2005, 02:19 PM
actually all the main 4 religions have a tax of some sort involved
and are u aware of the uses of any "taxes" gathered?

Fragmented
09-18-2005, 09:07 AM
yes i am quite aware of what the intended uses of that money is, but the reality is it's business like anything else, i've seen alot of this happen first hand in mosque churches and synagogs, guardwara's temple etc, see the problem with this is as with any religion is, people.

Prince Rai
09-18-2005, 01:30 PM
yes i am quite aware of what the intended uses of that money is, but the reality is it's business like anything else, i've seen alot of this happen first hand in mosque churches and synagogs, guardwara's temple etc, see the problem with this is as with any religion is, people.
do u know where the money from the mosque goes?

Fragmented
09-18-2005, 01:54 PM
well you have you islamic tax. the 2.5% one, you have the giving on a friday.

see prince i have no beef with the honest people in religion but the problem with it is that not all snakes show their fangs to the public, i've seen these so called sheikh's and imman's abusing these donations making themselves richer, the basic principles of the islamic tax and donations is good hearted but the reality is that alot of the time the perversion of men ruin this

peace and blessing

Prince Rai
09-18-2005, 01:58 PM
well you have you islamic tax. the 2.5% one, you have the giving on a friday.

see prince i have no beef with the honest people in religion but the problem with it is that not all snakes show their fangs to the public, i've seen these so called sheikh's and imman's abusing these donations making themselves richer, the basic principles of the islamic tax and donations is good hearted but the reality is that alot of the time the perversion of men ruin this

peace and blessing
peace fragmented... i agree there is corruption.. but its not everywhere nahmean?

most religions kept 2 core teachings are ok.. when man corrupts it.. dats what drags us down


peace n blessings frag

_BaLaNcE_
09-18-2005, 04:59 PM
to me a church is a fucking building, just like a school, buisness a house wtv ect..., and "The Church" meaning the pope ect.. are just scamming people to belive in God, which is somthing people can do without money, peopel are soo ignorent, i swear it.......

fuck the church, i belive in goddamn thats nicely said peace man

Khristo
09-22-2005, 12:45 AM
If there was a god" you sure as hell wouldnt have to all gather in a little biulding talking about how shit everyone else's life is and how the devil is in all of them

LORD NOSE
11-16-2012, 04:48 AM
If there was a god" you sure as hell wouldnt have to all gather in a little biulding talking about how shit everyone else's life is and how the devil is in all of them


if you don't believe in what i believe in, you're going to hell to have your flesh burned off forever and ever - i feel sorry for anyone who doesn't believe - disbelievers are to be used for hard labor

TSA
11-18-2012, 11:05 AM
Did they even start the show?

cj wisty
11-18-2012, 12:00 PM
christianity wasnt the same after jesus died.

jesus' disciples were a bunch of retarded dickheads who didnt understand jesus so jesus' message was immediately fucked when he died.

THE W
11-18-2012, 03:52 PM
christianity wasnt the same after jesus died.

jesus' disciples were a bunch of retarded dickheads who didnt understand jesus so jesus' message was immediately fucked when he died.
they did a good job of getting the word out.

cj wisty
11-18-2012, 04:13 PM
they did a good job of changing the word of jesus and getting their version of the word out.

fixed

THE W
11-18-2012, 05:49 PM
fixed
broken

seeing as the original disciples had first hand accounts of what happened during jesus' ministry being that they were with him during that time and didnt give us the english translation we have today they cant really be blamed for what happened.

you would have to look at the people who translated the books to english.

cj wisty
11-18-2012, 06:30 PM
broken

seeing as the original disciples had first hand accounts of what happened during jesus' ministry being that they were with him during that time and didnt give us the english translation we have today they cant really be blamed for what happened.

you would have to look at the people who translated the books to english.

seeing as they couldnt understand simple parables and they were complete idiots do u really trust them.

paul was the worst he didnt have a clue about jesus and turned jesus' gospel of love into a gospel of redemption salvation and atonement.

jesus never said why he died on the cross. paul and the 12 idiots were the first ones to say that he died to redeem them.

from reading the letters of paul and comparing it to the christian gospels i came to the conclusion that jesus and paul were very different people with very different attitudes.

and that reading paul is unhealthy.

THE W
11-18-2012, 07:50 PM
jesus' references to salvation and eternal life are numerous in the gospels.

have you read the book of acts? 1 corinthians 13?

cj wisty
11-19-2012, 01:19 PM
jesus never once said he died on the cross to save people from their sins.

paul and the disciples came to that conclusion not jesus.

pauls message was a sadomasochistic one about how the most innocent pure man had to be brutally and savagely murdered for the sins of everybody else.

this is stupid for numerous reasons:

1) god is omnipotent and can therefore forgive or destroy sins with the snap of his fingers.

2) it is an extremely preverse form of judgement. punishing the innocent for the guilty. imagine if courts were run like that lol.

3) its very unlikely that a tender spirit like jesus would condone this type of thing.

jesus actually dealt with sin in a much more realistic manner. he dealt with it by simply forgiving it and also he didnt judge people. good and evil come from judgement. therefore because he didnt judge or differentiate, he didnt see sin in people. everyone became equal including God. there was no sin.

read "the idiot" by Dostoyevsky. it paints a much better image of jesus.

1 cor 13 showed that paul had very little understanding of love.

Face of the Golden Falcon
11-19-2012, 01:39 PM
jesus never once said he died on the cross to save people from their sins.

paul and the disciples came to that conclusion not jesus.

pauls message was a sadomasochistic one about how the most innocent pure man had to be brutally and savagely murdered for the sins of everybody else.

this is stupid for numerous reasons:

1) god is omnipotent and can therefore forgive or destroy sins with the snap of his fingers.

2) it is an extremely preverse form of judgement. punishing the innocent for the guilty. imagine if courts were run like that lol.

3) its very unlikely that a tender spirit like jesus would condone this type of thing.

jesus actually dealt with sin in a much more realistic manner. he dealt with it by simply forgiving it and also he didnt judge people. good and evil come from judgement. therefore because he didnt judge or differentiate, he didnt see sin in people. everyone became equal including God. there was no sin.

read "the idiot" by Dostoyevsky. it paints a much better image of jesus.

1 cor 13 showed that paul had very little understanding of love.

Great post. With the exception of the highlighted which flat out just isn't true. You're trying make Yashu'a out to be a moral relativist as well? Bible scripture in no way supports that.

cj wisty
11-19-2012, 02:33 PM
Great post. With the exception of the highlighted which flat out just isn't true. You're trying make Yashu'a out to be a moral relativist as well? Bible scripture in no way supports that.

i know it doesnt but i think jesus was such a loving forgiving person that he couldnt possibly bring himself to see the evil in others. it would upset him too much. he basicly tried to see the best in everybody.

i dont think jesus made a teaching that sin was destroyed in this way but it was just his natural behaviour.

THE W
11-19-2012, 02:45 PM
jesus never once said he died on the cross to save people from their sins.

paul and the disciples came to that conclusion not jesus.

pauls message was a sadomasochistic one about how the most innocent pure man had to be brutally and savagely murdered for the sins of everybody else.

this is stupid for numerous reasons:

1) god is omnipotent and can therefore forgive or destroy sins with the snap of his fingers.

2) it is an extremely preverse form of judgement. punishing the innocent for the guilty. imagine if courts were run like that lol.

3) its very unlikely that a tender spirit like jesus would condone this type of thing.

jesus actually dealt with sin in a much more realistic manner. he dealt with it by simply forgiving it and also he didnt judge people. good and evil come from judgement. therefore because he didnt judge or differentiate, he didnt see sin in people. everyone became equal including God. there was no sin.

read "the idiot" by Dostoyevsky. it paints a much better image of jesus.

1 cor 13 showed that paul had very little understanding of love.



since this is all based on your own personal world view what you have to say is pretty much irrelevant in regards to God's decree for his own creation testified to in scripture.

the bible has no interest in satisfying yours, mine, or anyone elses world view. thats not the bible's intent at all. the bible testifies of God the creator's sovereign decree. you can reject the decree if you wish, but you cannot change it.

as far as jesus' death not being about the salvation of sinners, its pretty much the same as those people who say the bible does not teach the trinity solely because the word "trinity" is not in scripture(and it isnt) despite contextual references being all over the new testament. you look for literal references and totally ignore numerous contextual references.

so in mark 2:17 when jesus says "i have not come to call the rightous, but sinners, what is he calling them to? is it not salvation?

in matthew 11:4-6 when jesus says "...the good news is preached to the poor". what good news do you think he is refering to? is it not the sins of the world being forgiven through christs sacrifice?

luke 19:9-10?

matthew 24:9-14? what do you take the "gospel of the kingdom" to mean?

mark 8:31-38
this is a good one as it speaks directly to your point. you're peter in this passage getting rebuked by jesus because what jesus is proposing and what God has decreed doesnt fit your personal world view.

john 3?

john 4:1-26? john 4:31-38? hell the whole book of john is crawling with quotes from jesus referencing salvation through his death. i dont see how you can miss it.

luke 22:19-20...what is this new covenant? why is it in his blood? why does re predict his death in other verses?


im gonna go out on a limb and say without ever reading the book that "the idiot" will also be based on someone elses personal world view and not the decree in which God's own word testifies thus making it a FALSE image of jesus.

cj wisty
11-19-2012, 04:11 PM
since this is all based on your own personal world view what you have to say is pretty much irrelevant in regards to God's decree for his own creation testified to in scripture.

the bible has no interest in satisfying yours, mine, or anyone elses world view. thats not the bible's intent at all. the bible testifies of God the creator's sovereign decree. you can reject the decree if you wish, but you cannot change it.

as far as jesus' death not being about the salvation of sinners, its pretty much the same as those people who say the bible does not teach the trinity solely because the word "trinity" is not in scripture(and it isnt) despite contextual references being all over the new testament. you look for literal references and totally ignore numerous contextual references.

so in mark 2:17 when jesus says "i have not come to call the rightous, but sinners, what is he calling them to? is it not salvation?

its definitely not the salvation of jesus dying on a cross. hes calling them to the kingdom of god

in matthew 11:4-6 when jesus says "...the good news is preached to the poor". what good news do you think he is refering to? is it not the sins of the world being forgiven through christs sacrifice?

why through christs sacrifice. why not just forgiven.

luke 19:9-10? no mention of sacrifice

matthew 24:9-14? what do you take the "gospel of the kingdom" to mean?

a state of pure unconditional love

mark 8:31-38
this is a good one as it speaks directly to your point. you're peter in this passage getting rebuked by jesus because what jesus is proposing and what God has decreed doesnt fit your personal world view.

he says he has to die in order to fulfill a prophecy. he doesnt say he has to die to take away peoples sins

john 3? no mention of dying to destroy sin. and hes talking about spiritual rebirth.

john 4:1-26? john 4:31-38? hell the whole book of john is crawling with quotes from jesus referencing salvation through his death. i dont see how you can miss it.

he doesnt even mention death here

luke 22:19-20...what is this new covenant? why is it in his blood? why does re predict his death in other verses?

he predicts his death because of prophecies. interestingly some manuscripts dont have given for u or poured out for you. why do u think that is? the new covenant is that the law is destroyed. thats interesting because law is based on judgement and relates to my earlier point that jesus didnt see sin in people because he didnt judge or differentiate. and so all people become equal no matter what they do because jesus has got rid of a system of good and bad (the law). not sure why its in his blood. but why does he have to die to destroy sin. could he not die in order to show people how to be free from revenge or that they dont need to fear death.

im gonna go out on a limb and say without ever reading the book that "the idiot" will also be based on someone elses personal world view and not the decree in which God's own word testifies thus making it a FALSE image of jesus.

that books a classic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idiot

jesus had already saved people from sin. he already got rid of the notion of guilt. jesus was lawless and didnt obey the law thus guilt no longer continued.

plus you seem to be too trusting of these disciples.

do you think they never lied. are you even sure that it was jesus disciples who wrote them.

plus look at the huge difference between how jesus taught and paul taught. paul is often filled with malice .

why is the image painted by paul the correct one.

cj wisty
11-19-2012, 04:54 PM
why does jesus have to die to redeem mankind. is it not more likely that hes showing mankind how to live.

in other words "to turn the other cheek"

THE W
11-19-2012, 05:21 PM
we went over this before in another thread. jesus had to shed blood for the sins of man because blood is required for the forgiveness of sins. this is what the old covenant required. without christ's sacrifice there is no atonement for sin other than the old way of dealing with the priests in sacrificing animals and pouring their blood on the alter in the temples.

thats what the sacrifice, the new covenant in christ's blood, is. the final atonement for sin. your view of who jesus is, is based on your personal world view and totally contradictory to the testimony of scripture and as i said, you can reject the testimony but you cant change it.

so you believe the events chronicled in the gospels are incorrect? do you have any historical or journalistic evidence showing the testimony of these documents to be in error? your objection to what's wirtten in the gospels seems to be more about them not agreeing with your personal world view rather than lack of historical or journalistic accuracy.

paul's writings dont contradict what jesus did so there's nothing wrong with what paul wrote.

matthew 23
matthew 10:24-28
matthew 8:21-22
luke 6:24-26
matthew 7:21-23
john 8:23-24
matthew 13:37-43

a mixture of malicious and cold things jesus has said that also show that he absolutely judges people and differentiates.

you ask why he has to do it this way? because thats his decree. if you dont like that, well...thats your problem. whether or not it jives with your world veiw is not relevant. the point is what the scriptures say.

also you did exactly what i pointed out my last post. you look for literla words and phrases and completely ignore contextual reference. clearly you understand what the old and new covenants were and i dont think you as this isnt about peoper exegesis of scripture for you, this is about what jives with your personal world view.

cj wisty
11-19-2012, 06:12 PM
we went over this before in another thread. jesus had to shed blood for the sins of man because blood is required for the forgiveness of sins. this is what the old covenant required. without christ's sacrifice there is no atonement for sin other than the old way of dealing with the priests in sacrificing animals and pouring their blood on the alter in the temples.

thats what the sacrifice, the new covenant in christ's blood, is. the final atonement for sin. your view of who jesus is, is based on your personal world view and totally contradictory to the testimony of scripture and as i said, you can reject the testimony but you cant change it.

jesus barely followed tradition or rituals. why would he care about this ritual. how is an omnipotent god confined by a law to create a perverse law in which the innocent are punished. was jesus not already disobeying the original law before his sacrifice commenced? how was he able to do this and not sin? is forgiveness of sins not enough.

so you believe the events chronicled in the gospels are incorrect? do you have any historical or journalistic evidence showing the testimony of these documents to be in error? your objection to what's wirtten in the gospels seems to be more about them not agreeing with your personal world view rather than lack of historical or journalistic accuracy.

i believe the gospels were biased and from what ive seen of jesus in the books it seemed to me as if his disciples tried to give to many old testament qualities to jesus. also theres very suspicious moments such as the disciples not recoginising the new "jesus" after he died. also science seems to suggest the miracles are erroneous

paul's writings dont contradict what jesus did so there's nothing wrong with what paul wrote.

christians often have a way of seeing two completely different ways of life and thinking theyre the same. its astonished me how they think the same god who gave jesus to the world is the same one who turned lot's wife to a pillar of salt because she looked back or tells people to stone homosexuals. paul is a very different man. when i read his letters most of the time it made me a more depressed and angry person. it was bad for my health. maybe he doesnt directly contradict jesuss messages but they sound very different. i could show plenty of petty differences such as in Rom 14:9 paul says jesus is god of the dead but in luke 20:38 luke says that jesus is not god of the dead. in Rom3:24 and Rom 3:28 paul says were justified by jesus' faith and grace and in Matt 12:37 matthew says were justified by our words. (interesting that u can see the transformation from our words justifying us to jesus' sacrifice justifying us).

but what would be the point of showing lots of petty differences. the point is if looked objectively they sound very different.

matthew 23
matthew 10:24-28
matthew 8:21-22
luke 6:24-26
matthew 7:21-23
john 8:23-24
matthew 13:37-43

a mixture of malicious and cold things jesus has said that also show that he absolutely judges people and differentiates.

you ask why he has to do it this way? because thats his decree. if you dont like that, well...thats your problem. whether or not it jives with your world veiw is not relevant. the point is what the scriptures say.

jesus is obviously getting hugely upset. it pains him so much that these priests stop others from loving. if jesus had one form of moral code or judgement it would be "whatever makes a being love is good and whoever loves is good, whatever makes a being not love and whoever doesnt love is bad". but when he loves to his fullest its different because pure love is unconditional. it goes beyond good and evil. it obscures vision so that a person can no longer judge or differentiate. he loves them no matter what. have u ever seen how a mother loves her child no matter what he does even if hes pure evil. that was jesus majority of the time. its why jesus was able to dine with very bad people. jesus got frustrated at the priests. they were his demons of gravity which held people from entering the kingdom of god which is the realm of pure love.

paul doesnt actlike this nor could he understand it

also you did exactly what i pointed out my last post. you look for literla words and phrases and completely ignore contextual reference. clearly you understand what the old and new covenants were and i dont think you as this isnt about peoper exegesis of scripture for you, this is about what jives with your personal world view.

jesus died on the cross in order to show them how to live, not to save them from salvation. the kingdom of god is within urself. it doesnt depend on people hanging on crosses

cj wisty
11-19-2012, 06:20 PM
Matt 9:13 Go and learn what this means, `I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.'

THE W
11-19-2012, 08:32 PM
okay, so i guess im going to have to start going through all of your exegetical errors one by one as you make more and more with every post you make.

jesus barely followed tradition or rituals. why would he care about this ritual. how is an omnipotent god confined by a law to create a perverse law in which the innocent are punished. was jesus not already disobeying the original law before his sacrifice commenced? how was he able to do this and not sin? is forgiveness of sins not enough.

jesus didnt follow any man made rituals or traditions but he did follow the will of God which was to be the final atonement for sin on the cross. since he obeyed God he did not sin so i dont know what you're talking about there. the old covenant was established by God, not man.

read matthew 5:17


i believe the gospels were biased and from what ive seen of jesus in the books it seemed to me as if his disciples tried to give to many old testament qualities to jesus. also theres very suspicious moments such as the disciples not recoginising the new "jesus" after he died. also science seems to suggest the miracles are erroneous

what you or i personally believe is irrelevant. proper exegesis of scriptural texts is not based on beliefs or opinions. you must substantiate what you believe from the texts. jesus tried to give too many old testament qualities to himself. again, read matthew 5:17-20. he also quoted old testament verses on numerous occasions. you're forcing a concept on the text thats not there bro. the disciples not recognizing jesus had to do with their skepticism about him rising from the dead. i dont see how that has anything to do with your point either. science says jesus never existed so whats your point?


christians often have a way of seeing two completely different ways of life and thinking theyre the same. its astonished me how they think the same god who gave jesus to the world is the same one who turned lot's wife to a pillar of salt because she looked back or tells people to stone homosexuals. paul is a very different man. when i read his letters most of the time it made me a more depressed and angry person. it was bad for my health. maybe he doesnt directly contradict jesuss messages but they sound very different. i could show plenty of petty differences such as in Rom 14:9 paul says jesus is god of the dead but in luke 20:38 luke says that jesus is not god of the dead. in Rom3:24 and Rom 3:28 paul says were justified by jesus' faith and grace and in Matt 12:37 matthew says were justified by our words. (interesting that u can see the transformation from our words justifying us to jesus' sacrifice justifying us).

romans 14 and luke 20:38 speak of those who are in christ or are children of the ressurection whether alive or dead.

romans 3:24-28 and matthew 12:37 are addressing two different subjects. the romans passages mentioned are explaining what christs sacrifice was for and the matthew passage is jesus explaining that whatever is in your heart, whether good or bad, will come out. in this case, it will come out in the way you speak.

there's no conflict between jesus and pauls message whatsoever.

jesus is obviously getting hugely upset. it pains him so much that these priests stop others from loving. if jesus had one form of moral code or judgement it would be "whatever makes a being love is good and whoever loves is good, whatever makes a being not love and whoever doesnt love is bad". but when he loves to his fullest its different because pure love is unconditional. it goes beyond good and evil. it obscures vision so that a person can no longer judge or differentiate. he loves them no matter what. have u ever seen how a mother loves her child no matter what he does even if hes pure evil. that was jesus majority of the time. its why jesus was able to dine with very bad people. jesus got frustrated at the priests. they were his demons of gravity which held people from entering the kingdom of god which is the realm of pure love.

paul doesnt actlike this nor could he understand it

jesus saying woe to the pharisees has nothing to do with them stopping others from loving. it has to do with them keeping others from recognizing jesus as the son of God and from seeing God's plan through his son to establish a new covenant. they're also trying to uphold there reputations as religious authorities, something which jesus ministry was directly opposed to. again, nothing to do with love.

and what about the verse where jesus says he wants to tear families apart and turn them against each other? what about the verse where he tells a guy to forget about burying his father telling him let the dead people bury the dead and to just follow him?

john 8:23-24 doesnt say people will die in their sins if they dont start being more loving. it says they'll die in their sins if they dont believe that he is the son of God and he and God the father are one. what does that mean? it means you can be a very nice and loving person and if you reject christ you reject the father who sent him and WILL NOT enter the kingdom of heaven.

paul understood this fully which is why such a message is all over his letters.


jesus died on the cross in order to show them how to live, not to save them from salvation. the kingdom of god is within urself. it doesnt depend on people hanging on crosses

i guess you plan on starting your own religion because thats not what the bible teaches.

you can reject the testimony of scripture, but you cant change it or bastardize it to suit your world view.


Matt 9:13 Go and learn what this means, `I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.'

which is exactly why he gave his life so that those "sinners" he came to call could receive mercy from God the father by jesus taking their place in receiving punishment for their sins.

God did not decide to punish an innocent person for sins others committed, an innocent person volunteered to take God's punishment for the sins other committed.

God the father's justice and Jesus the christ's mercy displayed in one act. now THAT'S loving.

cj wisty
11-20-2012, 01:21 PM
u keep on saying that jesus sacrifing himself was in alliance of the old Law. how can this be so. it didnt follow the custom of the Law of Moses in any way

http://judaism.about.com/od/abcsofjudaism/f/sacrifices_stop.htm

its a sin to offer sacrifices anywhere other than the temple.

yes i agree i was wrong about jesus not following the Law. i remembered that it was the pharisees laws he didnt follow not the Law of moses.

how does science say jesus never existed. the koran and other historians at the time talked about jesus. jesus was quoting from the old testament. but his disciples shouldve written his other characteristics better. their accounts are too one sided.

i think the disciples missed jesus so much that they forced themselves to believe he had risen.

Rom 14 v9 says jesus is lord of the dead. luke 20 v38 directly says that jesus is not lord of the dead. people can see that as contradictory. i don care that much because theyre just one quote and they might be coming from different standpoints. i just think jesus and paul sound like very different men.

rom 13 v9 and matt 22 v37-40 could also be said to be a contradiction. also look at 1 cor 12 v 28 and matt 23 v8.

jesus saying that families will be torn apart doesnt mean stop loving ur families. jesus loved everyone. even people who persecuted him and even the evil one. he offers no resistance. jesus tells that guy to stop burying his dad because jesus doesnt believe in human traditions. it makes no sense to jesus. after a person dies why bry them. jesus lived in a very different world.

jesus thought the pharisees stopped the connection between the people and god. what is god but love.

when jesus said to believe in him i thought he meant to believe in his doctrine. it says this in the bible

"[36] "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"
[37] And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
[38] This is the great and first commandment.
[39] And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
[40] On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.""

the doctrine is about love not belief. is believing in jesus not believing in this.

i think u and paul make a mistake. u think believing in jesus is believing in a historical figure. but i think its different. people may believe in that historical figure but from person to person they see him differently the think of him differently they react to him differently. but is the real jesus not a manifestation of perpetual striving all-encompassing love. what use is a believe in a name and historical figure. i think belief in jesus is deeper than believing a historical person existed. i believe that people who never heard of the person jesus can believe in him.

someone who is wont to love will have full belief and faith in the ever striving perpetual love which is the true jesus.

if u follow the 2 greatest commandments (love god and everybody) then u naturally believe in jesus not as name or historical figure but as a metaphysical supplement to the activity of loving.

i treat the scriptures as i treat everything, i believe some of it and i dont believe other parts of it.

god still shouldnt have sacrificed jesus. thats not true justice.

but then ive often had this thought. what if people relying on jesus for taking away their sins were not really just sickly selfish utilitarians. what if god was testing them and the true course of action is for a person to say to jesus "GET OFF THE CROSS SOMEONE AS INNOCENT AS YOU SHOULDNT BE ON IT. TAKE MY LIFE INSTEAD. I VOLUNTEER". what if god was disgusted at people for using jesus to ty and get into heaven instead of doing the right thing of getting jesus off the cross.

i dont actually believe it but what o u think of it. do u like it or hate it?

and about ur last sentence. love completely transcends and destroys justice.

also i remember u telling me that jesus does judge and u gave examples but what do u think of john 8 v15.

basicly i think u and paul make 2 big mistakes.

trying to connect jesus' death on the cross to sacrifices given in the law of moses is sloppy. the only point for you is what jesus said in the last supper about giving his blood to his disciples but theres far too many points against it. the main one being its a sin to offer sacrifices which arent in the temple. forgiveness itself should be acceptable from an omnipotent god etc.

also u turn the doctrine of love to a doctrine of belief. and not even that, the shallow doctrine of belief in historical figure.

everything comes from jesus' 2 greatest commands love god and love everyone.

belief naturally comes from this.

the kingdom of heaven comes from love not belief.

THE W
11-20-2012, 10:14 PM
what a mess. its gonna take forever to clean up all this error, but here we go..

u keep on saying that jesus sacrifing himself was in alliance of the old Law. how can this be so. it didnt follow the custom of the Law of Moses in any way

http://judaism.about.com/od/abcsofju...fices_stop.htm (http://judaism.about.com/od/abcsofjudaism/f/sacrifices_stop.htm)

its a sin to offer sacrifices anywhere other than the temple.jesus is that temple
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%202:18-24&version=NIV1984

the temple is his body. it was destroyed by crucifixion and rebuilt in 3 days through the resurrection. the shed blood of jesus is the final blood sacrifice for the sins of man.

john 14:6-7
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2014:6-7&version=NIV1984

jesus the christ and God the father are one. if you know jesus then you know the father. jesus always does the will of the father.

jesus had authority from God the father to forgive sins because God gave him that authority. jesus was "the christ" AKA "the son of God". jesus always does what pleases the father.


yes i agree i was wrong about jesus not following the Law. i remembered that it was the pharisees laws he didnt follow not the Law of moses.except the pharisees were following the laws of moses which is why they were called "teachers of the law". its the reason why the pharisees said jesus was blaspheming when he told a paralytic their sins were forgiven. its the reason why they said jesus was breaking the law when he was healing on the sabbath. and its also why jesus said when he was talking about not coming to abolish the law but to uphold it that if your rightiousness doesnt surpass the pharisees and teachers of the law you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


how does science say jesus never existed. the koran and other historians at the time talked about jesus. jesus was quoting from the old testament. but his disciples shouldve written his other characteristics better. their accounts are too one sided.

i think the disciples missed jesus so much that they forced themselves to believe he had risen.so you believe in the account of the koran which is a book totally opposed to the bible's account of jesus(and BTW does not depict your omnibenevolent jesus) and the account of historians who were not there and what they wrote about jesus but you question the account of the people who were with jesus and were discipled by jesus directly all throughout jesus ministry?

nothing contradictory or backwards about that. nope, not at all. the issue with what the authors of the gospels wrote and what paul wrote is not accuracy but rather what i've been saying all along. it doesnt fit with your personal world view. im sorry, but your world view is not valid argumentation against the accuracy of the gospels.



Rom 14 v9 says jesus is lord of the dead. luke 20 v38 directly says that jesus is not lord of the dead. people can see that as contradictory. i don care that much because theyre just one quote and they might be coming from different standpoints. i just think jesus and paul sound like very different men.

rom 13 v9 and matt 22 v37-40 could also be said to be a contradiction. also look at 1 cor 12 v 28 and matt 23 v8. i'd already showed you why they're not a contradictions. it doesnt matter what people will perceive, it only matters what the proper exegesis of scripture is.

jesus and paul were indeed different men. jesus is the holy son of God the creator who was with the father from the beginning of time and through him all things were created(read john 1). paul was someone who before he had an encounter with christ(read acts 9) he put those who believed in jesus in prison and even had them killed. they were totally different but they both submitted to the will of God the father and were lead by the holy spirit(paul obviously not at first).




jesus saying that families will be torn apart doesnt mean stop loving ur families. jesus loved everyone. even people who persecuted him and even the evil one. he offers no resistance. jesus tells that guy to stop burying his dad because jesus doesnt believe in human traditions. it makes no sense to jesus. after a person dies why bry them. jesus lived in a very different world.so tell me, what is jesus saying in matthew 10:34-39?

offers no resistance? loves everyone? what were the seven woes to the pharisees about then? why did jesus go ham at the temple?(read john 2:14-16)

jesus telling the man not to bury his father has nothing to do with not following traditions as jesus DID follow traditions.

jesus participated in the passover meal tradition(matthew 26:17-19)
jesus paid the temple tax which is basically a man made ordinance(matthew 17:24-27)
he was baptised by john the baptist, another tradition (matthew 3:13-17)

so it had nothing to do with jesus ignoring traditions. i'll help you out here.

there were two people in the passage that wanted to follow jesus and jesus in different ways told them what it would cost them to follow him. one says he would follow jesus wherever he went and jesus responded saying "foxes have holes and birds have nests but the son of man has no place to lay his head". then theres the part where jesus tells the guy to forget about burying his father. this passage connects with the passage in matthew 10:34-39 in that we must be willing to lay down everything and anything to follow christ.

whether it means forsaking relationships, forsaking wealth or wellbeing, or forsaking worldly worries. these all reflect the passages mentioned. you must lay down ALL to follow christ, if you dont, you are not worthy of him.

another exmaple in matthew 19:16-24

a rich young man who had kept all the commandments including the one which is to "love your neighbor as yourself". jesus then told him to go and sell his possession and follow him. the rich man in refusal turned away sad.

jesus knew what was in his heart in that he valued his wealth more than following jesus. even though the rich man loved his neighbor as he did himself he still was declared by jesus to not be worthy of the kingdom of heaven.

because you see, love is just one part of the total surrender that God seeks. the call of God is not the golden rule. the call of God is to fully and totally submit to his will.

jesus thought the pharisees stopped the connection between the people and god. what is god but love..first off there are many parts to God character. he is the greatest personification of love but that is not all of his character. another huge part of God's character is justice and you can see this throughout the old testament books.

second, you continue to make the assumption that jesus was mad at the pharisees for the sole purpose of them keeping people from loving each other. there is nothing in scripture that substantiates this assumption.

read john 11:45-48

after jesus had raised lazarus up from the dead some jews there put their faith in while others went and told the pharisees and then they wanted to kill him not because jesus was making people love each other but because their livelihood as priests were at stake because of what jesus was doing.

jesus issue with the pharisees had nothing to do with love or lack thereof. it had to do with them not recognizing or acknowledging that he was the messiah, the son of God, the one for whom their ancient prophesies spoke.

all the times the pharisees tested jesus were not based on trying to make him out to be an unloving person but to make him out to be a hypocrite, a false prophet, a law breaker, and a blasphemer.

i suggest you re-read the book of matthew.


when jesus said to believe in him i thought he meant to believe in his doctrine. it says this in the bible

"[36] "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"
[37] And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
[38] This is the great and first commandment.
[39] And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
[40] On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.""

the doctrine is about love not belief. is believing in jesus not believing in this.went over this in my response to your breaking up of families interprtation.

next..


i think u and paul make a mistake. u think believing in jesus is believing in a historical figure. but i think its different. people may believe in that historical figure but from person to person they see him differently the think of him differently they react to him differently. but is the real jesus not a manifestation of perpetual striving all-encompassing love. what use is a believe in a name and historical figure. i think belief in jesus is deeper than believing a historical person existed. i believe that people who never heard of the person jesus can believe in him.

someone who is wont to love will have full belief and faith in the ever striving perpetual love which is the true jesus. yet again i already covered this but i'll repeat it again. the rich young did both of those things yet he was not worthy of the kingdom of heaven because he valued his riches over God. believing that God exists does not make you worthy of life. the demons believed that God existed and knew who he was even before the disciple knew it. believing in jesus means that you follow him, to follow him means that you do things he did and it also means surrendering everything you have to him.

being a nice and loving person isnt going to get you into heaven because you are now trying get into heaven by your own rightiousness and works which are worthless before God(read isaiah 64:5-6)

if u follow the 2 greatest commandments (love god and everybody) then u naturally believe in jesus not as name or historical figure but as a metaphysical supplement to the activity of loving.went over this already...next...

i treat the scriptures as i treat everything, i believe some of it and i dont believe other parts of it.

god still shouldnt have sacrificed jesus. thats not true justice. your own personal world view = worthless. went over this already...next...



but then ive often had this thought. what if people relying on jesus for taking away their sins were not really just sickly selfish utilitarians. what if god was testing them and the true course of action is for a person to say to jesus "GET OFF THE CROSS SOMEONE AS INNOCENT AS YOU SHOULDNT BE ON IT. TAKE MY LIFE INSTEAD. I VOLUNTEER". what if god was disgusted at people for using jesus to ty and get into heaven instead of doing the right thing of getting jesus off the cross.

i dont actually believe it but what o u think of it. do u like it or hate it?totally unbiblical, the scriptures dont support this in any way shape or form.

we're not worthy to atone for the sins of mankind because we are sinful, fallen creatures. the reason jesus was able to do it was because he was sinless, holy, and blameless. a holy sacrifice is the only sacrifice that would do for god to atone for the sins of mankind and redeem us from the sin of adam.

telling jesus to get off the cross is saying that you should pay for your own sins which you cannot do which means you will simply(and justifiably) perish before God's holy justice and be subjected to eaternal damnnation and torment apart from the grace of God forever. while i certainly deserve it, i dont want it and i thank God for LOVE he showed in taking my place. all he asks in return is for us to surrender our lives to him and he will allow us to be in paradise with him and live forever in the kingdom of God.

dont know about you, but i'll take that deal.


and about ur last sentence. love completely transcends and destroys justice.

also i remember u telling me that jesus does judge and u gave examples but what do u think of john 8 v15.

basicly i think u and paul make 2 big mistakes. your first statement is totally alien to biblical testimony and revelation so uhhhhh cool story bro!

what i think about john 8:15 is that you dont like to read anything in context. tell me what you think of john 5:22-23 and john 5:26-27?

then go read matthew 23:13-39 and tell me how jesus isnt passing judgement?



trying to connect jesus' death on the cross to sacrifices given in the law of moses is sloppy. the only point for you is what jesus said in the last supper about giving his blood to his disciples but theres far too many points against it. the main one being its a sin to offer sacrifices which arent in the temple. forgiveness itself should be acceptable from an omnipotent god etc.

also u turn the doctrine of love to a doctrine of belief. and not even that, the shallow doctrine of belief in historical figure.

everything comes from jesus' 2 greatest commands love god and love everyone.

belief naturally comes from this.

the kingdom of heaven comes from love not belief. already went over this stuff. jesus is the temple, how you think forgiveness should be handled is based on your personal world view which is, again, worthless to biblical testimony.

being a loving and kind person is based on your own righteousness which is not valid atonement for your sins according to God's decree. without jesus you have no atonement for your sins. you can be the most loving person ever and it will not matter before a holy God because you are a fallen creature worthy of death because of sin.

if you dont believe in jesus you wont surrender you life to him which is what the rich young man didnt do even though he loved his neighbor and was declared not worth of the kingdom.

diggy
11-20-2012, 11:54 PM
God did not decide to punish an innocent person for sins others committed, an innocent person volunteered to take God's punishment for the sins other committed.

So those people who punished Jesus were God?



God the father's justice and Jesus the christ's mercy displayed in one act. now THAT'S loving.

Is it justice when an innocent is punished?






jesus the christ and God the father are one. if you know jesus then you know the father. jesus always does the will of the father.

When Jesus died and was resurected by God.....wait a minuite....If Jesus died, and Jesus is God, then how was it logically possible for God who is dead (no longer existing) to resurrect Jesus???????????





jesus had authority from God the father to forgive sins because God gave him that authority. jesus was "the christ" AKA "the son of God". jesus always does what pleases the father.

Jesus had authority from God? Didn't you write that both were one? Now you're implying they're two!! Why would Jesus, who is God, according to you, need permission from God, who is his self, to forgive sins??????????

Jesus as "the son of God"? Now he's the son of God as well as being God?
God is now the father of Jesus and IS Jesus as well?

D.projectile
11-21-2012, 07:10 AM
rakimkoolg is chattin alotta sense

D.projectile
11-21-2012, 07:24 AM
rakimkoolg is chattin alotta sense




THE BIBLE AS SYMBOL


Our first order of business in this quest is to see if we can justify considering the Bible as symbolic rather then literal. We must use the Bible itself.



1.2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. So here is the Bible itself telling us not to take it literally.



God hath made us able ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter (literal interpretation) killeth, but the spirit (allegorical or symbolic interpretation) giveth life. (II Cor. 3.6)


We use great plainness of speech. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost (materialistic). (II Cor. 4.3)


If our earthly house of this tabernacle (the physical body) were dissolved we have a building of God (the astral and mental bodies) a house not made with hands (but constructed by the angelic builders) eternal (the causal body) in the heavens (the super physical planes). (II Cor. 5.1)


Awake thou that sleepest and arise from the dead (the physical plane) and Christ shall give thee light. (Eph.5.14)



WE HAVE BEEN TAUGHT THAT THE BIBLE IS THE LITERAL WORD OF GOD. But it is all mythology, it’s all symbolic, but you have to understand the meaning of the mythology, in order to grasp what the bible is saying.


2. Galatians 4:24 Which things are an allegory: the definition of a myth includes the term allegory. Here again the Bible tells us it is symbolic.


3. Matthew 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: The Bible is saying that all of Jesus statements were symbolic.



4. Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:



5. Psalm 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old: Here the Bible states that GOD speaks in parables . And what are dark sayings of old. Obviously they are symbolic statements.


6. In the Book of Proverbs describes wisdom. It explains how one becomes wise. Proverbs 1:6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings. Dark sayings is mythology



7. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 2 cor.4:3



10. Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! they say of me, Doth he not speak in parables? EZ:20 Here God speaks in parables



11. 1Cr 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory. Here it says god ordained the hidden wisdom, even before the world


12. Eze. 17:2 Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel. God orders riddles



28. Hebrews 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.



Here God is saying that his word is like milk to you, as a babe must drink milk before it can eat solid food. God is saying his word is for the one who is ready for meat, in other words, when one is ready for the deeper meaning, this is the meat, for the one full of age (wisdom). Reading Gods word literally is MILK, it is for the unskillful, and they will not understand.



Here the fact that this is all consciousness is made clear. It says to know the mystery of the Kingdom of God. Where is the Kingdom of God ? . (Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.)

http://thehiddenlighthouse.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/spare_4272.html

cj wisty
11-21-2012, 02:16 PM
what a mess. its gonna take forever to clean up all this error, but here we go..

jesus is that temple
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%202:18-24&version=NIV1984

the temple is his body. it was destroyed by crucifixion and rebuilt in 3 days through the resurrection. the shed blood of jesus is the final blood sacrifice for the sins of man.

john 14:6-7
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2014:6-7&version=NIV1984



jesus had authority from God the father to forgive sins because God gave him that authority. jesus was "the christ" AKA "the son of God". jesus always does what pleases the father.

jesus the christ and God the father are one. if you know jesus then you know the father. jesus always does the will of the father.

that makes absolutely no sense. the law states that sacrifices are to be carried out inside the holy temple.

thats not the same as sacrificing the holy temple itself. sacrificing jesus on the cross is sacrificing the temple to god on the cross.

the law states that sacrifices are to be sacrificed to god inside the temple. logic of the law says that the sacrifice would have to be inside jesus.

so how is destroying the temple in alliance with the law. ur approach is sloppy. i think paul mightve also had the same sloppy approach.

most of the approaches to say jesus sacrificed himself for our sins is sloppy. i remember u saying i wasnt reading those bible verses in context. but the thing is, i was. majority of them said jesus would be killed to fulfill prophecies (not to get rid of sins or even for a sacrifice).

there was only 1 section of jesus speaking u gave that seemed to be in ur viewpoint. which was the last supper in which jesus gave them bread and said this is my body. but even that can be argued against you. he could be saying his disciples are one with his body or that part of him will be inside them after he dies as well as his new covenant (his blood).

the most honest answer would be to say its inconclusive.

and also remember jesus' disciples were terrible at parables and metaphors. they had to ask jesus about the most simple of ones. so how could they possibly understand the metaphor of the cross (and i think its highly improbable that jesus rose from the dead so he wouldnt be able to tell them the truth).


except the pharisees were following the laws of moses which is why they were called "teachers of the law". its the reason why the pharisees said jesus was blaspheming when he told a paralytic their sins were forgiven. its the reason why they said jesus was breaking the law when he was healing on the sabbath. and its also why jesus said when he was talking about not coming to abolish the law but to uphold it that if your rightiousness doesnt surpass the pharisees and teachers of the law you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

no they made their own rules as well which jesus didnt follow. the one about washing hands b4 a meal isnt in the law of moses it was created by the pharisees.

i suppose u can argue about the sabbath but then it depends on what somebody defines work as.

but verything els was basicly just made up rules. but then if u believe jesus wasnt upholding the laws before the new covenant then surely he was sinning.

so you believe in the account of the koran which is a book totally opposed to the bible's account of jesus(and BTW does not depict your omnibenevolent jesus) and the account of historians who were not there and what they wrote about jesus but you question the account of the people who were with jesus and were discipled by jesus directly all throughout jesus ministry?

nothing contradictory or backwards about that. nope, not at all. the issue with what the authors of the gospels wrote and what paul wrote is not accuracy but rather what i've been saying all along. it doesnt fit with your personal world view. im sorry, but your world view is not valid argumentation against the accuracy of the gospels.

i think the bible is the most accurate viewpoint but it is definitely with the bias of the disciples. same way in which portraits of kings and queens of the renaissance era are the most accurate pictures of how they looked but they were drawn with bias to make royalty look beautiful or else the royalty would punish them for making them look ugly.


i'd already showed you why they're not a contradictions. it doesnt matter what people will perceive, it only matters what the proper exegesis of scripture is.

in one part paul says theres teachers and fathers in the church. jesus said not to call anybody else on earth teacher or father. majority of people would call that contradiction.

it also shows the difference between jesus' anarchistic ideal for christian society and pauls more practical ideal for society which had different levels.

jesus and paul were indeed different men. jesus is the holy son of God the creator who was with the father from the beginning of time and through him all things were created(read john 1). paul was someone who before he had an encounter with christ(read acts 9) he put those who believed in jesus in prison and even had them killed. they were totally different but they both submitted to the will of God the father and were lead by the holy spirit(paul obviously not at first).

people experience "God" in different ways. people think of him very differently. some see certain characteristics of him more than others. they more or less see different gods. i think paul and jesus saw completely different gods even if they did call him the same name.



so tell me, what is jesus saying in matthew 10:34-39?

offers no resistance? loves everyone? what were the seven woes to the pharisees about then? why did jesus go ham at the temple?(read john 2:14-16)

jesus telling the man not to bury his father has nothing to do with not following traditions as jesus DID follow traditions.

jesus participated in the passover meal tradition(matthew 26:17-19)
jesus paid the temple tax which is basically a man made ordinance(matthew 17:24-27)
he was baptised by john the baptist, another tradition (matthew 3:13-17)

so it had nothing to do with jesus ignoring traditions. i'll help you out here.

there were two people in the passage that wanted to follow jesus and jesus in different ways told them what it would cost them to follow him. one says he would follow jesus wherever he went and jesus responded saying "foxes have holes and birds have nests but the son of man has no place to lay his head". then theres the part where jesus tells the guy to forget about burying his father. this passage connects with the passage in matthew 10:34-39 in that we must be willing to lay down everything and anything to follow christ.

whether it means forsaking relationships, forsaking wealth or wellbeing, or forsaking worldly worries. these all reflect the passages mentioned. you must lay down ALL to follow christ, if you dont, you are not worthy of him.

another exmaple in matthew 19:16-24

a rich young man who had kept all the commandments including the one which is to "love your neighbor as yourself". jesus then told him to go and sell his possession and follow him. the rich man in refusal turned away sad.

jesus knew what was in his heart in that he valued his wealth more than following jesus. even though the rich man loved his neighbor as he did himself he still was declared by jesus to not be worthy of the kingdom of heaven.

because you see, love is just one part of the total surrender that God seeks. the call of God is not the golden rule. the call of God is to fully and totally submit to his will.

in matthew 10 34-39 jesus is saying that if u follow jesus disaster and destruction will come. please show me the bit in which jesus says to stop loving ur father or mother. jesus is the same man who said love ur enemy.

u seem to think if jesus shouts at people he suddenly stops loving them. lol. thats completely incorrect. learn what it means to love ur enemy. ofc he offers no resistance. he would never hit back. he didnt hit anyone in the temple. he just threw all their stuff in the air and chased them out. he was driven by a mad passion of love.

sorry i shouldve made it clear by what i meant when i said that jesus didnt follow traditions. i meant that he didnt do things just because they were a tradition. he wouldnt see any point in burying a dead person because how would burying a dead person bring any benefit to the dead person.

he followed passover not because it was a tradition but as a symbol or metaphor. charity because he loved giving. baptism as metphor/symbol and to fulfill prophecies.

yes i agree that the kingdom of god includes a certain rejection of the physical world and worldly matters.

i heavily doubt that the rich man loved his neighbour to his full extent. he preferred his money and held it above everyone so how could he love people as he loved himself. just because the ruler said he did something doesnt mean he did it.

i dont think jesus' god calls us to submission to his will but rather to act naturally in accordance with his will.

these are two different things.

first off there are many parts to God character. he is the greatest personification of love but that is not all of his character. another huge part of God's character is justice and you can see this throughout the old testament books.

second, you continue to make the assumption that jesus was mad at the pharisees for the sole purpose of them keeping people from loving each other. there is nothing in scripture that substantiates this assumption.

read john 11:45-48

after jesus had raised lazarus up from the dead some jews there put their faith in while others went and told the pharisees and then they wanted to kill him not because jesus was making people love each other but because their livelihood as priests were at stake because of what jesus was doing.

jesus issue with the pharisees had nothing to do with love or lack thereof. it had to do with them not recognizing or acknowledging that he was the messiah, the son of God, the one for whom their ancient prophesies spoke.

all the times the pharisees tested jesus were not based on trying to make him out to be an unloving person but to make him out to be a hypocrite, a false prophet, a law breaker, and a blasphemer.

i suggest you re-read the book of matthew.


lmfao thinking the old testament is a book of justice. pure love cant act in accordance with justice but it was necessary for jesus to believe this in the same way it was necessary for the earliest philosophers to believe knowledge is power (also isnt true).

the pharisees follow the law because the law benefits them in their selfish needs. jesus wanted them to follow the law with loving hearts. if they did this they wouldnt be calling him such bad things.

in jesus' absurd childish logic (only children can enter the kingdom of heaven) he wouldve equated not believing in him with not being full of love.

ive read the book of matthew plenty of times

yet again i already covered this but i'll repeat it again. the rich young did both of those things yet he was not worthy of the kingdom of heaven because he valued his riches over God. believing that God exists does not make you worthy of life. the demons believed that God existed and knew who he was even before the disciple knew it. believing in jesus means that you follow him, to follow him means that you do things he did and it also means surrendering everything you have to him.

being a nice and loving person isnt going to get you into heaven because you are now trying get into heaven by your own rightiousness and works which are worthless before God(read isaiah 64:5-6)

answer me this. if someone was never told about jesus (historical figure) but in his mind he had a huge dedication and belief in an archetype that was an imitation of jesus would he be able to enter the kingdom of heaven. many christians say u have to believe in jesus the nazarene. what do you think. do you have to belief in jesus the nazarene or is it ok to believe in a jesus archetype with absolutely no knowledge of the bible.



your own personal world view = worthless. went over this already...next...

and why isnt yurs or the disciples world view worthless.



totally unbiblical, the scriptures dont support this in any way shape or form.

we're not worthy to atone for the sins of mankind because we are sinful, fallen creatures. the reason jesus was able to do it was because he was sinless, holy, and blameless. a holy sacrifice is the only sacrifice that would do for god to atone for the sins of mankind and redeem us from the sin of adam.

telling jesus to get off the cross is saying that you should pay for your own sins which you cannot do which means you will simply(and justifiably) perish before God's holy justice and be subjected to eaternal damnnation and torment apart from the grace of God forever. while i certainly deserve it, i dont want it and i thank God for LOVE he showed in taking my place. all he asks in return is for us to surrender our lives to him and he will allow us to be in paradise with him and live forever in the kingdom of God.

dont know about you, but i'll take that deal.

sometimes i think that eternal damnation is the right choice in terms of justice but were too cowardly to admit this.

the worst thing would be if jesus ended up being damned for eternity and was tricked by everyone until he finally realised and said "father father why did you abandon me".

i dont believe in eternal damnation so i dont believe this happened but i can see how some people might believe this happened.


your first statement is totally alien to biblical testimony and revelation so uhhhhh cool story bro!

what i think about john 8:15 is that you dont like to read anything in context. tell me what you think of john 5:22-23 and john 5:26-27?

then go read matthew 23:13-39 and tell me how jesus isnt passing judgement?

my first statement is against scripture but scripture is terrible at explaining moals.

heres a better book
http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Political_Thought/Nie-GenologyofMorals.pdf

how jesus judges is unusual.

love surpasses all judgement.

i guess jesus hadnt reached the stage of absolute love which he wanted to reach.

but there were times when he wouldnt judge. such as when people didnt judge, he wouldnt judge them.

absolute true christianity is a state of not judging. everything becomes equal. man is equal to God through jesus christ. u cant judge anyones sins because everyones sins have been forgiven.

judging is when u make disticntions between people and differentiate between them which therefore makes them unequal as certain qualities are always preferred above others.

i guess to be practical, jesus had to judge to an extent.



already went over this stuff. jesus is the temple, how you think forgiveness should be handled is based on your personal world view which is, again, worthless to biblical testimony.

being a loving and kind person is based on your own righteousness which is not valid atonement for your sins according to God's decree. without jesus you have no atonement for your sins. you can be the most loving person ever and it will not matter before a holy God because you are a fallen creature worthy of death because of sin.

if you dont believe in jesus you wont surrender you life to him which is what the rich young man didnt do even though he loved his neighbor and was declared not worth of the kingdom.

sacrifices in the temple is different to the temple as a sacrifice.

love is beyond righteousness.

the rich young man loved his money above his neighbour. its not as simple as loving ur neighbour but rather loving everyone as much as u can.

cj wisty
11-21-2012, 03:11 PM
btw w u seem to think that there exists accurate descriptions of jesus.

this isnt true and most of its based on opinion.

an the bible seems to have two conflicting ideas of jesus which wrestle with eachother.

THE W
11-21-2012, 06:13 PM
So those people who punished Jesus were God?

i honestly dont know what you're saying here



Is it justice when an innocent is punished?


When Jesus died and was resurected by God.....wait a minuite....If Jesus died, and Jesus is God, then how was it logically possible for God who is dead (no longer existing) to resurrect Jesus???????????






Jesus had authority from God? Didn't you write that both were one? Now you're implying they're two!! Why would Jesus, who is God, according to you, need permission from God, who is his self, to forgive sins??????????

Jesus as "the son of God"? Now he's the son of God as well as being God?
God is now the father of Jesus and IS Jesus as well?

God decreed that jesus would suffer crucifixion at the hands of men. man just played a part of fullfilling that prophesy. man did not make this decree, god did.

the debt for sin had to be paid by someone. jesus offered to pay it and he did in his death.


trinity = the one being God or Godhead comprised of 3 persons. the father, the son, the holy spirit.

understand that definition and what i said makes perfect sense.

THE W
11-21-2012, 10:24 PM
this is getting away from the original points of exegetical error so im gonna stick to those points:

- jesus was never ressurected
- the purpose for jesus death and resurrection is not for the sins of man
- the gospels do not depict jesus accurately
- paul seeing jesus as the atonement for sin is not true
- we can be in the kingdom of heaven as long as we love people
- you cant have a God of perfect love and perfect justice or love and justice cannot co-exist


jesus was never resurrected

luke 24. you can read about it there. also john 20.

now if you dont believe biblical testimony and what God basically said was gonna happen then you reject and thus have no part in him.



the purpose of jesus' death and ressurection was not for the sins of man

luke 22:19-20

bread is his body which was to be sacrificed on the cross "my body given for you"

the cup was his blood of the new covenant that would be spilled when they pierced his side on the cross "this is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured our for you"

what is this new covenant?

jerimiah 31:31-34
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jer.%2031:31-34&version=NIV1984

"for i will forgive their wickedness and remember their sins no more"

john the baptist called jesus "the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (john 1:29-34)

jesus himself said that he had been given the authority to forgive sins(matthew 9:1-8)



the gospels dont depict jesus accurately

well, you dont have any exegitical evidence of this, you dont have any historiacal evidence for this. all you have said is they cant have it right because they didnt understand the parables.

you do know they these documents were written after all this had taken place right? long after jesus had revealed everything to them.

at the end of the day, making this statement means you have rejected biblical testimony.


paul seeing jesus as the atonement for sin is not true

see "the purpose of jesus death and ressurection was not for the sins of man"

it sure was, and paul expands upon this throughout his letters.


we can be in the kingdom of heaven as long as we love people

again, you're getting in on your own righteousness which is no righteousness at all. we are fallen creatures due to the sin of adam.

romans 5:12-20

adam pretty much blew it for all of us. all mankind after adam was dead before God. the old covenant was a band-aid which allowed for our sins to be forgiven and for God not to crush us for our sin but it did not connect mankind back to God as the debt for sin was still not paid.

without the sacrifice there is no atonement. we would have to stick with sacrificing animals for our sins in temples. just being a good loving person didnt work under either covenant.

romans 10:9-10

how can someone say "im a totally kind and loving person but i dont believe in jesus. all that stuff about him rising from the dead, those silly miracles, him being with God from the beginning of creation and having all things created through him. meh, thats a bunch of malarkey. but hey, i sure love my neighbor"


john 8:24


sorry, doesnt work.







you cant have a God of perfect love and perfect justice...or...love and justice cannot co-exist in God.


you're speaking from you world-view when you make this statement and you are certainly entitled to say this.

just understand that the biblical testimony does not uphold this view and such a statement denies the sovereignty of God in his ability to define himself and express himself to his own creation as he pleases.

im not here to change your world view as i dont care about your world view..and neither do the scriptures.

me and paul dont have a "world view". we are slaves to the word of God. God is the author of existance and creator of all things. he can do as he pleases with what he has made.

diggy
11-22-2012, 01:33 AM
i honestly dont know what you're saying here

Ok. let me repeat. This is what you wrote:


God did not decide to punish an innocent person for sins others committed, an innocent person volunteered to take God's punishment for the sins other committed.


You basically said that Jesus' suffering on the cross was God's punishment. But he was punished by people. So you are implying that the people who punished Jesus were God!!! Are they God?




the debt for sin had to be paid by someone. jesus offered to pay it and he did in his death.

Has everyone had their sins forgiven because of Jesus' death? Why or why not?

Why does a person need to accept Jesus as their savior if Jesus died for their sins????




trinity = the one being God or Godhead comprised of 3 persons. the father, the son, the holy spirit.

understand that definition and what i said makes perfect sense.

Does the word "Godhead" appear in the bible?

Show me "the father, the son, the holy spirit" in the bible!!!

You still did not explain to me how was it logically possible for God who is dead (no longer existing) to resurrect Jesus!!! I'm still waiting!!!

THE W
11-22-2012, 09:50 AM
You basically said that Jesus' suffering on the cross was God's punishment. But he was punished by people. So you are implying that the people who punished Jesus were God!!! Are they God?this is silly. the people were used as instruments to carry out God's will. just like moses was empowered by God and used as an instrument to deliver israel from slavery in egypt. an instrument cant do anything on its own without something controlling it.


Has everyone had their sins forgiven because of Jesus' death? Why or why not?

Why does a person need to accept Jesus as their savior if Jesus died for their sins????those who believe in him and abide in him have their sins forgiven. if you reject him, you will die in your sins. saying thinss like, " he was never resurrected", "he is not God", "he never performed any miracles", "he does not have the power to forgive sins" is rejecting him as you would be rejecting his own testimony and thus rejecting the one who sent him.

john 14:6-14

jesus' own testimony.

luke 10:1-16

those who didnt believe in the testimony of jesus were doomed for destruction. they were compared to tyre and sidon.


Does the word "Godhead" appear in the bible?

Show me "the father, the son, the holy spirit" in the bible!!!

You still did not explain to me how was it logically possible for God who is dead (no longer existing) to resurrect Jesus!!! I'm still waiting!!! went over this error in exegesis already. you look for literal words while totally ignoring contextual testimony. the word "trinity" isnt in the bible either. they are words to describe what the bible testifies to.

i'll throw you a bone though,

matthew 28:19-20

there's your father, son, holy spirit reference.

jesus is not praying to himself in john 17, he is praying to the father.

matthew 26:63-64

it would be rather silly for jesus to say he would sit at the right hand of himself. rather he will sit at the right hand of the father.

john 14:28 "the father is greater than i"

john 14:15-17 and john 14:25-26

all jesus' words.


do you reject the testimony and witness of christ? you can if you wish, but you know what that means for you..

THE W
11-22-2012, 10:13 AM
2 timothy 3:14-16

4 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy+3&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29871a)] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

diggy
11-22-2012, 01:11 PM
this is silly. the people were used as instruments to carry out God's will. just like moses was empowered by God and used as an instrument to deliver israel from slavery in egypt. an instrument cant do anything on its own without something controlling it.

horrible comparison. Moses led people to safety. The people who punished Jesus were hurtful. You think those people who punished Jesus were God's instruments instead of instruments of the devil??? So you believe it was God's will to punish Jesus through their hands?? Wow. Is this your selling point for Christianity?


those who believe in him and abide in him have their sins forgiven. if you reject him, you will die in your sins. saying thinss like, " he was never resurrected", "he is not God", "he never performed any miracles", "he does not have the power to forgive sins" is rejecting him as you would be rejecting his own testimony and thus rejecting the one who sent him.

But according to what you said earlier, he did for people's sins, so everybody, including Hitler, should be saved. EVERYBODY!!!

john 14:6-14

jesus' own testimony.

luke 10:1-16

those who didnt believe in the testimony of jesus were doomed for destruction. they were compared to tyre and sidon.

You actually take the bible to be the uncorrupted truth after being translated (and mistranslated) to language after language resulting in changes of meaning, with some books being deleted and some parts even being intentionally changed by political forces? This is a house built on shaky foundation!!!






jesus is not praying to himself in john 17, he is praying to the father.

Well, given what you said about God being Jesus, he should be praying to his self. This whole trinity is inconsistent and illogical.

Since he is not praying to self, then that means he is not God.

matthew 26:63-64

it would be rather silly for jesus to say he would sit at the right hand of himself. rather he will sit at the right hand of the father.

But according to you, he is the father, so the implication is that he is sitting at the right side of self, if I am to believe you earlier statement.

Since you believe it is silly for Jesus (whom you've spelt with lower case 'J' lol) to say he would sit beside himself, it should be silly that Jesus is God, which he is not!

john 14:28 "the father is greater than i"

This contradicts your trinity were you said God = Jesus. Logically inconsistent.


do you reject the testimony and witness of christ? you can if you wish, but you know what that means for you..

That's not the point. Ask yourself, is your trinity logically consistent. If it is not, reject it. If you accept this logical inconsistency, then know that this life is not the end.

THE W
11-22-2012, 02:34 PM
horrible comparison. Moses led people to safety. The people who punished Jesus were hurtful. You think those people who punished Jesus were God's instruments instead of instruments of the devil??? So you believe it was God's will to punish Jesus through their hands?? Wow. Is this your selling point for Christianity?

the devil didnt decree jesus to be crucified for the sins of mankind, God the father did. but of course the devil participated. the point is this was all planned. everyone one else were pawns in the game.

you probably think this is a mean thing for God to do but that based on your world view.

But according to what you said earlier, he did for people's sins, so everybody, including Hitler, should be saved. EVERYBODY!!!

hitler didnt believe in jesus or follow him, so no.

You actually take the bible to be the uncorrupted truth after being translated (and mistranslated) to language after language resulting in changes of meaning, with some books being deleted and some parts even being intentionally changed by political forces? This is a house built on shaky foundation!!!

ok, show me the books that were excluded from the bible AND how they contradict the testimony of the books that are included.

also show me what the inocorrect translations are from the texts i referenced.

your other statements are about the bible's testimony of the trinity i'll answer in the order you made them.

1. nope, i said god is one BEING comprised of 3 PERSONS. the father, the son, and the holy spirit all make up that one being which is God. god the son praying to god the father for the father to glorify the son with the glory he had before taking on sinful flesh.


2. nope, i didnt say jesus was the father. they 2 different persons comprising the same being of God. if you dont believe jesus is God just as much as the father is God then you simply reject biblical testimony. if thats what you want to do..

3. not at all. the father has the greatest authority of the 3 persons but he chooses to give everything he has to the son because the son is perfectly obedient to the father and glorifies the father in all he does. so the father gives him everything.

4. its only logically inconsistant if you reject biblical testimony. its laid out clearly in scripture. the question is whether you except it or not.

furthermore, why exactly do you think it impossible for god, the all powerful creator, to be one being comprised of 3 persons?

are you a unitarian?

THE W
11-22-2012, 03:39 PM
something i want to expand upon further,

when Jesus who is God, along with the father who is God, came into creation as a human being through being birthed through mary, he took upon himself humanity.

he experienced hunger, thirst, fatigue, physical pain, and he also did what humans do to communicate with God, he prayed. jesus praying in john 17 is a display of the humanity that he was taking part in.

diggy
11-23-2012, 12:24 AM
ok, show me the books that were excluded from the bible AND how they contradict the testimony of the books that are included.

also show me what the inocorrect translations are from the texts i referenced.

It is a historical fact that the teachings of early 'christianity' has gone through many changes. I should not have to prove it to you because you should also know this fact. It should also be common sense that if words from one language is changed into another language and many other languages, many of its' meanings would be lost. There is again no need to prove it. It is a logical fact.


1. nope, i said god is one BEING comprised of 3 PERSONS. the father, the son, and the holy spirit all make up that one being which is God.

Once again, you've made a logical error. One is not comprised of 3. 1+1+1 cannot equal 1 in the mathematics I've learned. Who taught you math?


2. nope, i didnt say jesus was the father. they 2 different persons comprising the same being of God.

Another logical error.



furthermore, why exactly do you think it impossible for god, the all powerful creator, to be one being comprised of 3 persons?

are you a unitarian?

I've already explained that it makes no sense.





the temple is his body. it was destroyed by crucifixion and rebuilt in 3 days through the resurrection.


Well.....




Jesus Arrested

18 When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was an olive grove, and he and his disciples went into it.
2 Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. 3 So Judas came to the grove, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons.

The Death of Jesus

28 Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” 29 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. 30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath.


The Empty Tomb

20 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

Jesus Appears to His Disciples

19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!”


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19&version=NIV1984

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+20&version=NIV1984





1) When Jesus was arrested, they were carrying torches and lanterns. This must mean that they arrested him in the evening.

2) After he died, it is said that the next day is the sabbath, which is Saturday, meaning Jesus was arrested Friday evening.

3) Early in the first day of the week, in the morning, which is Sunday, Jesus is gone and the tomb is uncovered, implying the resurrection.

Now let's do the math:

Friday evening to Saturday evening is 1 day.
Saturday evening to Sunday morning is half a day.
That makes the death to resurrection 1 and a half day, not 3!!!!!


Now if you are to include the appearance of Jesus to the disciples, then Jesus appeared to them in the evening.

Math:

Friday evening to Saturday evening is 1 day.
Saturday evening to Sunday evening is 1 day.
That makes the death to resurrection 2 days!!! It is still not 3!!!!!



Your Christian belief is a house built on sand. My arguments knock it down!!!!!!

cj wisty
11-23-2012, 04:11 PM
ok i respect ur beliefs w but im going to make some points of mine i want to express

1 jesus dying for peoples sins

this is the conclusion that the early disciples came to. but theres only one time jesus himself makes any reference to his death as a sacrifice (and even this questionable) when he said the bread was his body. and even if it was a sacrifice it could be a sacrifice 4 anything.

jesus also went around simply forgiving sins with a few words before numerous times in the bible and they were forgiven so why did he have to sacrifice himself instead of just forgiving them with a few words.

jesus also didnt follow the law of moses before such as when he healed on the sabbath. so why suddenly follow the sacrificial laws. jesus also said when the pharisees complained about jesus not following the laws that they should learn what the scriptures mean by "i prefer mercy not sacrifice". so then why not rather the merciful manner of simply forgiving sins by saying "ur sins are forgiven" instead of the sacrifical method of sacrificing an innocent to forgive sins.

the sacrifice wasnt carried out probably because it has to be carried out in the temple and this isnt the same as destroying the temple itself.

i think jesus wanted to die because because he was convinced he was god and didnt fear death because he thought hed be resurrected, because any extremely tender and introverted person naturally wants to leave the world because they see it as cruel and because jesus was so gentle he couldnt even hit someone back, he could only turn the other cheek so naturally hed let people beat him up and kill him.

2 u shouldnt consult the bible in order to understand morality or how jesus would act because of his morals

its very clumsy with morals and it doesnt make an attempt to understand them.

the abrahamic god is an extremely clumsy construction. the jews tried to make him completely good and in doing so they just added lots of good qualities together even thought most of them cant exist together. a very good example is the omnibenevolent omnipotent paradox.

rather ask yourself the question why is it necessary for a christian to believe that omnibenevolence and omnipotence can exist together?

also look at this

"4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

its very clumsily put together. love is a strong emotion of personal attatchment so how is it not easily angered. jesus himself got extremely angry because of the injustice in his father's temple. he even exclaims "Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father's house a marketplace!". did jesus not get into this frenzy because of his personal attatchment to his father, because of his love.

so instead why was it necessary for the people paul was speaking to to believe that love is not easily angered

3 the bible doesnt approach life from a historical perspective

its made ahistorically with a fondness of metaphor. jesus was completely introverted. he lived in the kingdom of heaven which is completely seperated from the objective world. so he didnt look at history properly. he saw all history and the objective world as symbols and allegories. everything in the torah was just a symbol 4 him.

he went too far with metaphors sometimes and tried to see symbols in anything. jesus said hed rise on the third day but in matthew he says he'll spent 3 days and nights in the land of the dead just like jonah in the whale.

the bible actually contradicts that jesus was dead for 3 days and nights. but on the other hand matthew could be misquotin jesus.

also none of the new testament found came b4 the 2 century ad. the oldest manuscript they found is from 125 ad. and they could vary from the original.

http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

4 what is belief in jesus

kant said we dont know things in themselves but we only know how they appear to us.

so jesus appears as a different person to each person. we each look at him as a different person. even one person himself will think of him differently at different parts of his life. so then u can basicly make the argument that no one truly believes in the real jesus because no one fully understands what hes really like.

now schopenhauer actually disagreed with kant and said we can experience things in themselves eg our body. when we lift our own arm we experience it as a thing in itself. it isnt the same as watching someone else lift their own arm.

so in order to truly belief in jesus we have to know him as a thing in itself. but is this not more an experiencine than a belief. this experience is the kingdom of god. this experience is the will of jesus. the experience of being a child of god wandering with no real home and loving in a gentle manner.

christianity is therefore not a belief but an experience.

this was pauls greatest mistake. he didnt really know what type of believe it was.

jesus himself only looked at what things meant. he saw the world as a symbol. so believing jesus was a historical figure doesnt really matter.

diggy
11-23-2012, 09:00 PM
The W, your 3 day death/resurrection is NOT based on Jesus, but it is based on THE SUN!!! Your Christianity is infiltrated with pagan beliefs!!!!!!!!!!!!

THE W
11-23-2012, 10:59 PM
alright i will deal with FMJ first and then with rakim. im not gonna respond to the quotes in the post but the points being made in the post.


it is a fact that the bible has gone through changes

i fully acknowledge this fact,

what i am asking you to do is point out what those changes are and how they contradict the biblical testimony we have.

i also know there are books in the bible that have been omitted. what im asking you to do is tell me what books those are and how they contradict the testimony of the books we have.

ok?


the trinity, being that one God is comprised of 3 persons, is illogical

john 10:24-39

"the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”"

john 14:6-11

" Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?"

3 eternally communal persons equally sharing the same essence of God with the father having the highest authority and choosing to give authority to his son is illogical? if you say so.

just understand that the bible testifies to this. if you want to reject biblical testimony thats on you.

the bible does not testify to jesus being dead 3 days.


this is a good one and while i can look at the scriptures myself and resolve the "rise again on the third day" issue, "the 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth" requires a understanding of jewish customs that i dont have.

here's a link that resolves this issue
http://gracethrufaith.com/selah/holidays-and-holy-days/solving-the-three-day-three-night-mystery/

remember that jesus was a jew

so it seems there were two sabbaths. the special sabbath which was the feast of unleavened bread and the regular weekly sabbath. this would put chirst's death on thursday afternoon. he died and was buried on preparation day, which all 4 gospels testify to.

you might say the term "special sabbath" is only mentioned in the gospel of john. well, "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" is only quoted in the gospel of matthew.

THE W
11-23-2012, 11:01 PM
The W, your 3 day death/resurrection is NOT based on Jesus, but it is based on THE SUN!!! Your Christianity is infiltrated with pagan beliefs!!!!!!!!!!!!
i posted a zietgeist refuted video that speaks on this issue.

here it is

JFI6m6Icav4

THE W
11-23-2012, 11:19 PM
ok i respect ur beliefs w but im going to make some points of mine i want to express

1 jesus dying for peoples sins

this is the conclusion that the early disciples came to. but theres only one time jesus himself makes any reference to his death as a sacrifice (and even this questionable) when he said the bread was his body. and even if it was a sacrifice it could be a sacrifice 4 anything.

jesus also went around simply forgiving sins with a few words before numerous times in the bible and they were forgiven so why did he have to sacrifice himself instead of just forgiving them with a few words.

jesus also didnt follow the law of moses before such as when he healed on the sabbath. so why suddenly follow the sacrificial laws. jesus also said when the pharisees complained about jesus not following the laws that they should learn what the scriptures mean by "i prefer mercy not sacrifice". so then why not rather the merciful manner of simply forgiving sins by saying "ur sins are forgiven" instead of the sacrifical method of sacrificing an innocent to forgive sins.

the sacrifice wasnt carried out probably because it has to be carried out in the temple and this isnt the same as destroying the temple itself.

i think jesus wanted to die because because he was convinced he was god and didnt fear death because he thought hed be resurrected, because any extremely tender and introverted person naturally wants to leave the world because they see it as cruel and because jesus was so gentle he couldnt even hit someone back, he could only turn the other cheek so naturally hed let people beat him up and kill him.

2 u shouldnt consult the bible in order to understand morality or how jesus would act because of his morals

its very clumsy with morals and it doesnt make an attempt to understand them.

the abrahamic god is an extremely clumsy construction. the jews tried to make him completely good and in doing so they just added lots of good qualities together even thought most of them cant exist together. a very good example is the omnibenevolent omnipotent paradox.

rather ask yourself the question why is it necessary for a christian to believe that omnibenevolence and omnipotence can exist together?

also look at this

"4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

its very clumsily put together. love is a strong emotion of personal attatchment so how is it not easily angered. jesus himself got extremely angry because of the injustice in his father's temple. he even exclaims "Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father's house a marketplace!". did jesus not get into this frenzy because of his personal attatchment to his father, because of his love.

so instead why was it necessary for the people paul was speaking to to believe that love is not easily angered

3 the bible doesnt approach life from a historical perspective

its made ahistorically with a fondness of metaphor. jesus was completely introverted. he lived in the kingdom of heaven which is completely seperated from the objective world. so he didnt look at history properly. he saw all history and the objective world as symbols and allegories. everything in the torah was just a symbol 4 him.

he went too far with metaphors sometimes and tried to see symbols in anything. jesus said hed rise on the third day but in matthew he says he'll spent 3 days and nights in the land of the dead just like jonah in the whale.

the bible actually contradicts that jesus was dead for 3 days and nights. but on the other hand matthew could be misquotin jesus.

also none of the new testament found came b4 the 2 century ad. the oldest manuscript they found is from 125 ad. and they could vary from the original.

http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

4 what is belief in jesus

kant said we dont know things in themselves but we only know how they appear to us.

so jesus appears as a different person to each person. we each look at him as a different person. even one person himself will think of him differently at different parts of his life. so then u can basicly make the argument that no one truly believes in the real jesus because no one fully understands what hes really like.

now schopenhauer actually disagreed with kant and said we can experience things in themselves eg our body. when we lift our own arm we experience it as a thing in itself. it isnt the same as watching someone else lift their own arm.

so in order to truly belief in jesus we have to know him as a thing in itself. but is this not more an experiencine than a belief. this experience is the kingdom of god. this experience is the will of jesus. the experience of being a child of god wandering with no real home and loving in a gentle manner.

christianity is therefore not a belief but an experience.

this was pauls greatest mistake. he didnt really know what type of believe it was.

jesus himself only looked at what things meant. he saw the world as a symbol. so believing jesus was a historical figure doesnt really matter.
i'll respond to the first point on jesus' death for the forgiveness of sin

he doesnt have to repeat something 50 times for it be truth. when he says that his blood is the new covenant poured out for you it cant mean anything else but crucifixion added on top that him saying my body given for you.

you should check out the link i provided for FMJ on the 3 days 3nights thing. it explains this a whole lot better than i do.

jesus dying on the cross for our sins has been fortold since the old testament books.

thinking this shouldnt have happened because its cruel or unnecessary is to oppose the sovereignty of God the father.


as far as your other points and on the point above as well, they're all base on your personal world view. you can have that view if you wish and trying to change it was never in any way my intention.

i dont try to inject my world view into the scriptures. i only do exgesis as this is the only way scripture is to be understood. none of the views you present are in conjunction with sound exegesis of scriptural testimony and i dont think care for them to be as you seek to put God and his word under your judgement.

with that understanding there's isnt really anything left for us to discuss. CHRISTianity isnt for you.

diggy
11-24-2012, 06:35 PM
it is a fact that the bible has gone through changes

i fully acknowledge this fact,

what i am asking you to do is point out what those changes are and how they contradict the biblical testimony we have.


http://www.youtube.com/user/ancienthebreworg?feature=results_main






the trinity, being that one God is comprised of 3 persons, is illogical

john 10:24-39

"the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”"

john 14:6-11

" Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?"

3 eternally communal persons equally sharing the same essence of God with the father having the highest authority and choosing to give authority to his son is illogical? if you say so.

just understand that the bible testifies to this. if you want to reject biblical testimony thats on you.

Just cuz the bible says this, does not mean you should accept it even if it does not make sense.

the bible does not testify to jesus being dead 3 days.


this is a good one and while i can look at the scriptures myself and resolve the "rise again on the third day" issue, "the 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth" requires a understanding of jewish customs that i dont have.

here's a link that resolves this issue
http://gracethrufaith.com/selah/holidays-and-holy-days/solving-the-three-day-three-night-mystery/

remember that jesus was a jew

so it seems there were two sabbaths. the special sabbath which was the feast of unleavened bread and the regular weekly sabbath. this would put chirst's death on thursday afternoon. he died and was buried on preparation day, which all 4 gospels testify to.

you might say the term "special sabbath" is only mentioned in the gospel of john. well, "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" is only quoted in the gospel of matthew.




Jesus Arrested

18 When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was an olive grove, and he and his disciples went into it.

2 Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. 3 So Judas came to the grove, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons.Previous to Jesus being arrested and crucified and dying, he was having a feast with others, which means all of this must have taken place in the evening not the morning. You say Jesus died on Thursday? In order for that to happen, Jesus would have had to die on Thursday morning before dawn with the feast with others occurring in the dark of the night while most people would be asleep. People do not have feasts while others are sleeping. I'm pretty sure that your fellow Christians, that if you ask them if Jesus was having a feast with his followers and was arrested and hanged before dawn would disagree with you. It had to be the evening, which would make your 3 days and 3 nights not add up either way!!!!


You say he died in the afternoon? That still would not make 3 days 3 nights. He would have had to still be in his tomb right before Sunday afternoon for this to be true, but it was still dark on Sunday morning before it was discovered that his body was missing from the tomb.


Also, the link you gave said he died at 3pm. Which means he would have to still be in his tomb when the woman went to check it on Sunday morning, but his body was not there!!! You can't count his death starting from sunrise when his death was in the afternoon!!!. You must start counting at 3pm.

THE W
11-24-2012, 08:24 PM
here's something the article i posted caught that i didnt see.

luke 24:1-24



New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

The Resurrection

24 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7 ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” 8 Then they remembered his words.
9 When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. 11 But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. 12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.
On the Road to Emmaus

13Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2024&version=NIV1984#fen-NIV1984-25995a)] from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him.
17 He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?”
They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?”
19 “What things?” he asked.
“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.”this pretty much proves that jesus died on thursday. these events took place on sunday and these men said the crucifixion took place 3 days ago.

3 days ago from sunday - saturday, friday, thursday

so we're donna go through this. another thing that needs to be noted is a new jewish day begins at sundown, not midnight.

starting from 3pm

jesus dies in daytime thursday - day 1
sundown for friday, the special sabbath begins - night 1
sun rises for daytime friday - day 2
sundown for saturday, the weekly sabbath begins - night 2
sun rises for daytime saturday - day 3
sundown and we go into sunday - night 3

lukes states that the women were on their way to the tomb early in the morning. john says it was still dark, mark says just after sunrise, matthew says it was at dawn.

all 4 gospels testify to the women getting there and seeing the stone removed and evntually finding jesus' body gone.

THE W
11-24-2012, 08:40 PM
rise again on the 3rd day:

crucified thursday
dead friday - day 1
dead saturday - day 2
rises sunday - day 3

diggy
11-24-2012, 09:11 PM
Ok. Looks like I cannot go against the 3 day 3 nights successfully, but I have still proved your trinity to be illogical. Logically, a father and son cannot be the same person, therefore your trinity is false.

THE W
11-24-2012, 09:31 PM
you think voltron is illogical?

D.projectile
11-25-2012, 07:21 AM
http://www.spiritofthescripture.com/id534-moses-the-bronze-serpent-and-kundalini.html

cj wisty
11-25-2012, 10:37 AM
i'll respond to the first point on jesus' death for the forgiveness of sin

he doesnt have to repeat something 50 times for it be truth. when he says that his blood is the new covenant poured out for you it cant mean anything else but crucifixion added on top that him saying my body given for you.

you should check out the link i provided for FMJ on the 3 days 3nights thing. it explains this a whole lot better than i do.

jesus dying on the cross for our sins has been fortold since the old testament books.

thinking this shouldnt have happened because its cruel or unnecessary is to oppose the sovereignty of God the father.


as far as your other points and on the point above as well, they're all base on your personal world view. you can have that view if you wish and trying to change it was never in any way my intention.

i dont try to inject my world view into the scriptures. i only do exgesis as this is the only way scripture is to be understood. none of the views you present are in conjunction with sound exegesis of scriptural testimony and i dont think care for them to be as you seek to put God and his word under your judgement.

with that understanding there's isnt really anything left for us to discuss. CHRISTianity isnt for you.

u keep on making these massive assumptions. yes him dying on a cross is connected to a new covenant. but ur immediately jumping to the conclusion that hes doing it to get rid of our sin.

but it has been shown before that jesus could just forgive sins with a few words with gods permission. so a sacrafice is completely unnecessary. and a perfect god cant change his mind and say that at one moment a few words are necessary for sins to be forgiven and then the next minute a whole big sacrifice is needed. a perfect god cant change from one state to another because one of the states will be less perfect/good than the other which would imply god is going from a more perfect state to less perfect state or vice versa.

god never foretold that our sins would be forgiven with a sacrifice. he says our sins will be completely forgiven or else he compares jesus' death to a sacrifice but he never says our sins are forgiven because jesus died.

this is an errorenous judgement. the shift from christianity as an experience of the kingdom of heaven to a faith (i dont think kingdom of heaven is even mentioned in the bible after the gospels) as taught by paul also isnt good.

u say u live by the scripture but what if the disciples made mistakes (which they have)

christianity died when jesus died.

THE W
11-25-2012, 12:35 PM
http://www.spiritofthescripture.com/id534-moses-the-bronze-serpent-and-kundalini.html
the bible doesnt testify to the events of the bible being metaphorical or symbolic. they testify to them being a part of world history.

to think otherwise is to apply your own world view to the scriptures.

THE W
11-25-2012, 12:39 PM
u keep on making these massive assumptions. yes him dying on a cross is connected to a new covenant. but ur immediately jumping to the conclusion that hes doing it to get rid of our sin.

but it has been shown before that jesus could just forgive sins with a few words with gods permission. so a sacrafice is completely unnecessary. and a perfect god cant change his mind and say that at one moment a few words are necessary for sins to be forgiven and then the next minute a whole big sacrifice is needed. a perfect god cant change from one state to another because one of the states will be less perfect/good than the other which would imply god is going from a more perfect state to less perfect state or vice versa.

god never foretold that our sins would be forgiven with a sacrifice. he says our sins will be completely forgiven or else he compares jesus' death to a sacrifice but he never says our sins are forgiven because jesus died.

this is an errorenous judgement. the shift from christianity as an experience of the kingdom of heaven to a faith (i dont think kingdom of heaven is even mentioned in the bible after the gospels) as taught by paul also isnt good.

u say u live by the scripture but what if the disciples made mistakes (which they have)

christianity died when jesus died.
and you continue to apply your own world view to the scriptures. as i said, you can have the view if you wish. just know that it is in contradiction to biblical testimony.

you have made it clear you reject biblical testimony, there's nothing left for us to discuss.

LORD NOSE
11-25-2012, 01:12 PM
smdh

diggy
11-25-2012, 06:44 PM
you think voltron is illogical?

Are you implying that your trinity-God concept is like voltron?

If you are, then be aware that if one of the pieces is destroyed or for some reason cannot come together with the others, then Voltron cannot be formed!!!

You have stated that: trinity = ``the one being God or Godhead comprised of 3 persons. the father, the son, the holy spirit.``

Jesus died, therefore your conception of God or as you call it the Godhead AKA the trinity cannot exist (assuming it existed in the first place).

By the way, when you compare your ``God`` to a cartoon robot, that does not make your ``God`` look real!!

THE W
11-25-2012, 08:04 PM
Are you implying that your trinity-God concept is like voltron?

If you are, then be aware that if one of the pieces is destroyed or for some reason cannot come together with the others, then Voltron cannot be formed!!!

You have stated that: trinity = ``the one being God or Godhead comprised of 3 persons. the father, the son, the holy spirit.``

Jesus died, therefore your conception of God or as you call it the Godhead AKA the trinity cannot exist (assuming it existed in the first place).

By the way, when you compare your ``God`` to a cartoon robot, that does not make your ``God`` look real!!
it denounces your 1+1+1 cant equal one statement. voltron does just that. though voltron had more parts than 3 that came together to make one being which was voltron. do you think the concept of voltron is illogical?

jesus rose from the dead(he was not destroyed) and he returned to the father which was where he was at first.
john 16:28

so i guess your issue would be not believing someone can rise from death?

IrOnMaN
11-25-2012, 11:26 PM
Jesus isn't human, so the laws of death don't apply to him. He's perfect.

diggy
11-25-2012, 11:38 PM
it denounces your 1+1+1 cant equal one statement. voltron does just that. though voltron had more parts than 3 that came together to make one being which was voltron. do you think the concept of voltron is illogical?

jesus rose from the dead(he was not destroyed) and he returned to the father which was where he was at first.
john 16:28

so i guess your issue would be not believing someone can rise from death?



God does not need partners. If there is more than one God, then the lesser ones would fight for domination and there would be war in the heavens! Ultimately, there must be one God that made all this you see in the heavens and earth; logically, it had to start from one not three!

You are comparing God to Voltron, putting God in the wrong estimation! God has no comparison!

So you must believe that God died when Jesus died, which makes your concept of God perishable.

I believe it is possible to rise from death, so you are wrong on that.


Btw, the fact that you are comparing your conception of God to a cartoon character, should tell you something about the nature of your conception!!!

LORD NOSE
11-26-2012, 02:51 AM
Jesus isn't human, so the laws of death don't apply to him. He's perfect.


Matthew 27:46
About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

Mark 15:34
And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).


perfect aliens don't bleed and scream this on crosses


The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah — he will bring the king of Assyria." (Isaiah 7:10-17)


virgin birth

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/6470/signs101virgo.jpg

THE W
11-26-2012, 11:19 AM
God does not need partners. If there is more than one God, then the lesser ones would fight for domination and there would be war in the heavens! Ultimately, there must be one God that made all this you see in the heavens and earth; logically, it had to start from one not three!

You are comparing God to Voltron, putting God in the wrong estimation! God has no comparison!

So you must believe that God died when Jesus died, which makes your concept of God perishable.

I believe it is possible to rise from death, so you are wrong on that.


Btw, the fact that you are comparing your conception of God to a cartoon character, should tell you something about the nature of your conception!!!
your original argument was that the trinity is illogical because 3 things cant come together to make 1. the voltron example shows you that this is perfectly logical.

i dont recall saying God needed anything or that God couldnt have made the heavens and the earth without jesus. are you now dictating the means for how God can do things?

a fight for domination and a war in the heavens? this is an assumption based your own sinful alpha dog nature that has nothing to do with the attitude or relationship God the father had with christ and the holy spirit. its also not jesus or the holy spirit's attitude towards God the father. its completely based on your world view and cant be substantiated through scripture.

THE W
11-26-2012, 11:27 AM
Matthew 27:46
About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

Mark 15:34
And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).


perfect aliens don't bleed and scream this on crosses


The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah — he will bring the king of Assyria." (Isaiah 7:10-17)


virgin birth

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/6470/signs101virgo.jpg

answer:

something i want to expand upon further,

when Jesus who is God, along with the father who is God, came into creation as a human being through being birthed through mary, he took upon himself humanity.

he experienced hunger, thirst, fatigue, physical pain, and he also did what humans do to communicate with God, he prayed. jesus praying in john 17 is a display of the humanity that he was taking part in.


seems to me that you look at the scriptures as being full of fictional stories...or fairytales. thus rejecting the word of God.

if thats the case....you have a nice day!!

LORD NOSE
11-26-2012, 12:25 PM
answer:




seems to me that you look at the scriptures as being full of fictional stories...or fairytales. thus rejecting the word of God.

if thats the case....you have a nice day!!


i didn't ask any questions for you to answer


you are in here using voltron as an example for your trinity belief

seems to me like you don't reject the word of god and i do - so you have every right to reject me and treat me like shit - we worship 2 different gods

i believe in voltron and you believe that the father and the son are 2 people that are one who teams up with a 3rd ...being

so if you were my employer, you'd have every right to abuse me and with hold wages because i'm going to hell any way - i'm a sinner and you're a god fearing christian - it's ok for you to get together with fellow christians and burn down where i live - even though when i'm out and about, i treat everyone i come into contact with with love and respect - concern and consideration - i'm helpful to the old and disabled - i give money to the babies generously - despite their religion, race, or treatment of me - how dare i don't believe in 3 part god who is jealous of other gods

THE W
11-26-2012, 01:02 PM
uhh....cool story bro...:?

IrOnMaN
11-26-2012, 01:24 PM
Matthew 27:46
About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

Mark 15:34
And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).


perfect aliens don't bleed and scream this on crosses


The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah — he will bring the king of Assyria." (Isaiah 7:10-17)


virgin birth

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/6470/signs101virgo.jpg

Mentally, Jesus isn't human.

cj wisty
11-26-2012, 01:29 PM
http://www.spiritofthescripture.com/id534-moses-the-bronze-serpent-and-kundalini.html

ive heard that theory before and lots like it.

im not sure if i fully believe it but christians and jews have been doing that kind of thing for millenia.

trying to asign symbolic meaning to parts of jewish "history".

paul did it to the crossing of the red sea saying the israelites were baptised when they were crossing the red sea but i always thought that was clumsy because the water never actually touched the israelites and theres got to be water touching you if youre being baptised.

the theory u linked is very interested and could possibly be true

cj wisty
11-26-2012, 01:30 PM
Mentally, Jesus isn't human.

jesus is a tragic hero(not immortal) whose teachings were misunderstood by all as soon as he died.

LORD NOSE
11-26-2012, 01:56 PM
uhh....cool story bro...:?


i try

but it's not as cool as a father, a son, and a ghost being one person at separate times - that story is genius - and to get people to believe that this super natural voltron person made out of three people really exist is amazing - they deserve to be the elite

LORD NOSE
11-26-2012, 02:00 PM
Mentally, Jesus isn't human.


i can say the same about david blaine and MF Doom

but at the end of davids brilliant magic and dooms witty unpredictable lyrics, they both gotta sit on toilets and take shits


wiping excess do do from around their buttholes is a big part of it also -


people are gonna continue doing what they feel like doing despite how magical you are -

THE W
11-26-2012, 02:05 PM
i try

but it's not as cool as a father, a son, and a ghost being one person at separate times - that story is genius - and to get people to believe that this super natural voltron person made out of three people really exist is amazing - they deserve to be the elite
when jesus talks, i listen.

LORD NOSE
11-26-2012, 02:28 PM
it's all love and to each his own where he's at


God is unseen because if he wasn't, people wouldn't have room to grow and live out their lives in their way

the unseen has to give us room to shit in our diapers and get tired of the smell and grow -

the unseen may use one or a few from among you to guide you to a better existence

these heavenly sent people also make mistakes and may have used scare tactics in the past

to get you to "Obey"

today, we'll use better tactics



not to say that our tactics will become outdated in the future

but we use what we have when we have time on this planet to share

cj wisty
11-26-2012, 03:06 PM
i found another example of the early disciples sloppiness


David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,

7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam,

Rehoboam the father of Abijah,

Abijah the father of Asa,

8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,

Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,

Jehoram the father of Uzziah,

9 Uzziah the father of Jotham,

Jotham the father of Ahaz,

Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,

10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,

Manasseh the father of Amon,

Amon the father of Josiah,

11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[c] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.


12 After the exile to Babylon:

Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,

Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,

13 Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,

Abihud the father of Eliakim,

Eliakim the father of Azor,

14 Azor the father of Zadok,

Zadok the father of Akim,

Akim the father of Elihud,

15 Elihud the father of Eleazar,

Eleazar the father of Matthan,

Matthan the father of Jacob,

16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

jeremiah 22:30

This is what the LORD says: "Record this man(Jeconiah) as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah."

matthew clumsily tries to say jesus is a descendant of David and therefore a Messiah even though god says jeconiah should be considered childless and all his sons cut off from the royal bloodline therefore jesus cant be considered a descendant of king david nor can he be a messiah.

also compare this with luke 1:32

He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David.

the bible is an incredibly clumsy construction.

at least the ancient jews were clever with their trickery.

the disciples are stupid.

THE W
11-26-2012, 03:18 PM
here's what that verse in luke 1:32 is talking about

jeremiah 23:5-6

“The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will raise up to David[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+23&version=NIV1984#fen-NIV1984-19490a)] a righteous Branch,
a King who will reign wisely
and do what is just and right in the land.
6 In his days Judah will be saved
and Israel will live in safety.
This is the name by which he will be called:
The Lord Our Righteousness.God did what he said he would do in jeremiah 22:30 in not allowing any of johoaichin's offspring to inherit david's throne.

it was given to jesus.

cj wisty
11-26-2012, 03:27 PM
here's what that verse in luke 1:32 is talking about

jeremiah 23:5-6

“The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will raise up to David[a] a righteous Branch,
a King who will reign wisely
and do what is just and right in the land.
6 In his days Judah will be saved
and Israel will live in safety.
This is the name by which he will be called:
The Lord Our Righteousness.


the only thing clumsy here is your exegesis.

shame he cant sit on the throne of david like luke thinks.

shame that jesus cant be in a righteous branch of davids line because god cursed jeconiah and declared his line of descendants as illegitimate.

shame that in jesus' days judah and israel werent in safety.

shame that the torah says any descendant of jeconiah will not sit on davids throne or be a legitimate ruler of judah.

i cant see why u cant see the massive contradictions between matthew luke and jeremiah.

theres a difference between proper exegesis and selective reading. ur in the latter.

cj wisty
11-26-2012, 03:31 PM
11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[c] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.


12 After the exile to Babylon:

Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,

Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,

13 Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,

Abihud the father of Eliakim,

Eliakim the father of Azor,

14 Azor the father of Zadok,

Zadok the father of Akim,

Akim the father of Elihud,

15 Elihud the father of Eleazar,

Eleazar the father of Matthan,

Matthan the father of Jacob,

16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah

if u try and say jesus wasnt a descendant because of a virgin birth then thats going against the prophecy that the messiah would be a descendant of king david

THE W
11-26-2012, 04:22 PM
keep in mind this is God talking

isaiah 9:2-7

2 The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+9&version=NIV1984#fen-NIV1984-17832a)]
a light has dawned.
3 You have enlarged the nation
and increased their joy;
they rejoice before you
as people rejoice at the harvest,
as men rejoice
when dividing the plunder.
4 For as in the day of Midian’s defeat,
you have shattered
the yoke that burdens them,
the bar across their shoulders,
the rod of their oppressor.
5 Every warrior’s boot used in battle
and every garment rolled in blood
will be destined for burning,
will be fuel for the fire.
6For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor,[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+9&version=NIV1984#fen-NIV1984-17836b)] Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Lord Almighty
will accomplish this.

jesus was the descendent of david by a promise made by God, not by bloodline.

this is just conjecture on my part and not exegitcal but the people in the gospels calling jesus the "son of david" could be speaking metaphorically being that the succesor to the kings thrown is always the king's son unless all the king's sons die or the king is dethroned and replaced.

cj wisty
11-26-2012, 04:51 PM
keep in mind this is God talking

isaiah 9:2-7

jesus was the descendent of david by a promise made by God, not by bloodline.

what the hell does that mean. how can he be a descendant without a bloodline. u cant make someone a descendant with a promise lol.

they probably werent speaking metaphorically. the reason why they had a geneology was to show that jesus was a descendant of david

THE W
11-26-2012, 04:58 PM
matthew 19:26

"Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”"

cj wisty
11-26-2012, 05:02 PM
deuteronomy 12:30-31

30 and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, “How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same.” 31 You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.

jeremiah 19:4-6

4 For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned incense in it to gods that neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. 5 They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. 6 So beware, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when people will no longer call this place Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter.

psalm 106:37-38

37 They sacrificed their sons
and their daughters to false gods.
38 They shed innocent blood,
the blood of their sons and daughters,
whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan,
and the land was desecrated by their blood.

Ezekiel 16:20

"'And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough?

lmfao god certainly changed his mind about people sacrificing their own sons and daughters.

cj wisty
11-26-2012, 05:05 PM
matthew 19:26

"Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”"

thats stupid. u could say that about any contradiction or illogical statement.

THE W
11-26-2012, 05:29 PM
deuteronomy 12:30-31



jeremiah 19:4-6



psalm 106:37-38



Ezekiel 16:20



lmfao god certainly changed his mind about people sacrificing their own sons and daughters.
since all 4 verses mentioned say God doesnt like people sacrificing children to idols i dont see what you're getting at?

cj wisty
11-26-2012, 05:52 PM
since all 4 verses mentioned say God doesnt like people sacrificing children to idols i dont see what you're getting at?

31 You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.

i think the emphasis was on how they sacrificed offerings to their gods and not the gods themselves.

the last sentence was emphatic especially with the added "even" which expressed gods disgust at people offering their descendants as sacrifices.

cj wisty
11-26-2012, 05:55 PM
look at judges 11 when jephthah promised god hed sacrifice the first thing he saw as a burnt offering. the first thing he saw was his daughter but he didnt kill her but she was devoted to perpetual virginity

THE W
11-26-2012, 06:09 PM
i still dont see what you're getting at.

God doesnt want his people sacrifices children to idols.

God doesnt want his people worshipping other gods, period.

right.....?

cj wisty
11-26-2012, 06:32 PM
i still dont see what you're getting at.

God doesnt want his people sacrifices children to idols.

God doesnt want his people worshipping other gods, period.

right.....?

he expresses disgust at the thought of sacrificing children.

31 You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.

why do u think the last sentence is added in. why in the last sentence is disgust displayed at sons and daughters being burnt in fires.

why does he not talk about worshipping idols, in disgust, in the last sentence.

also take notice of the first phrase "You must not worship the Lord your God in their way"

so the subject is not on idols but rather on how a person should worship God. and what does God mean by "in their way". he means "detestable things the Lord hates".

one of those detestable things is the sacrifice of children.

therefore we can deduce that a person cannot worhsip God with human sacrifice.

THE W
11-26-2012, 07:09 PM
right...

God doesnt want burning people to death to be an activity for worshipping him.

...?

diggy
11-26-2012, 08:31 PM
your original argument was that the trinity is illogical because 3 things cant come together to make 1. the voltron example shows you that this is perfectly logical.

Your example is simply a false analogy. As such, you did not prove that it is logical because your 'example' is poorly suited. Can you not see that?

i dont recall saying God needed anything or that God couldnt have made the heavens and the earth without jesus. are you now dictating the means for how God can do things?

You did not explicitly say that, but it is implied if the trinity is your concept of God, which it is, and you compare this concept to Voltron.

So who made the heavens and the earth if I may ask, and what were the roles of Jesus and the 'holy spirit' in the making of it?

I am not dictating the means for how God can do things, but your concept of the trinity and your Voltron analogy implies it.

This is what happens when you use a false analogy.

a fight for domination and a war in the heavens? this is an assumption based your own sinful alpha dog nature that has nothing to do with the attitude or relationship God the father had with christ and the holy spirit. its also not jesus or the holy spirit's attitude towards God the father. its completely based on your world view and cant be substantiated through scripture.

Not based on my nature. Based on common sense and reasoning. If God is all powerful and you say God is one of 3, then it makes sense that each part would fight to have the highest status. One of them must be leader and put the others in check. What you would have is something like the Ancient Greek gods who plot on each other with war in the heavens and on earth. But I do not see war in the heavens and on earth. The heavens and earth seem to be in perfect order to me. This suggests ONE God not 3.

THE W
11-26-2012, 09:47 PM
how is it a false analogy when it shows that multiple things can become one entity? there's also the example of families, teams, and different materials making one building.

i already showed that God the father had supreme authority of the 3. jesus saying he was going back to the father because the father was greater than he was. him saying he does nothing on his own but only what he sees the father doing. him appearing to the disciples after his resurrection and saying all authority was given to him by God the father.

their being war in the heavens is, again, an assumption that cant be substantiated by anything and is actually contradicted by scriptural account of the relationship jesus had with God the father.

THE W
11-26-2012, 09:50 PM
shame on me for overlooking this:

luke 24:44-49

44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”

diggy
11-26-2012, 10:48 PM
how is it a false analogy when it shows that multiple things can become one entity? there's also the example of families, teams, and different materials making one building.

God, THE CREATOR, simply cannot be compared to Gods' CREATION. There is nothing like God, the Everliving. Nothing reproduced God and God does not reproduce.

For you to compare The CREATOR to it's CREATION is to put God into an inferior category, a category not of greatness, but weakness and transient.


i already showed that God the father had supreme authority of the 3. jesus saying he was going back to the father because the father was greater than he was. him saying he does nothing on his own but only what he sees the father doing. in the end all authority was given to him by God the father.

their being war in the heavens is, again, an assumption that cant be substantiated by anything and is actually contradicted by scriptural account of the relationship jesus had with God the father.

You still did not tell me the role of Jesus and the holy spirit in the creation of the heavens and earth!!!

The war in the heavens is not an assumption; it is a logical result of having more than one God and the Ancient Greeks have an example of that war in ancient writings. The Ancient Egyptians also have an example of what would happen if there is more than one God, if you care to look outside of your Bible!! But you choose to ignore this along with logic and common sense, and take your Bible to be infallible when it is in fact a book that has had it's meanings changed too much times to count, along with statements that are nonsensical which you can't seem to acknowledge.

THE W
11-27-2012, 12:36 AM
revalation 22:12-16

2 “Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. 14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22&version=NIV1984#fen-NIV1984-31081a)] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”


1 corinthians 8:5-6
For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

the bible doesnt tell us how the father, son, and holy spirit divided up the work of creation. though it does say in genesis 1:26 when God created man "then God said, let us make man in our image, in our likeness..."

john 8:54-58
Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” 57“You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
58 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.


why did they pick up stone to stone jesus? he was saying that he was God.

again, you have no standing to make your warring Gods claim. you're forcing a concept that is alien to biblical testimony onto the text turning God into something he never testified to in his word.

why would i go outside of scripture to define scripture? that would be eisegesis, which is erroneous practice in interpreting scripture.

diggy
11-27-2012, 03:37 AM
again, you have no standing to make your warring Gods claim. you're forcing a concept that is alien to biblical testimony onto the text turning God into something he never testified to in his word.

why would i go outside of scripture to define scripture? that would be eisegesis, which is erroneous practice in interpreting scripture.


Nope. Just trying to get you to use reason and common sense.

cj wisty
11-27-2012, 11:28 AM
right...

God doesnt want burning people to death to be an activity for worshipping him.

...?

and human sacrifice is a sinful offering to God.

jesus is a human sacrifice.

THE W
12-25-2012, 06:08 PM
and human sacrifice is a sinful offering to God.

jesus is a human sacrifice.
yes, it is a sin for man to murder.

i still dont see your point.

LORD NOSE
12-25-2012, 07:34 PM
it is a sin for man to murder until God commands man to murder

cj wisty
12-25-2012, 08:09 PM
yes, it is a sin for man to murder.

i still dont see your point.

the point is god despises human sacrifice but then with jesus he condones human sacrifice.

Drunken Monk
12-25-2012, 08:17 PM
death to religion and god

THE W
12-25-2012, 10:12 PM
the point is god despises human sacrifice but then with jesus he condones human sacrifice.
condones it for who?

D.projectile
12-27-2012, 07:25 AM
yo dont start this bullshit again

THE W
12-27-2012, 09:26 AM
it is a sin for man to murder until God commands man to murder

got a problem with that?

yo dont start this bullshit again

you dont have to participate in the discussion if you dont want to.

D.projectile
12-27-2012, 02:48 PM
got a problem with that?



you dont have to participate in the discussion if you dont want to.

why do u insist on doing this with dat other guy rakoolg..ur both trolling ..right?

D.projectile
12-27-2012, 02:51 PM
u scare a lot of dudes up in here mate. me included

THE W
12-27-2012, 04:17 PM
no trolling, just having a legitimate discussion.

Obey
01-06-2013, 07:13 PM
the point is god despises human sacrifice but then with jesus he condones human sacrifice.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Face of the Golden Falcon
01-07-2013, 05:42 AM
^
But God set the wages of sin as death. Then murders (sacrifices) his son (which is a sin) to pay for the sins of all? Where is the gift in any of that. Quoting Paul a self appointed apostle and admitted lier who never even met Yashu'a will never solve this (apparent) puzzle of Rakims and the W's.

Obey
01-07-2013, 07:12 PM
Jesus Christ offered himself, he could've decided to not go to Jerusalem.
God didn't kill Jesus lol the people did. Havent you read any of the gospels?


"From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day" (Matthew 16:21).

"Now while they were staying in Galilee, Jesus said to them, "The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him, and the third day He will be raised up." And they were exceedingly sorrowful" (Matthew 17:22-23).

"Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death, and deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify. And the third day He will rise again" (Matthew 20:18-19).

"And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again" (Mark 8:31).

"For He taught His disciples and said to them, "The Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him. And after He is killed, He will rise the third day." But they did not understand this saying, and were afraid to ask Him" (Mark 9:31-32).

"Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and deliver Him to the Gentiles; and they will mock Him, and scourge Him, and spit on Him, and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again" (Mark 10:33-34).

"And He strictly warned and commanded them to tell this to no one, saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day." Then He said to them all, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me" (Luke 9:21-23).

"Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished. For He will be delivered to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will scourge Him and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again." But they understood none of these things; this saying was hidden from them, and they did not know the things which were spoken" (Luke 18:31-34).

cj wisty
01-07-2013, 07:36 PM
why did jesus have to sacrifice himself?

christians say its because that was the only way to get rid of sins.

this isnt correct in the context of the torah. sacrifices arent needed for the forgiveness of sins. prayers can suffice for that and also human sacrifice is strictly forbidden and jesus was human. also the sacrifice has to be offered in the temple otherwise its useless.

also its against the torah to punish an innocent for the sins of the guilty. probably the biggest concern is why is sacrifice even necessary.

Longbongcilvaringz
01-07-2013, 08:09 PM
it is a sin for man to murder until God commands man to murder

got a problem with that?

lol :nonono:

Obey
01-07-2013, 08:48 PM
When Adam and Eve sinned, God gave them skins to clothe themselves Genesis 3:21. To get the skins, obviously an animal had to die. God sacrificed an animal to cover their sin. From the beginning, God has declared the payment for sin is death, and so innocent blood must be shed to cover up sin. The old covenant a lamb or goat we're sacrificed as payment of sin. Jesus Christ paying the ultimate price for our sins by shedding his innocent blood for us means he made a new covenant, so no longer do we need to sacrifice animals, all we need to do is believe he died on the cross for our sins.

Longbongcilvaringz
01-07-2013, 08:52 PM
Yes, we know, and it's disgusting from a moral perspective. But hey, the bible is generally and jesus teaching's were all over the place and pretty sickening in part.

"Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it."

I think everyone in this thread should go back to he first post and have a good think about it.

Obey
01-07-2013, 08:55 PM
What part of that scripture is sickening?

Longbongcilvaringz
01-07-2013, 09:10 PM
.... what's the point in going into it.... i'd just be introducing my worldview to the scripture, which according to The W, you can't do (what he's basing this on i don't know and don't care to).

The passage i posted is disgusting, if you don't think so, then why would i post more of the same?

At the least, the bible (both volumes) are full of contradictions in morality. Using what is written in these books as a moral foundation, today, is blatantly stupid. Which isn't to say all monotheists are stupid, they just can't let their intelligence influence their religious beliefs

Obey
01-07-2013, 09:39 PM
That passage meaning put God before everything?

And your saying the morals written thousands of years ago from the 10 commandments are stupid, and using them as a moral foundation in todays society would be blatantly stupid? Hello? We still use these today. If we used all of them imagine all the murders we'd save on cheating hoes, and hospitalising liars, and if we weren't jealous of others belongings, and all those killing themselves and others using Gods name in vain. Wouldn't life be more harmonic

Face of the Golden Falcon
01-08-2013, 12:40 AM
Jesus Christ offered himself, he could've decided to not go to Jerusalem.
God didn't kill Jesus lol the people did. Havent you read any of the gospels?

I've read the Gospels a number of times with different perspectives at different times.

It was quite obviously God's plan (according to Christianity/Paulism/Constantinism) that Jesus be murdered though. Which makes God in part morally culpable for that murder. The fact that he could not take responsiblility for his own plan and relied on deciet and having others do it for him is detestable. According to Torah blasphemy is punishable by death. They were following the instructions of their God when they murdered Jesus. If God had appeared in a burning bush to the Jews and said this Jesus guy is my Son and in fact me at the same time do you think the Jews would have murdered Jesus?

Obey
01-08-2013, 02:53 AM
John 14: 9-11 - Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?”

John 10:30-33 Jesus answered them, “I and My Father are one.” Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

Okay firstly Jesus was God manifested in the flesh. They killed him because they saw it as blasphemy as Jesus claimed to be God. So how could God kill Jesus lol or murder him, if Jesus is God?

Face of the Golden Falcon
01-08-2013, 03:38 AM
Okay firstly Jesus was God manifested in the flesh. They killed him because they saw it as blasphemy as Jesus claimed to be God. So how could God kill Jesus lol or murder him, if Jesus is God?

So God teaches the Jews that it is a blasphemy for a man to claim himself God then sends himself in human form claiming to be God and expects them to act different to which he had told them? They did exactly as they had been instructed even if it was immoral.

I don't know how God could kill himself, let alone raise himself from the dead (how can he be really dead if he can raise himself from it???). These are not questions for me to answer.

The bible is largely astrotheological. It serves far greater purpose and is much more beautiful when read with this understanding.

Longbongcilvaringz
01-08-2013, 04:12 AM
That passage meaning put God before everything?

And your saying the morals written thousands of years ago from the 10 commandments are stupid, and using them as a moral foundation in todays society would be blatantly stupid? Hello? We still use these today. If we used all of them imagine all the murders we'd save on cheating hoes, and hospitalising liars, and if we weren't jealous of others belongings, and all those killing themselves and others using Gods name in vain. Wouldn't life be more harmonic

These ideas of morality predate religion. Regardless, religion is not a bad early attempt at philosophy but all monotheistic religions have terribly flawed morality. You picked the ten commandments - a good illustrations of how flawed and outdated religious morality is.

Out of 10 infallible, unbreakable precepts, only 5 relate to morality.

6. You shall not murder.

7. You shall not commit adultery.

8. You shall not steal.

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house.

And these have been improved upon greatly by even early philosophy. If only half of these commandments have any relevance to building a moral foundation, and all of these can easily being improved upon with a more nuanced response, what modern value do the commandments really have?

As much as no one here wants to admit it, modern civilisation outgrew religious morality many hundreds of years ago. The few morally sound passages of the bible that remain don't validate the rest of the text and don't validate applying them as an absolutist moral framework.

I've read the Gospels a number of times with different perspectives at different times.

It was quite obviously God's plan (according to Christianity/Paulism/Constantinism) that Jesus be murdered though. Which makes God in part morally culpable for that murder. The fact that he could not take responsiblility for his own plan and relied on deciet and having others do it for him is detestable. According to Torah blasphemy is punishable by death. They were following the instructions of their God when they murdered Jesus. If God had appeared in a burning bush to the Jews and said this Jesus guy is my Son and in fact me at the same time do you think the Jews would have murdered Jesus?

So God teaches the Jews that it is a blasphemy for a man to claim himself God then sends himself in human form claiming to be God and expects them to act different to which he had told them? They did exactly as they had been instructed even if it was immoral.

I don't know how God could kill himself, let alone raise himself from the dead (how can he be really dead if he can raise himself from it???). These are not questions for me to answer.


Co sign. The story of Jesus is morally awful and his teachings, as written in the bible, were meandering, inconsistent and at times horrific.

But then again Christianity is full of masochism, punishment and violence, which is a reflection of the time period in which the texts were written but also serves as a tool to bewilder and frighten poorly educated people into subscribing to it.

Obey
01-08-2013, 05:48 AM
Longbong, correct me if I'm wrong, to me it looks like you're trying to justify your opinion with more opinion and without fact

Falcon, Jesus birth was prophesied, the Jews chose to believe Jesus was not God. Jesus didn't kill himself, he sacrificed his mortal body for the sins of every man who believes in him. He raised from the dead on the third day. He made Lazarus rise from death. He created everything, he can do anything. He is God

cj wisty
01-08-2013, 11:44 AM
Yes, we know, and it's disgusting from a moral perspective. But hey, the bible is generally and jesus teaching's were all over the place and pretty sickening in part.

"Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it."

I think everyone in this thread should go back to he first post and have a good think about it.

but how do you know jesus actually said that. isnt it totally possible that the author couldve put words into his mouth.

jesus said thinks like "forgive others and your sins will be forgiven". here he says sin is forgiven because of forgiving, not because of sacrifices.

but later paul tries to connect jesus' death with jewish sacrifice which is sloppy for many reasons.

also the gospels never actually mention the name of the author. it could be anyone called matthew/mark/luke or people pretending to be them.

in fact ive heard commentators state that marks gospel looks as if he used different sources and it wasnt written from his memory.

so how accurate are these other sources.

tbh i think its obvious that lots of people put their own words into jesus' mouth.

its impossible to be 100% certain what jesus' true teachings were but personally i always thought of him as a kind idiot and people just used his influence for their own selfish reasons.

Face of the Golden Falcon
01-08-2013, 09:25 PM
Falcon, Jesus birth was prophesied,

Obviously not very well. The Scribes and Pharisees apparently had no idea that the Messiah was actually going to be God in the Flesh. It was these guys whole life to study and interpret scripture but they missed that part some how?

the Jews chose to believe Jesus was not God.

They chose to believe what God had told them in the Torah. They obviously had no idea that God was going to deceive them like that. Like I said though it was obviously God's plan for Jesus to be murdered. Someone had to do the murdering and God tricked the Jews into thinking it was the right thing to do, which of course (according to christianity) it apparently was because if it wasn't for the trickery and murder we wouldn't have been saved from our sins???!?!?!

Jesus didn't kill himself, he sacrificed his mortal body for the sins of every man who believes in him.

Which is a beautifully poetic way of saying he killed himself. Thank you. That sort of emotional black mail may work in the pulpit on SUNday (did I mention astrotheology?) but not on me.

He raised from the dead on the third day. He made Lazarus rise from death. He created everything, he can do anything. He is God

We're not going to get far if you're going to pull the "He is God" arguement. I don't have a problem with anything being possible for God. That's not the arguement. Whether or not something is possible for God does not give any more or less credibility to the collection of writings called the Bible. It would not be possible for me to come on here and claim almighty God is a bearded fellow named Zeus who sits on a mountain hurling lightning bolts and it's true because I read it in an ancient writing and anything is possible for God. I would get shut down pretty quick.

THE W
01-08-2013, 09:51 PM
lol :nonono:
of course you have problem with it.

God doesnt have the right to do what he wants to with what he has created. he has to answer to you...a created thing.

the pot bossing the potter around??? (romans 9:19-21)

Obey
01-08-2013, 11:33 PM
Obviously not very well. The Scribes and Pharisees apparently had no idea that the Messiah was actually going to be God in the Flesh. It was these guys whole life to study and interpret scripture but they missed that part some how?



They chose to believe what God had told them in the Torah. They obviously had no idea that God was going to deceive them like that. Like I said though it was obviously God's plan for Jesus to be murdered. Someone had to do the murdering and God tricked the Jews into thinking it was the right thing to do, which of course (according to christianity) it apparently was because if it wasn't for the trickery and murder we wouldn't have been saved from our sins???!?!?!

How could God kill Jesus if Jesus is God? He laid down his life for our sins, it's not murder if you know its going to happen and yet you go to face it


We're not going to get far if you're going to pull the "He is God" arguement. I don't have a problem with anything being possible for God. That's not the arguement. Whether or not something is possible for God does not give any more or less credibility to the collection of writings called the Bible. It would not be possible for me to come on here and claim almighty God is a bearded fellow named Zeus who sits on a mountain hurling lightning bolts and it's true because I read it in an ancient writing and anything is possible for God. I would get shut down pretty quick.

If you had literal or historical facts then you'd hold a strong case. Whereas apart from all other evidence there are many prophecies fulfilled from the old testament.

Isaiah 7:14 (around 700BC) Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Face of the Golden Falcon
01-08-2013, 11:44 PM
Exactly. You don't have any actual facts. You cannot use the same book as evidence for the credibility of that book. Show other evidence that there was an historical virgin birth of a person named Jesus Christ.

Face of the Golden Falcon
01-08-2013, 11:56 PM
How could God kill Jesus if Jesus is God?

He is God. :)

Round and round we go.

He laid down his life for our sins, it's not murder if you know its going to happen and yet you go to face it.

He was killed. Which is still against the commandments of the Torah. And it was against his will. "Not my will by yours" Jesus said in the garden. That's murder.

This is not to even mention the schizophrenic God we've got going here that has his own will and the will of "his fathers" which according to christiopaulconstaninism are the same being.

Obey
01-09-2013, 12:09 AM
Name another book 2013 years old, or older that was written to the account of Christ or any religious prophet or leader for that matter. All the books in the Bible were written at different times in history and collaborated together forming the Bible. In other words, they were all once separate books

Obey
01-09-2013, 12:12 AM
He is God. :)

He was killed. Which is still against the commandments of the Torah. And it was against his will. "Not my will by yours" Jesus said in the garden. That's murder.

To me that sounds like he laid down his life. So you're saying God literally picked up the hammer and nails and killed him

Face of the Golden Falcon
01-09-2013, 01:04 AM
Name another book 2013 years old, or older that was written to the account of Christ or any religious prophet or leader for that matter. All the books in the Bible were written at different times in history and collaborated together forming the Bible. In other words, they were all once separate books

There are a number of books or writings from the same time span of the books in the bible that are about the Jews and/or Jesus that were left out of the Bible. Some don't account for either the birth or death of Jesus, some have the same events or similar as the gospel and have a person of a different name. One early christian scholar claimed that the notion that Jesus was crucified at 33 was absurd. The name escapes me, but that's all I'm going to say. I'm not going to find your evidence for you. Are you aware of the motives of the people who formed the Bible as a collection of books?

To me that sounds like he laid down his life. So you're saying God literally picked up the hammer and nails and killed him

I'm not saying anything. I'm playing Shiva's advocate to see if I can influence some questioning and addressing of the holes in your beliefs and in Biblical scripture.

So far when viewed from christiopaulisticonstantinism biblical scripture doesn't make a lick of sense unless you make a lot of excuses and use a lot of circular logic.

Obey
01-09-2013, 01:25 AM
Okay, so if you didn't realize I answered my own question in my statement. You further proved my statement to be true by saying there are other testimonies/letters/books not included in the Bible, which affirm Christs existence on earth, which I also know to be correct. You agreed there is other evidence of Jesus Christ. So what are you really getting at here?

Face of the Golden Falcon
01-09-2013, 02:49 AM
Okay, so if you didn't realize I answered my own question in my statement. You further proved my statement to be true by saying there are other testimonies/letters/books not included in the Bible, which affirm Christs existence on earth, which I also know to be correct. You agreed there is other evidence of Jesus Christ. So what are you really getting at here?

I asked for evidence of a virgin birth and I might also add crucified and risen Jesus Christ. I have no problem with the notion that an actual person who would have been called Yashu'a may have existed. The other astrotheological themes that were added to his life and claimed to be actual historic fact I'm going to need a whooooole lot of evidence for before I believe it.

Like I said there are writings for a historical Jesus, for a virgin birth, for a crucified Jesus, for a risen Jesus and every combination of those you can put together including none of them together at all. That coupled with the fact that these themes have also been added to the stories of countless "hero" figures of the past how do you compromise that with your beliefs?

Obey
01-09-2013, 03:19 AM
Jesus made many miracles happen. How else can there be any other, or better proof other than the writings of the people that followed him. His miracle birth is the same, only Mary and Joseph actually witnessed the miracle

Obey
01-09-2013, 03:25 AM
Isaiah 7:14 (around 700BC) Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
Evidence

Face of the Golden Falcon
01-10-2013, 03:58 AM
Round and round and up and down. It's been a helluva ride, but I'm hopping off.

Longbongcilvaringz
01-10-2013, 11:13 AM
but how do you know jesus actually said that. isnt it totally possible that the author couldve put words into his mouth.

jesus said thinks like "forgive others and your sins will be forgiven". here he says sin is forgiven because of forgiving, not because of sacrifices.

but later paul tries to connect jesus' death with jewish sacrifice which is sloppy for many reasons.

also the gospels never actually mention the name of the author. it could be anyone called matthew/mark/luke or people pretending to be them.

in fact ive heard commentators state that marks gospel looks as if he used different sources and it wasnt written from his memory.

so how accurate are these other sources.

tbh i think its obvious that lots of people put their own words into jesus' mouth.

its impossible to be 100% certain what jesus' true teachings were but personally i always thought of him as a kind idiot and people just used his influence for their own selfish reasons.

I'm talking about the New Testament character that is Jesus as this is the Jesus which Christians believe in. It's in this sense that the character's morals are sporadic and often unacceptable to me. As a historical figure i can accept Jesus as an important radical thinker....

It's not really important who wrote religious texts (they're collaborative, evolving products as someone mentioned anyway), i'm only addressing what is written in the books which religious people base their beliefs upon.

Longbongcilvaringz
01-10-2013, 11:21 AM
Longbong, correct me if I'm wrong, to me it looks like you're trying to justify your opinion with more opinion and without fact


Actually, i was expounding on what i previously said because you addressed it. I'm not trying to justify my opinion, i was trying to respond to your questions and comments about it. You've twice told me what i'm trying to say, and twice been off the mark, so obviously i'm not explaining myself in a way which you can understand... that's ok.

Your comment about "facts" is strange.... what facts should i be presenting in relation to my own views on morality? What moral facts exist in your opinion?

Are facts relevant to a thread most consisting of one guy stating that things written in a book are true because they're written in that book....

Obey
01-11-2013, 07:06 AM
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120317173333AABNda6

THE W
01-12-2013, 07:37 PM
but how do you know jesus actually said that. isnt it totally possible that the author couldve put words into his mouth.

jesus said thinks like "forgive others and your sins will be forgiven". here he says sin is forgiven because of forgiving, not because of sacrifices.

but later paul tries to connect jesus' death with jewish sacrifice which is sloppy for many reasons.

also the gospels never actually mention the name of the author. it could be anyone called matthew/mark/luke or people pretending to be them.

in fact ive heard commentators state that marks gospel looks as if he used different sources and it wasnt written from his memory.

so how accurate are these other sources.

tbh i think its obvious that lots of people put their own words into jesus' mouth.

its impossible to be 100% certain what jesus' true teachings were but personally i always thought of him as a kind idiot and people just used his influence for their own selfish reasons.
translation:

"i think the bible and everything in it is bullshit."

we got you..

THE W
01-24-2013, 12:23 PM
"forgive others and your sins will be forgiven"

"i desire mercy not sacrifice"

how do you know jesus actually said these things?

LORD NOSE
01-27-2013, 10:35 AM
i'm getting my post erased in the Hip Hop spot and in the digital underground for not being a christian -

THE W
01-27-2013, 04:20 PM
i didnt do it

LORD NOSE
01-27-2013, 04:26 PM
there were no post erased

Robert
01-27-2013, 11:42 PM
Okay, so if you didn't realize I answered my own question in my statement. You further proved my statement to be true by saying there are other testimonies/letters/books not included in the Bible, which affirm Christs existence on earth, which I also know to be correct. You agreed there is other evidence of Jesus Christ. So what are you really getting at here?


There is also 'evidence' of other 'prophets' operating in the same time period. These 'prophets also claimed they were the messiah and that they had the ability to perform miracles.

All these 'prophets' are just as legitimate as each other. The evidence for each performing miracles and actually being who they claimed to be is paper-thin.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to support your faith with evidence.

There is very little evidence for many of the claims made in the bible. However, this should be irrelevant to you. Embrace the mystery of faith and stop pretending there is conclusive evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Robert
01-27-2013, 11:46 PM
Evidence

It would really top it all off if you were a creationist too. You'd make a terrible detective.

Longbongcilvaringz
01-28-2013, 03:43 AM
i'm getting my post erased in the Hip Hop spot and in the digital underground for not being a christian -

i didnt do it

there were no post erased

haha