Church Vs. God.

[Khristo]

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]

Originally Posted by Khristo

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]

Did they even start the show?

[rakimkoolgrapwutang]

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]

Originally Posted by rakimkoolgrapwutang

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.

[rakimkoolgrapwutang]

Originally Posted by THE W

they did a good job of changing the word of jesus and getting their version of the word out.

fixed

[THE W]

Originally Posted by rakimkoolgrapwutang

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.

[rakimkoolgrapwutang]

Originally Posted by THE W

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]

jesus' references to salvation and eternal life are numerous in the gospels.

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

[rakimkoolgrapwutang]

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]

Originally Posted by rakimkoolgrapwutang

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.

[rakimkoolgrapwutang]

Originally Posted by Face of the Golden Falcon

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]

Originally Posted by rakimkoolgrapwutang

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.

[rakimkoolgrapwutang]

Originally Posted by THE W

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 19-10? no mention of sacrifice

matthew 24-14? 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.

[rakimkoolgrapwutang]

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"