NationStates Jolt Archive

Choose the description that fits him best in your mind; please explain if you choose "Other."

As I see it, Jesus seems to have been a character who was carefully crafted by the gospel writers using several Old Testament texts that spoke of an evil ruler who wanted to be worshipped as God. Although these rulers are not specifically named, they are given various suggestive titles, such as "King of Babylon" or "Lucifer" and "King of Tyrus" or "Prince of Tyrus," for example (Babylon means "confusion by mixing," "Lucifer" means "morning star," and Tyrus means "rock"). Some obvious examples of such passages can be found in Isaiah 14 (especially verses 12-19) and Ezekiel 28 (especially verses 1-19). Additionally, Jesus goes so far as to identify himself as the "morning star" in Revelations 22:16, making this hypothesis a bit difficult to dispute.

Also, two of the gospel writers (Matthew and Luke) went out of their way to craft genealogies that would actually prove that Jesus couldn't be the long awaited Jewish Messiah. First of all, the Messiah was supposed to be a descendent of King David through both Solomon and Asa. For another, the Messiah could not be a descendent of the cursed branch of Jeconiah. Neither genealogy showed the proper line of descendency through both Solomon and Asa, and both showed that he was descended from Jeconiah - either implicitly (Luke) or explicitly (Matthew). Why?

Combine these facts with some of the anti-family comments that have been attributed to Jesus by the gospel writers (among other things), and you seem to have a pretty unsavory character who is currently being worshipped as God by about a third of the world's population. Does this seem odd to anyone else besides me?

A prophet, a poet, and a one man band.

....One hell of a salesman!

Okay - I've never posted a poll here and I don't know why my message was allowed to be posted before I was finished with the poll part. D'oh!

Anyway - please vote now.

Thanks.

Jesus was a sensitive man

A kind man and respectable philosopher. In any case the minimum is a historical fact

and a one man band.
Jesus and the Apostles!
A mighty big band, with 13 members. Things go okay for a long time, they go around, earn some fans. But the record companies keep riding their asses about everything, and they end up with some enemies. Eventually their guitarist outs the lead singer's drug habit to the press and feels awful about it, so he commits suicide, after which the lead singer gets shot in a riot by some haters. Nobody sees him for a few days after, then he comes back with an awesome new outfit and tells the guys they'll be rocking out for the last time. They play a final concert, and the singer wanders off to a place he calls "Heaven"...

Oh hell, this is funny. Rewriting the New Testament into a band autobiography...
:D

There is a minimum of backup historically for even his existence (there was someone of that name in roman documents but beyond being a prisoner the rest is unverified)

I think if he existed he was probably a preacher that got too much attributed to him

I think if he existed he was probably a preacher that got too much attributed to himSeconded.

Jesus and the Apostles!
A mighty big band, with 13 members. Things go okay for a long time, they go around, earn some fans. But the record companies keep riding their asses about everything, and they end up with some enemies. Eventually their guitarist outs the lead singer's drug habit to the press and feels awful about it, so he commits suicide, after which the lead singer gets shot in a riot by some haters. Nobody sees him for a few days after, then he comes back with an awesome new outfit and tells the guys they'll be rocking out for the last time. They play a final concert, and the singer wanders off to a place he calls "Heaven"...

Oh hell, this is funny. Rewriting the New Testament into a band autobiography...
:D
Hey. I was in a band called the "31 Apostles From Hell" :D

Oh hell, this is funny. Rewriting the New Testament into a band autobiography...
:D

*snicker* ... a VH1 "Behind the Music: Jesus"

I ticked "fictional" and "preacher". It's a myth with a true core; there was probably someone called that, and he had some great ideas (compare some of what he said to some of the Old Testament - "eye for an eye" vs. "turn the other cheek" etc). Then, in some kind of church agenda, he got blown out of all context and proportion.

Whether his fictional status of divinity was supposed to cement his values, or distract from them is doubtful. When you're talking about someone who spurned material possessions, loved his enemies and gave up his life, it is much easier to avoid following his example if he's a God. Nobody asks you to follow the example of a God. If he were mortal, there would be some unpleasant implication that we, each of us, could or should do the same. No hypocrisy, you'd have to put the rest of yourself where your mouth is. Not a pleasant thought...

"Jesus of Nazareth" was historically documented, so saying he's completely mythical is a bit ignorant.

Of course, I'm not about to say that Jesus did all of the stuff as purported in the Bible, but to say that "Jesus" is just something somebody made up is about as bad as believing Creationism hook, line, and sinker ;)

People!!! :headbang: Is everyone in the world blind?! Jesus is the son of God! He is our savior, and he loves us forever no matter what we have done, what we are doing, or what we will do. He's the caring God that wants the best for us! He's the only true God! Do you not realize that he died on the cross, a VERY VERY painful death, for our sins?! We were doomed to Hell before he died for us! Do you not see this? He wants you to accept him, because he will always love you and care for you. Even though sometimes, bad things might happen that make you want to question wheter or not there is a God, you need to understand that it is always happens for a reason. If you want eternal life after you die... If you want a caring, loving, and amazing God... If you want to be forgiven for your sins and always accepted... Then just pray to God right now, yes right now!, and ask him to forgive your sins. Ask him to come into your life forever and love you. Tell him you are sorry of all of your sins! And Amen. If any of you have any questions, please telegram me on nationstates. (Drpep) I will be happy to help. You are all in my prayers.

"Jesus of Nazareth" was historically documented, so saying he's completely mythical is a bit ignorant.

And where is this contemporary historical documentation? Oh, I know you didn't say "contemporary", but if the only "historical" documentation that exists was recorded only after his death, then it's really only hearsay - which wouldn't count in a court of law and it doesn't count with me either. What if the only existing documentation of Abraham Lincoln's life had been recorded about a generation following his death - wouldn't that be at least a little bit suspect in your mind?

People!!! :headbang: Is everyone in the world blind?! Jesus is the son of God! He is our savior, and he loves us forever no matter what we have done, what we are doing, or what we will do. He's the caring God that wants the best for us! He's the only true God! Do you not realize that he died on the cross, a VERY VERY painful death, for our sins?! We were doomed to Hell before he died for us! Do you not see this? He wants you to accept him, because he will always love you and care for you. Even though sometimes, bad things might happen that make you want to question wheter or not there is a God, you need to understand that it is always happens for a reason. If you want eternal life after you die... If you want a caring, loving, and amazing God... If you want to be forgiven for your sins and always accepted... Then just pray to God right now, yes right now!, and ask him to forgive your sins. Ask him to come into your life forever and love you. Tell him you are sorry of all of your sins! And Amen. If any of you have any questions, please telegram me on nationstates. (Drpep) I will be happy to help. You are all in my prayers.

Ehhh theres been worse then crusifictions ;) other humans have died much worse and more painfull deaths ;)

Uh ptery The bible was written during Jesus' time. Please just listen to what I have posted, all of you! People, you just have to remember, God will always love you no matter what

Pterodonia~
If your thesis holds true, why did the early Christian community revere Jesus as the Son of God and of the messianic line? They could, of course, be very wrong, but it seems unlikely that such a dramatic reversal would take place. Especially because the Church put together the canon of Scripture. Folks will argue about the exact date (see below), but it is difficult to maintain that it was brought together before the 3rd or 4th century, alongside or after the emergence of a Christian heirarchy. So why not just pick a different set of books? There were plenty of gosples floating around.

~Pimeria

Athanasius in 367, published a list of books suitable for reading during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as a regional canon for the Eastern Church. Pope Damasus I in 382 approved the work of the first Council of Constantinople, accepting Athanasius’ list. Then the Council of Hippo, a regional council of the Diocese of Africa, in 393 reaffirmed the Decree of Damasus. The Council of Carthage in 397 also reaffirmed the Decree. Carthage, unlike Hippo, sent its decisions to Rome for ratification. Pope Boniface I (418-422) ratified the decision and declared the canon settled for the Western Patriarchate. He also sent the decision to the Eastern patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At that point, the universal Canon of Sacred Scripture was informally accepted worldwide. The Fourth Council of Carthage in 419 reaffirmed Pope Boniface. The Second Council of Nicea in 787 ratified the same canon as authoritative for the Eastern Churches.

Upwars Thrust, if you think, that there have been worse deaths, then watch the passion of the christ. Dude, I'll GIVE you The Passion of the Christ, if you just watch it.

quit while you are ahead Drpep. Christian beliefs don't seem to be welcome on this site. Just look at some of the other topics on God to see what I mean

Hey pimeria, Jesus Was the son of God. I just know this. I would realy like to talk to all of you about this, so just TG me. I'm going camping for 2 days but I will get back to you right away. I'm on for about ten minutes right now though
:)

First off, I found a few things wrong with this...

"Additionally, Jesus goes so far as to identify himself as the "morning star" in Revelations 22:16..."

Jesus has no spoken word in Revelation. The book is a prophetic vision that Paul had received about the seven years prior to Christ's second-coming.

As for the whole Lucifer bit, please understand: Satan is Lucifer, Lucifer is Satan. Whether you believe it or not, it goes as such: Lucifer was an angel, one of God's topmost, if you will. He lusted for a greater power, and believed that he himself could be as powerfuil (if not more) than God Himself. This, of course, was the wrong thing to do, and since God is Holy (meaning a complete lack of sin), he cast Lucifer into Hell, along with the angels that followed Lucifer's plan (about 1/3 of them), and named Lucifer 'Satan,' which means 'accuser,' or 'adversary.'


------------------

"Also, two of the gospel writers (Matthew and Luke) went out of their way to craft genealogies that would actually prove that Jesus couldn't be the long awaited Jewish Messiah. First of all, the Messiah was supposed to be a descendent of King David through both Solomon and Asa. For another, the Messiah could not be a descendent of the cursed branch of Jeconiah. Neither genealogy showed the proper line of descendency through both Solomon and Asa, and both showed that he was descended from Jeconiah - either implicitly (Luke) or explicitly (Matthew). Why?"

Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so Luke 3:23 [which says 'son of Heli'] should be understood to mean 'son-in-law of Heli.') thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word 'son' is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either 'son' or 'son-in-law' in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David--Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon's line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah's sin. (Neither Joseph nor any others of Jechoniah's seed could ever have the spiritual right to the throne. That right must be carried through Mary's ancestry, which helps explain why a virgin birth.)

Hope that can explain some.

Hey pimeria, Jesus Was the son of God. I just know this. I would realy like to talk to all of you about this, so just TG me. I'm going camping for 2 days but I will get back to you right away. I'm on for about ten minutes right now though
:)
And how do you "know" this?

Aeruillin~
Your idea that Jesus was deified to make following his example easier (or avoidable) would be insightful, except that history doesn't bear it out. The earliest sources confirm that the Christian community generally believed Jesus was fully human, as well as being fully divine (a notion they formally accepted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451).

As for your comment about 'some kind of church agenda,' I think this dovetails with Pterodonia's comments on contemporary documents. All the early Christian leaders were killed for their beliefs. This does not of course mean that they were right, but it does raise some thorny questions: If the gosples were false, why did those who would know so willingly die attesting to their veractiy? In my opinion, there have been major religions founded by mentally unsound persons, and perhaps Christianity is the same, but I think its worth noting that there many not be a lot of room for middle ground here.

~Pimeria

Jesus was a brave man. Brave enough to go against the the established church and the farisees (don't know how to spell it in english). After his death Peter (or whatever you call him in English) turned Jesus' jewish preachings into the exact thing that Jesus fought against.
If anyone is the son of the Devil it's Peter (assuming of course, that Satan does exist, wich I do not believe). Peter also changed the image of Jesus to make him look like the son of God (whom I don't believe exists, either), almost the oppsoite of what Jesus claimed to be. So, if anyone's Antichrist, it's Jesus (strange, is it not?). Now, before you grab your shotguns and assault rifles to shoot me, read any of the books written by Nietzche.

Kocht~
Revelation is actually from John of Patmos (perhaps the same as the gosple writer), but your point still holds that its a prophetic vision.

~Pimeria

People!!! :headbang: Is everyone in the world blind?! Jesus is the son of God! He is our savior, and he loves us forever no matter what we have done, what we are doing, or what we will do. He's the caring God that wants the best for us! He's the only true God! Do you not realize that he died on the cross, a VERY VERY painful death, for our sins?! We were doomed to Hell before he died for us! Do you not see this? He wants you to accept him, because he will always love you and care for you. Even though sometimes, bad things might happen that make you want to question wheter or not there is a God, you need to understand that it is always happens for a reason. If you want eternal life after you die... If you want a caring, loving, and amazing God... If you want to be forgiven for your sins and always accepted... Then just pray to God right now, yes right now!, and ask him to forgive your sins. Ask him to come into your life forever and love you. Tell him you are sorry of all of your sins! And Amen. If any of you have any questions, please telegram me on nationstates. (Drpep) I will be happy to help. You are all in my prayers.


Will you be open minded? Will you put your faith to the test of reason?

Why do you believe what you have been told? Is there one bit of evidence?

If you say I feel it I say you felt it also when your parents told you Santa Claus existed the only difference is that other affirmed your disbelief but In the biblegod and jesus ( who may have existed) though he was illiterate and could not wirite. Here is some info take the time needed to study it throughly

http://jesusneverexisted.com/

"And how do you "know" this?"

We don't. That's why it's called "having faith," and not "having fact." Some of us just don't need "all the facts."

Sure, sounds idiotic, and that we're blindly being led to what falseness we want to believe, and maybe it's true, but I still have faith nonetheless.

I'm not trying to force myself upon you, trying to force you to 'believe' with us. I'm not trying to pull you "from the dark side," because I can't. Not in my power. There is no physically possible way that I could force you to believe. Oh, through pain and threat I can make you say you believe, but that doesn't do anything. Plus, I wouldn't do that, because it's just plain wrong.

So, if we're not hurting anybody, if we're not trying to force you into "our group," if we're not threatening you (or maybe we are, we just don't know it), then why should you care? Why put up all the hubbub for something you don't believe in, but we do? I mean, if we're wrong in the end, and you are right, what happens then? Do we just... Not exist? If that's the case, then where's the harm in putting trust in something that helps us live through day-to-day circumstances?

True-to-life story. Eight months ago, I was in a car accident. Coming home from a movie about 1:45 AM, with my girlfriend in the passenger's seat, I was driving in the leftmost lane, and I was hit by a drunk driver on the right. He pushed my '01 Mazda Protege against the concrete median, at roughly 90mph. He pushed me alongside for a few seconds, before flipping me and my girlfriend over the median, into the oncoming side. Luckily, at 1:45AM, there was only one car, and it had managed to get out of the way.

I spent two months in the hospital for two broken ribs, a nearly-destroyed leg, and internal bleeding. My girlfriend, on the other hand, spent three months in ICU and another month after in general care.

What does this have to do with anything, you ask? Well, for me, I spent most of my time in the hospital bed scared as nothing else for Katie, and the thought that I may never get to hold her again. I spent a lot of time in prayer, and in reading the Bible. Partly because I had nothing else to do (because there's nothing but crap on TV nowadays), and partly because I was scared out of my mind. After the first week, I felt a peace come over me. Sounds stupid, like something out of a "Jesus" film, but that's what I felt. I wasn't scared, because I had faith that if Katie didn't make it through this, she'd be in a "better place," as people tend to put it. Yay for us all, she survived and now only has a bit of pain, but she's here, and I see her every day.

Faith keeps us going. Hope keeps us alive when times are hard. There's nothing out there that says you have to believe in God or Christ or however you want it put. There's nothing out there that says you have to comply with those that do. But why be argumentative about it all? Why try to prove people wrong for believing in something that they can't prove is right, and you can't prove is wrong? It just doesn't make sense.

Will you be open minded? Will you put your faith to the test of reason?

Why do you believe what you have been told? Is there one bit of evidence?

If you say I feel it I say you felt it also when your parents told you Santa Claus existed the only difference is that other affirmed your disbelief but In the biblegod and jesus ( who may have existed) though he was illiterate and could not wirite. Here is some info take the time needed to study it throughly

http://jesusneverexisted.com/

Okay, Jesus was not illeterate. He couldn't have been. Jesus was Jewish, and Jewish custom is to read from the Torah, which is in Hebrew. So, I'm sorry but you're wrong on that count.

And the same could be said towards you. Will you be open minded towards our faith? Can you put your lack of faith to test of reason? Why do you believe what you have been told?

Relative Liberty~
I don't think you can say that Peter or anyone else distorted Jesus' original preaching. Not that it couldn't have happened, but we only have a limited number of sources, written by his disciples, which leave a lot of unanswered questions. Since we don't have Jesus' personal diary or interviews or anything of the sort, we don't know what his original preaching was, except as its transmitted to us via the gosples. Thus, if we are to talk about Jesus at all, we are left with only the gosples and the writings of the early disciples about his teachings (as much as it pains me as a historian to have to say so).

~Pimeria

....One hell of a salesman!

He was all of the first 4 options amalgamated into a gooey Jesus-type creature.

Okay, Jesus was not illeterate. He couldn't have been. Jesus was Jewish, and Jewish custom is to read from the Torah, which is in Hebrew. So, I'm sorry but you're wrong on that count.

And the same could be said towards you. Will you be open minded towards our faith? Can you put your lack of faith to test of reason? Why do you believe what you have been told?
Not only hebrew ... if I remember correctly also aramaic

Relative Liberty~
I don't think you can say that Peter or anyone else distorted Jesus' original preaching. Not that it couldn't have happened, but we only have a limited number of sources, written by his disciples, which leave a lot of unanswered questions. Since we don't have Jesus' personal diary or interviews or anything of the sort, we don't know what his original preaching was, except as its transmitted to us via the gosples. Thus, if we are to talk about Jesus at all, we are left with only the gosples and the writings of the early disciples about his teachings (as much as it pains me as a historian to have to say so).

~Pimeria

Also, on that note, why would they (especially Peter and Paul) have gone through what they went through and died their deaths?

If it was all a lie, if the Apostles took Jesus' body out of the tomb and hid it, why did they go through everything? Peter was crucified. And, because he did not believe he was worthy to be killed as Christ was, he was crucified upside-down.

As for Paul, well... Here...

This was written by Paul to the church in Corinth while Paul was in prison for preaching about Christ:

2 Corinthians 11:16-29

16I repeat: Let no one take me for a fool. But if you do, then receive me just as you would a fool, so that I may do a little boasting. 17In this selfconfident boasting I am not talking as the Lord would, but as a fool. 18Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast. 19You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! 20In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or pushes himself forward or slaps you in the face. 21To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that!

What anyone else dares to boast about–I am speaking as a fool–I also dare to boast about. 22Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I. 23Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. 27I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. 28Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. 29Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn?

what i think (if he existed) is that he was a person who thought he was the son of God.

" It was well known how profitable this fable of Christ has been to us."
Pope Leo X

How about this? Jesus is the Greek/Latin translation of the Hebrew name Yeshua. And in very early comments in the Talmud (Jewish holy book) a man by the name of Yeshua Ben Stada/Pandera claimed to be the Son of God. More information about him is referenced here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandera).

Possibly, since the New Testament is actually a collection of writings from various times and various authors after the death of Jesus (source cited here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_testament)). I'd say it's possible that Jesus existed, probably was crucified, and was raised up as the Son of God by his followers. However, the likelihood of he himself making the claim seems rather preposterous. He probably had some good ideas, as well, and I doubt he had the notion of leading the entirety of the Hebrew people astray from their teachings.

In conclusion, I'd like to state to all bible reading Christians who weren't already aware of the fact, The bible is made of two parts. The Old Testament, which is accepted by at least 3 mainstream religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. While, on the other hand, The New Testament seems to be accepted only by Christianity. The New Testament was not all written at the same time, rather it was written by several authors, some of whom may or may not be the names of the books written (i.e. Matthew may have been written by Matthew's student Icarus). And that each of the books in The New Testament we have today were edited and canonized by the early (and later) Catholic Church. Many, if not most of these books were not canonized and can be found in other collections of gospels.

Okay, Jesus was not illeterate. He couldn't have been. Jesus was Jewish, and Jewish custom is to read from the Torah, which is in Hebrew. So, I'm sorry but you're wrong on that count.

And the same could be said towards you. Will you be open minded towards our faith? Can you put your lack of faith to test of reason? Why do you believe what you have been told?

I have examined almost all known resources and study logic.

First I checked the history of the bible. It was put together by man with a yea and nay vote does not sound to divine to me.

I did not start with a blind belief. I held to no belief until objective evidence shows itself. I have read and studied the bible throughly and intently.

I have studied the "for" argument and the "against" arguments.

Most who have faith have been drilled with "it is wrong to question your faith" and they do not do a through job of it.

study here read the age of reason by Thomas Paine
http://www.deism.org/frames.htm

This website believes in God through reason not faith
Faith: unquestioned belief specifacally in god.

That is the defintion of faith used if someone wants to pervert the defintion used here that is fine but you only fool yourself.

Study and learn the bible is false it is written by man for man showing a god that is a tyrant and torturer.

Disganistan~
I do not think it at all unlikely that Jesus claimed divinity, given that he was crucified (according to the gosples, for that very claim). Indeed, C. S. Lewis, a man who came to faith by reason, makes his argument along such lines. One would do well to read his Mere Christianity, but here's a short passage, from Chapter 3 of Book II, following Lewis' discussion of Jesus' claim to forgive sins:

'I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.'

~Pimeria

I have been reading all of the posts and am quite impressed with the knowledge that has been passed around. So i am going to add some more. We all have a basic knowledge of the Bible. That there are two sections, old and new. The old testament and it entirety was translated into greek (it called the Septuagint) 300 years before Jesus. In the book of Daniel (which is part of the old testament and is in the Septuagint) predicts the exact day that Jesus was born. The entire old testament is filled with typologies of Christ. In the book of Genesis you have Abraham and Isaac. Abraham was promised a son, the son became Isaac. God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son that was promised to him and Abraham obeyed. Just before the knife was to fall, God saw Abraham's obedience and replaced the sacrafice with a ram. Isaac is an old testament 'type' of Christ.

Another type Christ is found in the sacrifices that were ordered of the Israelites. The one that involves the atonement of sins involves two goats. There is a lot cast and one goat lives and the other is the 'scapgoat' it is allowed to be freed. Jesus was the one that was chosen to die and the scapgoat is us.

There are over 200 prophecies that are in the old testament that were fulfilled by Jesus. The first four letters were written 50-70 years after Jesus' death. yes, there was alot of time that went by. But if a person never existed even after the fact, then how can you explain why the way we tell time is by that date. You all must still remember, B.C. and A.D. (Before Christ, Anno Domini/The year of our Lord).

I know that i can not argue to your rational mind. I know that i can not make you see, i myself do not have the power of persuasion. To those who have an hear let them hear.

I am not perfect, i have sinned, still do. But by the Grace of God i am forgiven and do not stand in judgment before him. "arise shine for His light is upon you."

To reply to the way the canon was organized. It was not left up to a yay or nay vote. They collected all known religious writings that contained Jesus or any thing remotely close. Then they compared the writings and the letters. They probably started with the 5 first letters and then went from there. If there was a letter that did agree to the standard then it was thrown out. It was very methodically done and not so haphazard as you might think.

I have been reading all of the posts and am quite impressed with the knowledge that has been passed around. So i am going to add some more. We all have a basic knowledge of the Bible. That there are two sections, old and new. The old testament and it entirety was translated into greek (it called the Septuagint) 300 years before Jesus. In the book of Daniel (which is part of the old testament and is in the Septuagint) predicts the exact day that Jesus was born. The entire old testament is filled with typologies of Christ. In the book of Genesis you have Abraham and Isaac. Abraham was promised a son, the son became Isaac. God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son that was promised to him and Abraham obeyed. Just before the knife was to fall, God saw Abraham's obedience and replaced the sacrafice with a ram. Isaac is an old testament 'type' of Christ.

Another type Christ is found in the sacrifices that were ordered of the Israelites. The one that involves the atonement of sins involves two goats. There is a lot cast and one goat lives and the other is the 'scapgoat' it is allowed to be freed. Jesus was the one that was chosen to die and the scapgoat is us.

There are over 200 prophecies that are in the old testament that were fulfilled by Jesus. The first four letters were written 50-70 years after Jesus' death. yes, there was alot of time that went by. But if a person never existed even after the fact, then how can you explain why the way we tell time is by that date. You all must still remember, B.C. and A.D. (Before Christ, Anno Domini/The year of our Lord).

I know that i can not argue to your rational mind. I know that i can not make you see, i myself do not have the power of persuasion. To those who have an hear let them hear.

I am not perfect, i have sinned, still do. But by the Grace of God i am forgiven and do not stand in judgment before him. "arise shine for His light is upon you."

Phrophecies fulfilled? I can show where some tried to make it appear that they were fulfilled but it is a horrid reach.

Here is one essay please if you really are of open mind then remove your bias and read this and there are many more like it to displace the myth of Jesus. I am sure the ancient greeks used to laugh when talking to one another about how foolish the Sumerian "mythology" was.

Read this.
http://www.deism.com/paine_essay03.htm

Yoshua Ben Yosef?

from what ive read of the bible, what ive been taught in school etc, Jesus seems like a really cool guy. he was all for equality, helping out those less fortunate, and he was a drifter.

his parables and teachings about helping your neighbour and all that stuff are fundamently good ways to live your life, he had good ideas and teachings.

its just a bit of a pity that some crazy church has interpreted his teachings the way it has, i dont think he would be too fond of the Catholic church (or indeed any of the protestant ones) if he were around today...

dont think he was the son of god though, i dont believe in god. i just think he was a very wise philosopher

so basically, i think Jesus was right on the money about how to live life etc, but the various christian churches have twisted his message...

Disganistan~
I do not think it at all unlikely that Jesus claimed divinity, given that he was crucified (according to the gosples, for that very claim). Indeed, C. S. Lewis, a man who came to faith by reason, makes his argument along such lines. One would do well to read his Mere Christianity, but here's a short passage, from Chapter 3 of Book II, following Lewis' discussion of Jesus' claim to forgive sins:

'I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.'

~Pimeria


I'm not here to argue, Pimeria, simply to state my own personal opinion and to express some of the knowledge I've gained in my life. I've read Mere Christianity and wasn't particularly impressed by C.S. Lewis' logic. Which of course, isn't to say he wasn't a great author (still love reading The Chronicles of Narnia) just that he assumes a lot of things that might not be best assumed. But I don't really want to debate on C.S. Lewis.

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

...

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?

...

Many bible stories are given only once or twice, and are therefore hard to confirm. The author of Matthew, for example, was the only one to mention that at the crucifixion dead people emerged from the graves of Jerusalem, walking around showing themselves to everyone--an amazing event that could hardly escape the notice of the other Gospel writers, or any other historians of the period. But though the silence of others might weaken the likelihood of a story, it does not disprove it. Disconfirmation comes with contradictions.

Thomas Paine tackled this matter two hundred years ago in The Age of Reason, stumbling across dozens of New Testament discrepancies:

"I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted," he wrote, "first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true."

Since Easter is told by five different writers, it gives one of the best chances to confirm or disconfirm the account. Christians should welcome the opportunity.

One of the first problems I found is in Matthew 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.

Yet Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived: "And they said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great."

Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote: Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot have happened both before and after they arrived.

Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past) tense, and it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account. Matthew 28:2 begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can be so easily shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the flood before the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?

Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a mountain in Galilee (not in Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as predicted by the angel sitting on the newly moved rock: "And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." This must have been of supreme importance, since this was the message of God via the angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself sixty hours earlier, during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32).

After receiving this angelic message, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:16-17) Reading this at face value, and in context, it is clear that Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?

Mark agrees with Matthew's account of the angel's Galilee message, but gives a different story about the first appearance. Luke and John give different angel messages and then radically contradict Matthew. Luke shows the first appearance on the road to Emmaus and then in a room in Jerusalem. John says it happened later than evening in a room, minus Thomas. These angel messages, locations, and travels during the day are impossible to reconcile.

Believers sometimes use the analogy of the five blind men examining an elephant, all coming away with a different definition: tree trunk (leg), rope (tail), hose (trunk), wall (side), and fabric (ear). People who use this argument forget that each of the blind men was wrong: an elephant is not a rope or a tree. You can put the five parts together to arrive at a noncontradictory aggregate of the entire animal. This hasn't been done with the resurrection.

Another analogy sometimes used by apologists is comparing the resurrection contradictions to differing accounts given by witnesses of an auto accident. If one witness said the vehicle was green and the other said it was blue, that could be accounted for by different angles, lighting, perception, or definitions of words. The important thing, they claim, is that they do agree on the basic story--there was an accident, there was a resurrection.

I am not a fundamentalist inerrantist. I'm not demanding that the evangelists must have been expert, infallible witnesses. (None of them claims to have been at the tomb itself, anyway.) But what if one person said the auto accident happened in Chicago and the other said it happened in Milwaukee? At least one of these witnesses has serious problems with the truth.

Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away! Could they all have traveled 150 miles that day, by foot, trudging up to Galilee for the first appearance, then back to Jerusalem for the evening meal? There is no mention of any horses, but twelve well-conditioned thoroughbreds racing at breakneck speed, as the crow flies, would need about five hours for the trip, without a rest. And during this madcap scenario, could Jesus have found time for a leisurely stroll to Emmaus, accepting, "toward evening," an invitation to dinner? Something is very wrong here.

I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist, or even that he wasn't resurrected, just that we don't know. Perhaps the apostles' memories were a bit fuzzy after waiting years to write their letters. Who's to say one way or the other? The New Testament is inconsistent with itself and therefore cannot be used to chronologically order events in Jesus' life. Or, even, that he ever said any of the things he is credited with. Jesus has done wonders for our world. In his name, wars have been raged, people have been murdered, technology and science hindered, and hatred spread. All in the name of righteousness.

I'm sure you, as a Christian, are familiar with the concept of original sin. Christianity is the first religion in history to come up with this. Judaism doesn't have it, Islam doesn't have it, Hinduism doesn't have it, Egyptian mythology didn't have it. It seems to me that the idea that people will go to hell the instant they are born if not baptized seems rather ridiculous. What on earth has a child done at his/her moment of birth? This very argument is used to attack abortion and it's proponents. Original sin is a tool of fear and of threats, as is Hell and the Devil. Forcing people to do exactly as an All-Powerful God commands for fear of hell and eternal torment is immoral. As a humanist I detest this lack of respect for human morality.

Who is Jesus? I'll sum it up:

1)The only begotten Son of God, seated at the right hand of God the Father, part of the Trinity.

2)The Way, the Truth, and the Life (no one comes to the Father but through Him -- so says Jesus).

3)Savior of mankind

4)Brilliant

5)Understanding but not morally loose

6)Alpha and Omega, Bright Morning Star, Lamb of God, Messiah, etc.

7)Compassionate: Was willing to die an agonizing death -- having done nothing wrong -- just so that we could avoid hell, since without Him and His blood we are damned. He died for billions he'd never met.

that should just about sum up Jesus.

Twice now today I have seen "a fictional character" and "a book of mythology" together in a sentence, as if the one has anything to do with the other. I'm just here to say they don't. A book of mythology can be written about a real person every bit as much as a fictional one. "Myth" (in the context of a religious mythology) and "fiction" are not necessarily synonymous. "Myth" (in the context of its modern usage) is equated to a "lie", but don't mistakenly think that a religious mythology is all lies (synonymous to "a work of fiction"). If a book contains stories that can be used as metaphor of a more ephemeral truth, then it qualifies as a myth whether or not the stories are factually correct.

Who is Jesus? I'll sum it up:

1)The only begotten Son of God, seated at the right hand of God the Father, part of the Trinity.

2)The Way, the Truth, and the Life (no one comes to the Father but through Him -- so says Jesus).

3)Savior of mankind

4)Brilliant

5)Understanding but not morally loose

6)Alpha and Omega, Bright Morning Star, Lamb of God, Messiah, etc.

7)Compassionate: Was willing to die an agonizing death -- having done nothing wrong -- just so that we could avoid hell, since without Him and His blood we are damned. He died for billions he'd never met.

that should just about sum up Jesus.


Lol even if you buyinto the bible how do you come up with Brilliant? lol

Someone back there stated the following:

"What if the only existing documentation of Abraham Lincoln's life had been recorded about a generation following his death - wouldn't that be at least a little bit suspect in your mind?"

Just for the record, there is absolutely no contemporary account of Alexander the Great that has survived to the present day. In fact, the oldest surviving text that even mentions good ol' Al was written over a century after his death. The earliest Gospels, by comparison, were written while there still would have been people alive that would have remembered their subject. Despite that, I have very little doubt that Mr. A. Great existed.

Same goes for J.C. You can't dismiss Jesus as a historical figure for lack of contemporary documentation without dismissing other historical heavy hitters who also are lacking in the document department. Whether or not Alexander and Jesus did everything ancient writers said they did is another argument entirely, however.

Someone back there stated the following:

"What if the only existing documentation of Abraham Lincoln's life had been recorded about a generation following his death - wouldn't that be at least a little bit suspect in your mind?"

Just for the record, there is absolutely no contemporary account of Alexander the Great that has survived to the present day. In fact, the oldest surviving text that even mentions good ol' Al was written over a century after his death. The earliest Gospels, by comparison, were written while there still would have been people alive that would have remembered their subject. Despite that, I have very little doubt that Mr. A. Great existed.

Yes, but at least there once existed a number of full accounts written of him by his contemporaries (e.g., his court historian Callisthenes, his general Ptolemy, and a camp engineer Aristoboulus), which were later used as sources by other authors before they were lost.

Not that I believe everything that was ever written about Alexander either - just as with Jesus, there was a lot of nonsense written about him that could not possibly have been true (e.g., his own court historian claimed the sea in Cicilia prostrated itself before him, while another (Onesicritus) went so far as to invent an affair between Alexander and the mythical Amazon queen, Thalestris). But then, neither do I believe that George Washington never told a lie or that Abraham Lincoln really gave a damn about the slaves. I once believed those things, but of course, I'm no longer 7 years old.

Same goes for J.C. You can't dismiss Jesus as a historical figure for lack of contemporary documentation without dismissing other historical heavy hitters who also are lacking in the document department. Whether or not Alexander and Jesus did everything ancient writers said they did is another argument entirely, however.

I agree with you - to a point. But there happens to be a lot more historical evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great than there is for Jesus. I'm not saying that Jesus definitely never existed - I just have serious doubts about it and there's nothing that definitively proves it in my mind. But even if he did exist, then probably at least 90% of what is written about him can be dismissed as legend making. He wasn't God incarnate or the Son of God. He didn't walk on water, raise the dead or literally feed thousands with a couple of loaves and fishes. Herod didn't kill all male children under the age of 2 because of him, and the Magi never visited him as he lay in the manger.

I could go on and on all day long listing the stories I do not believe about him, but I think you get the point. No one ever existed who matches the biblical description of Jesus 100% (or anywhere even close to it). If he existed at all, then he was just an itinerant preacher who had a different take on the Jewish scriptures than most of the Rabbis of his day, and who was popular with society's rejects.

...the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

And on a side note, for any of you Nietzsche-huggers out there, I ask this honestly. Please explain to me how anyone needed to 'pervert his views into Nazism'. For how much I disagree with the man, I do love reading him, and I don't see where it took any work to do that. The basic tenents are all there, but even on the backs of those books there's the mandatory note that his views were perverted into Nazism.

P.S. I apologize sincerely for not using any quotes, I seem to have lost those books and a few other favorites of mine last time I flew home. So far I have't had any luck tracking them down. Either they got thrown out by a janitor, some passenger walked off with them, or a TSA worker acquired a nice set of books on the rather cheap side.

Uh ptery The bible was written during Jesus' time. Please just listen to what I have posted, all of you! People, you just have to remember, God will always love you no matter what

I am a christian, and i KNOW what you just said is untrue. THe gospels were written ~40-60 AD. Believe me...i know....whole NT survey couse. And Paul wasn't even alive when jesus was crucified.

I agree with you - to a point. But there happens to be a lot more historical evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great than there is for Jesus. I'm not saying that Jesus definitely never existed - I just have serious doubts about it and there's nothing that definitively proves it in my mind. But even if he did exist, then probably at least 90% of what is written about him can be dismissed as legend making. He wasn't God incarnate or the Son of God. He didn't walk on water, raise the dead or literally feed thousands with a couple of loaves and fishes. Herod didn't kill all male children under the age of 2 because of him, and the Magi never visited him as he lay in the manger.
society's rejects.

Well, for one, i have seen the dead raised, but i won't go into that becasue chances are, someme will flame me. The bible never said the Magi Visited him while he was in the manger. THe bible clearly sais they went to the house where the child was. Not a barn, not a baby. And there is no proof that harod didn;t kill all male children under 2 in Bethlehem. Anyone who beleived he was the messiah would revolt against the current governemnt (herod and the curent roman contingent) because their messiah had come. Jesus, had the jews beleived his message, could have been a powerful threat to the absolute power of the romans.

[QUOTE=
I think if he existed he was probably a preacher that got too much attributed to him[/QUOTE]

I agree. He was some dude who was speaking out against a repressive society for his people, and was martyred by the Romans.

I notice that there a 6 votes for jesus being the antichrist. Could someone please explain how that could even be possible. It's like saying that "1 = -1".

i voted other and here is the reason why:
he wasnt the son of god or whatever, but as the bible states, he was the king of jews. i mean that quite litterally: he was the successor to the throne of judea. at the time, the romans occupied judea, and didnt like the idea of there being a king, so put a puppet in. of course, when jesus was found out about, he was instantly persercuted. his diciples were more like a king's court. and unlike latter kings, he was a king for the people, not of the people. he was a leader.

I notice that there a 6 votes for jesus being the antichrist. Could someone please explain how that could even be possible. It's like saying that "1 = -1".

If we're talking absolute value here, then |1| does indeed equal |-1|.

But I digress...

According to the Old Testament, it is specifically stated that God is not a man, and the point is driven home many times over that God is One and there is no savior beside him. He also promised to send a stumblingblock to ensnare idolatrous Jews who failed to comprehend this message. Jesus certainly seems to fit the whole stumblingblock image quite nicely. Old Testament "prophesies" were corrupted in order to "prove" that Jesus was the son of God (e.g., Isaiah 7:14). Jesus led unfaithful Jews to believe it was suddenly okay to cast aside the Old Testament laws - somehow they no longer applied. Not only did he allow others to believe he was the son of God and/or God incarnate, he intentionally misused Old Testament scriptures to imply that all to whom the word of God came were also gods. He even succeeded in getting a third of the world to worship him as God! Of all the Old Testament passages that seem to point to Jesus, I'd say the one that fits him the best is Isaiah 14 (especially verses 12-19), which is the only place in the KJV where "Lucifer" is mentioned. Lucifer means "morning star." At the end of Revelations, chapter 22, verse 16, IN RED LETTERS, it says:

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

And what do you think is meant by the "abominable branch" phrase in Isaiah 14:19? Two of the gospel writers went through some trouble to demonstrate that Jesus could not be the long-awaited Jewish Messiah as he was descended from the cursed branch of Jeconiah! Matthew came right out with it, boldly stating that "Jechonias begat Salathiel," who in turn begat Zorobabel and so on. Luke was a bit more subtle about it, by apparently mentioning Salathiel's father-in-law, or perhaps a step-father (Neri), rather than noting the actual biological relationship to Jechonias as Matthew did. Now why did they go through the trouble of making sure their audience understood that Jesus did not have the correct pedigree to be the Messiah (who, of course, was supposed to be a descendent of King David, specifically through the line of Solomon and Asa)? And let's face it, while it may be somewhat of an obscure point to you and me, as Jews, their audience should have been well aware of this.

Additionally, the image of the Serpent in connection with Jesus slithers almost subliminally through the gospel of John - and it's really quite interesting when you start paying attention to this image. Everyone's favorite bible verse seems to be John 3:16 - but how about starting a couple of verses before that - you know, where John explicitly links Jesus with the brass serpent that Moses made in the desert? But don't stop there - read about where Hezekiah named the brazen serpent Nehushtan and destroyed it because the people were mistakenly worshipping it. Also, read John 15:22 where Jesus claims credit for introducing sin to the world by talking to an unidentified "them". Well - when was sin introduced into the world and who did the talking? And how did God curse the serpent when it was discovered he had done this deed? He said that he would go upon his belly and eat dust all the days of his life. Don't you find it at least somewhat suggestive that, in John 12:32, Jesus stated that if he were lifted up from the earth, he would draw all men to him?

There's so much more, but that should start you thinking a bit. If it doesn't, then face it, you really don't care to know who Jesus was. And what did Jesus say about the dangers of not knowing who he was? Didn't he say that only those who did the will of God would earn the coveted "Get out of Hell free" card, and if you failed to do that, he would simply disown you (Matthew 7:21)? Of course, he was talking to the Jews, who should have known exactly what the will of God was - as it was pretty clearly outlined for them in the Old Testament. And by the way, if you're not a Jew, then Jesus wasn't sent to talk to you, was he?

*mutters something unintelligible*

I've heard from some Christians that The Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in Christ. What exactly this means, I don't know, but the very idea that any person can ignore whatever parts of The Old Testament they choose and still quote it is beyond me.

i voted other and here is the reason why:
he wasnt the son of god or whatever, but as the bible states, he was the king of jews. i mean that quite litterally: he was the successor to the throne of judea. at the time, the romans occupied judea, and didnt like the idea of there being a king, so put a puppet in. of course, when jesus was found out about, he was instantly persercuted. his diciples were more like a king's court. and unlike latter kings, he was a king for the people, not of the people. he was a leader.
But this kind of thinking causes trouble with standard Catholic belief

For Jesus to be king of the Jews he would have to be in the lineage of the throne (which goes back to Adam)

Original sin works on the theory that all decedents of Adam are born with sin, therefore Jesus would have been born with sin if they do believe he was king of the Jews

Most believe he is the son of god and that removes him from the lineage of Adam … but it also removes him from throne inheritance

Who is Jesus? I'll sum it up:

1)The only begotten Son of God, seated at the right hand of God the Father, part of the Trinity.

2)The Way, the Truth, and the Life (no one comes to the Father but through Him -- so says Jesus).

3)Savior of mankind

4)Brilliant

5)Understanding but not morally loose

6)Alpha and Omega, Bright Morning Star, Lamb of God, Messiah, etc.

7)Compassionate: Was willing to die an agonizing death -- having done nothing wrong -- just so that we could avoid hell, since without Him and His blood we are damned. He died for billions he'd never met.

that should just about sum up Jesus.

Very good post. But expect to get flamed by half these people, as, apparently, being a Christian and having our beliefs isn't too popular around here.

Very good post. But expect to get flamed by half these people, as, apparently, being a Christian and having our beliefs isn't too popular around here.
And that was posted at least a day ago ... no flaming (on this board a day is a long time) amazing

we may want to know why he thinks that way but challanging ones faith is hardly flaming

But this kind of thinking causes trouble with standard Catholic belief

For Jesus to be king of the Jews he would have to be in the lineage of the throne (which goes back to Adam)

Original sin works on the theory that all decedents of Adam are born with sin, therefore Jesus would have been born with sin if they do believe he was king of the Jews

Most believe he is the son of god and that removes him from the lineage of Adam … but it also removes him from throne inheritance

Or He's both. ;)

Or He's both. ;)
If he was both he would take on the qualities of both so he was both a sinner and sin free

Interesting viewpoint but it still leaves the statement that he was a sinner completely valid (as well as sin free)

(argued ourselfs into a standstill)

Normal guy methinks, a nice person by all accounts but son of 'God' goes a bit far.
Must have a lot of patience though; imagine your dad sending 12 people to follow you constantly.

If he was both he would take on the qualities of both so he was both a sinner and sin free

Interesting viewpoint but it still leaves the statement that he was a sinner completely valid (as well as sin free)

(argued ourselfs into a standstill)

This is part of the mystery of the incarnation. The way I see it, He took on the weaknesses of every human as a result of 4000 years of the degeneration of sin, while at the sametime remaining completely sinless. The perfect, spotless, pure Lamb of God.

How they can both be reality is a mystery I'll have to ask Him about when I meet Him in person.

Jesus was the son of Jewish carpenter and he had a really cool idea that is best summed up in the words of Bill and Ted "Be excellent to each other!" the rest well I think is blown out of proportion.

This is part of the mystery of the incarnation. The way I see it, He took on the weaknesses of every human as a result of 4000 years of the degeneration of sin, while at the sametime remaining completely sinless. The perfect, spotless, pure Lamb of God.

How they can both be reality is a mystery I'll have to ask Him about when I meet Him in person.
I suppose so unless we got more detales on the situation there really is no way to reason forward lol

I suppose so unless we got more detales on the situation there really is no way to reason forward lol


That's about the truth of it.

Phrophecies fulfilled? I can show where some tried to make it appear that they were fulfilled but it is a horrid reach.

Here is one essay please if you really are of open mind then remove your bias and read this and there are many more like it to displace the myth of Jesus. I am sure the ancient greeks used to laugh when talking to one another about how foolish the Sumerian "mythology" was.

Read this.
http://www.deism.com/paine_essay03.htm



I read the essay and i did find it to be quite extensive. Personally i have read the Bible (still read it). And i do believe int eh personhood of Jesus and the Messaih and as the son of God despite what I have read. The writer of the essay does not mention the term double reference. This refers to how a prophecy can be true at the time spoken and still refer to a future date. Hence how you can the virgin bearing a child refer to Ahaz's child and Mary. I didn't count how many prophecies that the essay writer went into. But for the sake of discussion i have found a few sights that support the Bible and their research in the prophecies.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prophchr.html
http://www.cynet.com/Jesus/prophecy/ntquoted.htm

I believe the Bible to be the written word of God. I base everything from the Bible including my judgement. I have been a believer all of my life and i have never known anyone to be more faithful than my Lord in heaven. To be honest i don't like to debate, it actually just gets each person more dug into their own opinion. I may be wrong but it sure feels that way most of the time. I don't know if i said it in this post or in another one but I can not persuade anyone to believe in what i say or what the Bible says. I myself do not have that power nor do i claim to. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit that anyone comes to Christ. It was that way with me and with everyone else that is a Christian. So there you have it. May God bless you in your pursuit of truth. Of course you can guess where i hope your answers truly lead you but in any case, I do not judge anyone for believing differently. And if it seems that i do or i come off that way, i apologize it was not my intention.

That's about the truth of it.
Ok here is one that has been puzzling me maybe you got a better perspective


Now god is omnipotent right

Now with the Christian god the there is the trinity … is each of them separately omnipotent or only them as one (a lot of people consider Jesus after risen to be omnipotent himself) but I guess I have not studied enough to know what doctrine says

personally, im atheist. better yet i am a rastafari.

i believe that if there was a jesus he was just some other man, that had certain dreams and ideas that were good. dont get me wrong if humans would live in anarchy it would only work in small societies where everyone knew and trusted eachother.

jezus in my opinion had great ideas based on the simple virtues we were supposed to follow anyways.

BUT! humans during the years wrote the bible, changed details here and there, lost some text and created new ones by translation, massacred thousands of people if not millions in the name of god.

christ sacrificed himself to take up human sin. and what do we do? we go ahead and screw it up by saying " its gods will" every time we killed a person of another faith. if there is a god its turned its back on us long ago.

IMO i believe god is energy, gaia, the source of all life. he is in the water you drink the air you breathe, heck even the bombs we throw. we just decided to harness this energy and convert it to malevolance.

(i know some ppl will say im generalizing too much. there are good people out there and they are trying their best to save our planet or be the best person they can be.)

peace out peepz

Let's think, a hero, born to a mortal woman and son of god, with incredible powers, accomplished much, died, returned from the dead and ascended into heaven...
.
.
.
Aha, Jesus "was" Heracles!

Or WAS he anything? Is there any extra biblical evidence of the existance of this character? Beyond jumpin'-Josephus?

I think there's more evidence of a real Huck Finn, isn't there?

Pterodonia,

What is your reference to the Jeconiah curse? I've never heard that before.

Thanks

sorry, just a few things I'd like to point out after reading these posts...

1. "Satan" is not Lucifer. Lucifer occupied the position in heaven of 'Ha-Satan'. Scholars and historians agree that 'Satan' (meaning the devil) only emerges into the Bible through a translation error that probably occured back when it had to be scribed by hand. The only true Satan is in the old testement, he was an advisor to King Solomon who betrayed him, and thus "Oh Satan, how far you have fallen from my grace."

2. Jesus would have had a pretty hard time readin Aramaic, as it's not a written language. It's only spoken, there isn't a written form.

3. When you say we're going to hell unless we embrace god... you do realise don't you that Hell was a 14th century invention by the Papacy? Hell is never once mentioned in the Bible, old testement or new. The closest thing to it, was Golgotha which were the fire pits outside of Jerusalem where they burnt the bodies of lepers. Until C14, Heaven followed along the lines of the Greek afterlife of one realm where all the dead went. I find it amusing how so many people try to preach through the threat of Hell these days, when Jesus never even mentioned it.

4. The Bible was only compiled and completed three hundred years after JC's death. And actually it was voted on. When the Emperor of Rome converted to Christianity on his death-bed, his successor set about to creat a holy scripture. He called a congress of scholars and christian leaders of the time to decide upon which writings would be a part of the Bible.

5. (and this is more of a question) How can God be omnibenevolant if you're black-mailed into being good so you can die and party with him in the afterlife? Isn't that a bit cheap?

6. If, and this is a big 'if,' Jesus realy was the incarnation of God, and god is omniscient, then when Jesus suffered and died on the cross... he died knowing he was God and that he would be ressurrected and then become God again... so did he really die knowing what it was to be human?

7. If as many of you have claimed, Jesus died for our sins and to save us... then why do we need church anymore? we're all in the clear now, right? If we're not... well, seems like he did a pretty naff job as a savior, having not saved us and all...

8. The Christian church has incited and been involved in more wars and cause of bloodshed than any other organisation in the history of man kind. What was that about turning the other cheek?

9. Voltaire had it right in his song "God thinks" -- 'I hate people who blame the devil for their own shortcomings / and, I hate people who thank god when things go right'

10. Joseph must have been really guliable... I mean, how many guys would come home to find their wife knocked up and believe her when she says "God did it" ? I wonder if their neighbour was a hunky blacksmith?

11. The origional messege of Jesus was a pretty decent one as messeges go. 'Love thy neighbour' and all that. But you know what? JC never wanted to start a new religion. He said he had come to fix the old one. you know, patch it up a bit, put it back on the right tracks because Judaism had become a corporate scheme of the time. Well, now that Christianity is corporately funded and immensely wealthy, who's gonna fix it? -- "Do you really think that God would need your dirty money if he wanted to start a holy war?"

12. In the bible, it says quite clearly "All writings herein are God breathed," meaning, they are inspired by God. But what exactly does that mean? Did God come down and put the words into each writer's head? I find that unlikely since so much of the Bible contradicts itself... you'd think a guy like God could keep from doing that, right? Inspiration is a very ambiguous word... after all, if I think about God and then decided to write a story involving god, that means I was inspired. That doesn't mean God gave me the words to write.

13. Unless any of you have actually read the Bible in Greek (the origional language it was written in) I don't think you can comment too well on the contents of its pages. The Greek for 'virgin' is the same as for 'young maid,' I guess though "Young Maid Mary" doesnt flow as well, does it? Many of the world meanings were changed when it was translated into other languages. Try going back and reading it in the origional, it's a lot less divine and mystical.

14. Someone back there said they base all their judgements on the bible... considering that the bible is increadibly sexist and racist... does that mean you are both? Take a look my dears, why are there no women apostles? Paul says that women are unfit to be taught and should not be allowed to speak in places of worship... I find it hard to believe that that would fly today. Oh, and you know how the Holy Land is so near to Ancient Mesapotamia (modern day Iraq) and how Egypt is across a little river, and then so is the rest of Africa? Well.. where are all the black people? They were there historically... they had nations large enough and powerful enough to be trading with parts of Europe, so Jerusalem would have been no trouble. And yet no-one of ethnic origin.

15. The guy who said they were "an athiest, or better yet, a rastafari" clearly isn't. Rastafarians believe in god, they simply believe that they can reach God by getting high, as a form of prayer or ritual.

I could go on... but frankly I'm getting bored of the general ignorance of people on this thread. A few of you actually seem to know what you're talking about and that's great. But a lot of you are just trying to shove your own beliefes down the throats of others. It's ineresting to ask questions and see what other people think about it, but to insisit that you are right, especially when some of you probably are still in highschool, is a bit pretentious. The fact is, people believe what they want to believe, and unless the want to, nothing you say will change their minds.
We're all entitled to our own beliefs. I just get sad when I see people trying to enforce their own on others. I could be nasty and say "Jesus died for your sins, not mine" and piss a lot of people off, but what's the point? Isn't this a friendly site where people come to have fun and chat-- not to be oppressed or cussed at for their faiths? Cheer up... it's not like Bob, down the street, believing in God is going to hurt me.

Sincerely,
just a guy.

sorry, just a few things I'd like to point out after reading these posts...

1. "Satan" is not Lucifer. Lucifer occupied the position in heaven of 'Ha-Satan'. Scholars and historians agree that 'Satan' (meaning the devil) only emerges into the Bible through a translation error that probably occured back when it had to be scribed by hand. The only true Satan is in the old testement, he was an advisor to King Solomon who betrayed him, and thus "Oh Satan, how far you have fallen from my grace."

2. Jesus would have had a pretty hard time readin Aramaic, as it's not a written language. It's only spoken, there isn't a written form.

3. When you say we're going to hell unless we embrace god... you do realise don't you that Hell was a 14th century invention by the Papacy? Hell is never once mentioned in the Bible, old testement or new. The closest thing to it, was Golgotha which were the fire pits outside of Jerusalem where they burnt the bodies of lepers. Until C14, Heaven followed along the lines of the Greek afterlife of one realm where all the dead went. I find it amusing how so many people try to preach through the threat of Hell these days, when Jesus never even mentioned it.

4. The Bible was only compiled and completed three hundred years after JC's death. And actually it was voted on. When the Emperor of Rome converted to Christianity on his death-bed, his successor set about to creat a holy scripture. He called a congress of scholars and christian leaders of the time to decide upon which writings would be a part of the Bible.

5. (and this is more of a question) How can God be omnibenevolant if you're black-mailed into being good so you can die and party with him in the afterlife? Isn't that a bit cheap?

6. If, and this is a big 'if,' Jesus realy was the incarnation of God, and god is omniscient, then when Jesus suffered and died on the cross... he died knowing he was God and that he would be ressurrected and then become God again... so did he really die knowing what it was to be human?

7. If as many of you have claimed, Jesus died for our sins and to save us... then why do we need church anymore? we're all in the clear now, right? If we're not... well, seems like he did a pretty naff job as a savior, having not saved us and all...

8. The Christian church has incited and been involved in more wars and cause of bloodshed than any other organisation in the history of man kind. What was that about turning the other cheek?

9. Voltaire had it right in his song "God thinks" -- 'I hate people who blame the devil for their own shortcomings / and, I hate people who thank god when things go right'

10. Joseph must have been really guliable... I mean, how many guys would come home to find their wife knocked up and believe her when she says "God did it" ? I wonder if their neighbour was a hunky blacksmith?

11. The origional messege of Jesus was a pretty decent one as messeges go. 'Love thy neighbour' and all that. But you know what? JC never wanted to start a new religion. He said he had come to fix the old one. you know, patch it up a bit, put it back on the right tracks because Judaism had become a corporate scheme of the time. Well, now that Christianity is corporately funded and immensely wealthy, who's gonna fix it? -- "Do you really think that God would need your dirty money if he wanted to start a holy war?"

12. In the bible, it says quite clearly "All writings herein are God breathed," meaning, they are inspired by God. But what exactly does that mean? Did God come down and put the words into each writer's head? I find that unlikely since so much of the Bible contradicts itself... you'd think a guy like God could keep from doing that, right? Inspiration is a very ambiguous word... after all, if I think about God and then decided to write a story involving god, that means I was inspired. That doesn't mean God gave me the words to write.

13. Unless any of you have actually read the Bible in Greek (the origional language it was written in) I don't think you can comment too well on the contents of its pages. The Greek for 'virgin' is the same as for 'young maid,' I guess though "Young Maid Mary" doesnt flow as well, does it? Many of the world meanings were changed when it was translated into other languages. Try going back and reading it in the origional, it's a lot less divine and mystical.

14. Someone back there said they base all their judgements on the bible... considering that the bible is increadibly sexist and racist... does that mean you are both? Take a look my dears, why are there no women apostles? Paul says that women are unfit to be taught and should not be allowed to speak in places of worship... I find it hard to believe that that would fly today. Oh, and you know how the Holy Land is so near to Ancient Mesapotamia (modern day Iraq) and how Egypt is across a little river, and then so is the rest of Africa? Well.. where are all the black people? They were there historically... they had nations large enough and powerful enough to be trading with parts of Europe, so Jerusalem would have been no trouble. And yet no-one of ethnic origin.

15. The guy who said they were "an athiest, or better yet, a rastafari" clearly isn't. Rastafarians believe in god, they simply believe that they can reach God by getting high, as a form of prayer or ritual.

I could go on... but frankly I'm getting bored of the general ignorance of people on this thread. A few of you actually seem to know what you're talking about and that's great. But a lot of you are just trying to shove your own beliefes down the throats of others. It's ineresting to ask questions and see what other people think about it, but to insisit that you are right, especially when some of you probably are still in highschool, is a bit pretentious. The fact is, people believe what they want to believe, and unless the want to, nothing you say will change their minds.
We're all entitled to our own beliefs. I just get sad when I see people trying to enforce their own on others. I could be nasty and say "Jesus died for your sins, not mine" and piss a lot of people off, but what's the point? Isn't this a friendly site where people come to have fun and chat-- not to be oppressed or cussed at for their faiths? Cheer up... it's not like Bob, down the street, believing in God is going to hurt me.

Sincerely,
just a guy.


On point 2 and 13

"The Gospel of Christ and, in general, the Holy Bible are written with the inspiration of God. The Prophets and the Apostles have recorded in written form a portion of the oral teaching of the Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic as well as the New Testament in Greek. These are the original languages of the Holy Bible from' which all the translations have been derives."
Though gravy would better be able to tell us being he reads/speaks greek hebrew and aramic

And to further extend on point two


The Aramaic Language

Aramaic is one of the Semitic languages, an important group of languages known almost from the beginning of human history and including also Arabic, Hebrew, Ethiopic, and Akkadian (ancient Babylonian and Assyrian). It is particularly closely related to Hebrew, and was written in a variety of alphabetic scripts. (What is usually called "Hebrew" script is actually an Aramaic script.)
The Earliest Aramaic

0ur first glimpse of Aramaic comes from a small number of ancient royal inscriptions from almost three thousand years ago (900-700 B.C.E.). Dedications to the gods, international treaties, and memorial stelae reveal to us the history of the first small Aramean kingdoms, in the territories of modern Syria and Southeast Turkey, living under the shadow of the rising Assyrian empire.
Aramaic as an Imperial Language

Aramaic was used by the conquering Assyrians as a language of administration communication, and following them by the Babylonian and Persian empires, which ruled from India to Ethiopia, and employed Aramaic as the official language. For this period, then (about 700–320 B.C.E.), Aramaic held a position similar to that occupied by English today. The most important documents of this period are numerous papyri from Egypt and Palestine.
Biblical Aramaic

Aramaic displaced Hebrew for many purposes among the Jews, a fact reflected in the Bible, where portions of Ezra and Daniel are in Aramaic. Some of the best known stories in biblical literature, including that of Belshazzar’s feast with the famous "handwriting on the wall" are in Aramaic.

From http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/aramaic_language.html

Me thinks you should reserch before you make claims such as "There is no writen aramaic"

sorry, just a few things I'd like to point out after reading these posts...

1. "Satan" is not Lucifer. Lucifer occupied the position in heaven of 'Ha-Satan'. Scholars and historians agree that 'Satan' (meaning the devil) only emerges into the Bible through a translation error that probably occured back when it had to be scribed by hand. The only true Satan is in the old testement, he was an advisor to King Solomon who betrayed him, and thus "Oh Satan, how far you have fallen from my grace."

2. Jesus would have had a pretty hard time readin Aramaic, as it's not a written language. It's only spoken, there isn't a written form.

3. When you say we're going to hell unless we embrace god... you do realise don't you that Hell was a 14th century invention by the Papacy? Hell is never once mentioned in the Bible, old testement or new. The closest thing to it, was Golgotha which were the fire pits outside of Jerusalem where they burnt the bodies of lepers. Until C14, Heaven followed along the lines of the Greek afterlife of one realm where all the dead went. I find it amusing how so many people try to preach through the threat of Hell these days, when Jesus never even mentioned it.

4. The Bible was only compiled and completed three hundred years after JC's death. And actually it was voted on. When the Emperor of Rome converted to Christianity on his death-bed, his successor set about to creat a holy scripture. He called a congress of scholars and christian leaders of the time to decide upon which writings would be a part of the Bible.

5. (and this is more of a question) How can God be omnibenevolant if you're black-mailed into being good so you can die and party with him in the afterlife? Isn't that a bit cheap?

6. If, and this is a big 'if,' Jesus realy was the incarnation of God, and god is omniscient, then when Jesus suffered and died on the cross... he died knowing he was God and that he would be ressurrected and then become God again... so did he really die knowing what it was to be human?

7. If as many of you have claimed, Jesus died for our sins and to save us... then why do we need church anymore? we're all in the clear now, right? If we're not... well, seems like he did a pretty naff job as a savior, having not saved us and all...

8. The Christian church has incited and been involved in more wars and cause of bloodshed than any other organisation in the history of man kind. What was that about turning the other cheek?

9. Voltaire had it right in his song "God thinks" -- 'I hate people who blame the devil for their own shortcomings / and, I hate people who thank god when things go right'

10. Joseph must have been really guliable... I mean, how many guys would come home to find their wife knocked up and believe her when she says "God did it" ? I wonder if their neighbour was a hunky blacksmith?

11. The origional messege of Jesus was a pretty decent one as messeges go. 'Love thy neighbour' and all that. But you know what? JC never wanted to start a new religion. He said he had come to fix the old one. you know, patch it up a bit, put it back on the right tracks because Judaism had become a corporate scheme of the time. Well, now that Christianity is corporately funded and immensely wealthy, who's gonna fix it? -- "Do you really think that God would need your dirty money if he wanted to start a holy war?"

12. In the bible, it says quite clearly "All writings herein are God breathed," meaning, they are inspired by God. But what exactly does that mean? Did God come down and put the words into each writer's head? I find that unlikely since so much of the Bible contradicts itself... you'd think a guy like God could keep from doing that, right? Inspiration is a very ambiguous word... after all, if I think about God and then decided to write a story involving god, that means I was inspired. That doesn't mean God gave me the words to write.

13. Unless any of you have actually read the Bible in Greek (the origional language it was written in) I don't think you can comment too well on the contents of its pages. The Greek for 'virgin' is the same as for 'young maid,' I guess though "Young Maid Mary" doesnt flow as well, does it? Many of the world meanings were changed when it was translated into other languages. Try going back and reading it in the origional, it's a lot less divine and mystical.

14. Someone back there said they base all their judgements on the bible... considering that the bible is increadibly sexist and racist... does that mean you are both? Take a look my dears, why are there no women apostles? Paul says that women are unfit to be taught and should not be allowed to speak in places of worship... I find it hard to believe that that would fly today. Oh, and you know how the Holy Land is so near to Ancient Mesapotamia (modern day Iraq) and how Egypt is across a little river, and then so is the rest of Africa? Well.. where are all the black people? They were there historically... they had nations large enough and powerful enough to be trading with parts of Europe, so Jerusalem would have been no trouble. And yet no-one of ethnic origin.

15. The guy who said they were "an athiest, or better yet, a rastafari" clearly isn't. Rastafarians believe in god, they simply believe that they can reach God by getting high, as a form of prayer or ritual.

I could go on... but frankly I'm getting bored of the general ignorance of people on this thread. A few of you actually seem to know what you're talking about and that's great. But a lot of you are just trying to shove your own beliefes down the throats of others. It's ineresting to ask questions and see what other people think about it, but to insisit that you are right, especially when some of you probably are still in highschool, is a bit pretentious. The fact is, people believe what they want to believe, and unless the want to, nothing you say will change their minds.
We're all entitled to our own beliefs. I just get sad when I see people trying to enforce their own on others. I could be nasty and say "Jesus died for your sins, not mine" and piss a lot of people off, but what's the point? Isn't this a friendly site where people come to have fun and chat-- not to be oppressed or cussed at for their faiths? Cheer up... it's not like Bob, down the street, believing in God is going to hurt me.

Sincerely,
just a guy.


in response to some of the numbers

2.....aramaic. Parts of the Book of Daniel were written in Aramaic. Jesus grew up learning the bible so you could gather that he read the book of daniel.

3. hell is a definition for the "burning lake of fire" that is mentioned in the New Testament. especially Revelation. There are other places where it is mentioned "where there will be the knashing of teeth".......so later on in history people began putting a name to the place and hell was chosen, probably taken from greek mythology, hades.

4. the old testament was completed 300 years before Jesus and was tranlsated into Greek which was the common language at the time, hence why the new testament was written in greek and not hebrew

7. in the book of Romans it says that all men have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God, later it in the book it says that you must confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord. Jesus said in the new testament that "if you love me you will follow my commands" his command was that you love God and you love one another. So yes, you are right when you say Jesus died for the world and for you. But you are not saved unless you believe in your heart and confess him as Lord

8. I do not condone nor praise what my past brothers and sisters have done in the name of Christ, refering to the wars, crusade, etc. Nor do i wish to go into the 'why did they do that?' or 'how did that happen?' It is in the past and it happened and I apologize, it really is sad.

14. To begin i am a woman. And the bible is not demeaning to woman. There are many places in teh Bible where women were praised. In the time of Moses, Miriam his wife led the Israelites in worship. The book of Esther, God placed Esther as a queen to save the Jewish nation. You have Deborah in the book of Judges who is a judge and a prophet who led the Isrealites to war. God told Deborah a prophecy and mentioned to a man and the man was too afraid so Deborah stepped and assumed command. In the same book , there is an unamed woman who kills the king that the Israelites were fighting against and she received honor. All the times in the old testament when you had a barren women, there was something awesome that was going to take place and you knew that meant that there was a special calling on that child. I'm sure there are more in the old testament but i can't remember them all off the top of my head.
Moving to the new testament. You have Mary and Martha and their story about how Mary sat at Jesus' feet what a beautiful picture that is. You have the woman who wept at Jesus' feet and poured perfume on him and then Jesus says to her, your sins are forgiven. Then you have the woman caught in adultery who was instructed to go and sin no more.
And of course, there is Paul. And yes he does write scripture that could be seen as deragotory to women. Since we like to keep to history and looking at what was going on cultural lets do that with this. Paul said something to the effect that women were not to speak up in church. Women were not well educated and did not now the law(as in the Old Testament, the early church didn't have a bible, it wasn't formed yet). The men and women of these churches would also have to sit on opposite sides of each other. a very segregated kind of society at first. You have to know the Jewish culture and how far we have come from that. anyway......Paul said this comment because women were trying to communicate to their husbands and asking them questions instead of waiting until after the service/meeting/whatever they called back then.

To support Paul. In the book of Romans in the last chapter there is a list of affirmations to different people. More than half of the list is him thanking women. I think in Corinthians Paul says of women that they can prophecy. If you have read about prophecy and know how it is to function in the church then you would know that prophecy is not necissarily something that you keep to yourself. It is for the edification of the church. So in that way women were allowed to speak up in church.

What is so wrong with being in sumbmission to a man? Assuming he is abiding by the word of God. what has happened (my personal view) at least what i think has happened....is that we have seen so many examples of women being subject to man in the wrong way and not the way it was meant to be.

Another thing i just remembered. The early church was known for it's unity, Acts 4. On the day of pentacost there were man, female and they were all praying. galatians it says that all are equal in CHrist, "slave, free, gentile, greek, jew, male, female, all are equal in Christ"

Again....if you have any questions feel free to ask. If you want references to anything that i have said, i will try and look them up for you. thank you.

to UpwardThrust

Thanks for the link, some of that stuff about Aramaic i actually didn't know. Thank you for posting it.

to UpwardThrust

Thanks for the link, some of that stuff about Aramaic i actually didn't know. Thank you for posting it.
No problem ... and any questions Grave_N_Idle is our resident greek/Aramaic/latin(I believe) and hebrew speeker/translater :)

'It is particularly closely related to Hebrew, and was written in a variety of alphabetic scripts.'
ie, there's no written form of Aramaic, it's written using other alphabets.
'Although the talmuds contain much material in Hebrew, the basic language of these vast compilations is Aramaic (in Western and Eastern dialects).'
again, "IN WESTERN AND EASTERN DIALECTS"!!
'Christians in Palestine eventually rendered portions of Christian Scripture into their dialect of Aramaic; these translations and related writings constitute "Christian Palestinian Aramaic".'

hmmmm, what's that? Oh yeah, maybe you wanna read your own articles closer, eh? ;)

As for Paul, what he actually said was something along the lines of "Women are not descended from the seed of Adam as men and the apostles were, and so have no place to speak as teachers"
I might also point out that Paul in one of his many letters (possibly Corinthians?) that women are unclean and should not be spoken to. The belief behind this being that if you were not married to the woman, she could be menstruaiting and talking to her could give you and she impure thoughts. But you do have quite a few good points and I bow to you in a mark of respect and recognition. You are one of those people I was talking about who actoually knows their stuff.

'It is particularly closely related to Hebrew, and was written in a variety of alphabetic scripts.'
ie, there's no written form of Aramaic, it's written using other alphabets.
'Although the talmuds contain much material in Hebrew, the basic language of these vast compilations is Aramaic (in Western and Eastern dialects).'
again, "IN WESTERN AND EASTERN DIALECTS"!!
'Christians in Palestine eventually rendered portions of Christian Scripture into their dialect of Aramaic; these translations and related writings constitute "Christian Palestinian Aramaic".'

hmmmm, what's that? Oh yeah, maybe you wanna read your own articles closer, eh? ;)
Maybe you want to understand what is quoted ;) it has no charicter set ... that != writen aramaic

I hate to break it to you, but actually that '!' does not = Aramaic.
Firstly because that '!' isn't in cuniform or Symaric, it's in the modern alphabet, and secondly, because '!' didn't exist back then. Notice how Latin doesn't have punctuiation (and thus the reason why no-one really knows how to speak it)? That came later, much later.

As for Paul, what he actually said was something along the lines of "Women are not descended from the seed of Adam as men and the apostles were, and so have no place to speak as teachers"
I might also point out that Paul in one of his many letters (possibly Corinthians?) that women are unclean and should not be spoken to. The belief behind this being that if you were not married to the woman, she could be menstruaiting and talking to her could give you and she impure thoughts. But you do have quite a few good points and I bow to you in a mark of respect and recognition. You are one of those people I was talking about who actoually knows their stuff.

Tel Aires -- Thank you for the compliment, i really appreciate that. :)

The controversies of women and the church and their roles are not just disputed between non-christians and christians but between christians themselves. I'm sure you probably knew that already. Personally i find ti truly frustrating. I understand that knowing every nook and cranny of the Bible is good. But even Paul and other New Testament writers said things to the effect of 'don't argue about endless geneaologies.....etc'. Arguing about interpretation of scripture is what takes our focus from Jesus. That is what Christianity is about, Jesus. Not about all 'this stuff'. Hence why i don't like debates but i have a love for the truth so i try ann balance the two.

I did a keyword search for for the word women... at www.biblegateway.com and couldn't find a reference to the women being unclean comment at least in how you used it. I did find references that women should live with piety, reverance, and holiness. About the same instructions that Paul gives to the men.
About the women coming from the seed of Adam as of right now i can't find anything on that. maybe in a few days.
About the women menstrual thing. Alot of the Mosaic Law was about cleanliness. Like...with diseases and emissions.....it even talks about emissions of sperm. Gotta love the old testament! Most of those laws were put into place for health reasons. Obviously if you have a skin disease, you are unhealthy therefore "unclean". So if a women is on her cycle she could be deamed 'unclean' and therefore yea...you shouldn't go talk to her. In those days they didn't have the 'everlovable feminine products' that we have today. (please note the sarcasm in the above qoutations....blah....being a woman.....anyway). Actually i take that back, i am happy and proud to be a women. Just not on the days that i have cramps. Oh yea...this is public...okay i'm sure you all wanted to know that.

Nowadays there are some denominations that allow women to be pastors. I think....methodist and Assemblies of God (if i'm wrong...i apologize) there may be more that i don't know of. I have been meaning to look into the other denominations but haven't had the time. Some of you know...the whole college/internship/40hrsperweek, no staying up late anymore. oi! such a trial.
But there are certainly more denominations that do not all women to be ordained as ministers but are allowed to serve in the church in various ways. I don't have an answer to why that is other then different ways to run things. Frankly, as long as they love the lord and love Jesus i am happy with that. I figure that God can handle the rest.

I got off topic but i hope that was understood or helped someone out.

I hate to break it to you, but actually that '!' does not = Aramaic.
Firstly because that '!' isn't in cuniform or Symaric, it's in the modern alphabet, and secondly, because '!' didn't exist back then. Notice how Latin doesn't have punctuiation (and thus the reason why no-one really knows how to speak it)? That came later, much later.
Sorry you mis understood me (computer geek)
The prase "!=" means "does not" in some programming languages ... I did not mean the litteral exclimation

"In those days they didn't have the 'everlovable feminine products' that we have today. (please note the sarcasm in the above qoutations....blah....being a woman.....anyway). Actually i take that back, i am happy and proud to be a women. Just not on the days that i have cramps. Oh yea...this is public...okay i'm sure you all wanted to know that."

aaaahahahah. you're now my favorite. <3

Anyway, women in the church... In the early days of Christianity (first few hundred years) there were actually women teachers/priests/preachers. This was what Paul was talking about. The male church became unhappy about that for some reason, and eventually incited things like witch burnings. This was origionally aimed at mid-wives who could baptise children at birth in the comfort of your home, and thus no need to go to church for the whole sha-bang, so they were accused of being witches for using medicines and were quickly and harshly dealt with. Damn... gotta love us humans, dont ya?

Look, I believe that Jesus was the son of God. He was sent here to die for our sins and to repent mankind. Even though thats a big part of his persona. Its not all of it. Jesus was a preacher, he was a rabbi, and a very good man. We shouldn't be so caught up in what he was, but instead of what he taught. Jesus taught us to be good people, to love our neighbor, and to accept and love even the lowiest of the lows. (Lepers and Prositutes). I think everyone can learn something from Jesus.

thanks Tel Aires...you are too kind. ;)

the issue of men taking over the women....well. yea, that does boil down to us humans wanting to be in control. And i can see how the scriptures could have been interpreted for the men to be right about the ment being in control. It just stinks how they go about doing that. I am amazed how quickly Christians can forget to love when that was practically the only thing Jesus really instructed us to do. Jesus even said that was how we would be known as Christians was by our love for one another. Well...look how well we have done with that one. How many denominations are out there? I am praying and looking forward to the day when Jesus comes back to a Bride(Church) that is united and whole and in love with one another and Christ. I wait in expectation. Like i said before I believe God's Word and it says in the Word that Church will be one......I know God keeps His promises. =)

p.s. i think we both may have stepped off the topic...lol. Isn't this post about "who is Jesus?"......oops.

Pterodonia~
If your thesis holds true, why did the early Christian community revere Jesus as the Son of God and of the messianic line? They could, of course, be very wrong, but it seems unlikely that such a dramatic reversal would take place. Especially because the Church put together the canon of Scripture. Folks will argue about the exact date (see below), but it is difficult to maintain that it was brought together before the 3rd or 4th century, alongside or after the emergence of a Christian heirarchy. So why not just pick a different set of books? There were plenty of gosples floating around.

~Pimeria

Athanasius in 367, published a list of books suitable for reading during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as a regional canon for the Eastern Church. Pope Damasus I in 382 approved the work of the first Council of Constantinople, accepting Athanasius’ list. Then the Council of Hippo, a regional council of the Diocese of Africa, in 393 reaffirmed the Decree of Damasus. The Council of Carthage in 397 also reaffirmed the Decree. Carthage, unlike Hippo, sent its decisions to Rome for ratification. Pope Boniface I (418-422) ratified the decision and declared the canon settled for the Western Patriarchate. He also sent the decision to the Eastern patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At that point, the universal Canon of Sacred Scripture was informally accepted worldwide. The Fourth Council of Carthage in 419 reaffirmed Pope Boniface. The Second Council of Nicea in 787 ratified the same canon as authoritative for the Eastern Churches.

Someone else has probable already answered this... but the early 'christian' church DIDN'T revere Jesus as the 'son of god', or 'god incarnate'.

Jesus was a brave man. Brave enough to go against the the established church and the farisees (don't know how to spell it in english). After his death Peter (or whatever you call him in English) turned Jesus' jewish preachings into the exact thing that Jesus fought against.


EXACTLY.

You look at the teachings of Jesus, and he is constantly warning against the 'organised' religious... against letting someone else determine what faith means, against 'buying in' to any organised, formalised sturcture of belief.

Jesus taught a personal relationship, between 'man' and 'god'.

And then, after his death - others took the oppurtunity to create an organised, formalised structure out of his beliefs, and set the rules by whuich to determine what their faith meant.

The church is the antithesis of Jesus.

Grave_n_idle, you're so right!
At the same congress where they decided on what scriptures were to be used in the Bible, they voted on the divinity of Christ. It passed with a tiny majority. Just think... if it hadn't, there'd be no split issue between Jews and Christians or any of these silly splits in the Christian church. ...how different things could have been!

2.....aramaic. Parts of the Book of Daniel were written in Aramaic. Jesus grew up learning the bible so you could gather that he read the book of daniel.



First: you might want to look at this again...

Jesus read the Bible? Didn't he think it was weird? I mean - most of it is about him, and a lot of it is written after he died...

Do you mean he read Torah?

Second: Daniel wasn't even part of the 'Canon', while Jesus was alive... so it's quite unlikely that Jesus read it.

Grave_n_idle, you're so right!
At the same congress where they decided on what scriptures were to be used in the Bible, they voted on the divinity of Christ. It passed with a tiny majority. Just think... if it hadn't, there'd be no split issue between Jews and Christians or any of these silly splits in the Christian church. ...how different things could have been!

I maybe ought to dig out some of my sources... I have interesting accounts of what actually happened at Nicea - including some of the participants having their propositions literally torn-to-pieces (as in, the written words ripped up, phsically) before their eyes, so that they couldn't make their case regarding aspects of biblical thought.

'It is particularly closely related to Hebrew, and was written in a variety of alphabetic scripts.'
ie, there's no written form of Aramaic, it's written using other alphabets.
'Although the talmuds contain much material in Hebrew, the basic language of these vast compilations is Aramaic (in Western and Eastern dialects).'
again, "IN WESTERN AND EASTERN DIALECTS"!!
'Christians in Palestine eventually rendered portions of Christian Scripture into their dialect of Aramaic; these translations and related writings constitute "Christian Palestinian Aramaic".'

hmmmm, what's that? Oh yeah, maybe you wanna read your own articles closer, eh? ;)

As for Paul, what he actually said was something along the lines of "Women are not descended from the seed of Adam as men and the apostles were, and so have no place to speak as teachers"
I might also point out that Paul in one of his many letters (possibly Corinthians?) that women are unclean and should not be spoken to. The belief behind this being that if you were not married to the woman, she could be menstruaiting and talking to her could give you and she impure thoughts. But you do have quite a few good points and I bow to you in a mark of respect and recognition. You are one of those people I was talking about who actoually knows their stuff.

You do know, of course... that English has no 'alphabet' of it's own?

The English alphabet is largely Arabic, with a couple of other 'thefts' wedged in there... like our letter 'y', replacing the greek 'i' sound...

You do know, of course... that English has no 'alphabet' of it's own?

The English alphabet is largely Arabic, with a couple of other 'thefts' wedged in there... like our letter 'y', replacing the greek 'i' sound...

While I agree that the English and Arabic alphabets both developed from the same Semitic source, it is inaccurate to say that the English alphabet is largely Arabic. I am familiar with the Arabic alphabet, and find few similarities to the English one.

Pterodonia,

What is your reference to the Jeconiah curse? I've never heard that before.

Thanks

First of all, Jeconiah was known by several names in the bible. In the New Testament, he was called, "Jechonias." In the Old Testament, aside from "Jeconiah," he was also referred to as "Coniah" and "Jehoiachin."

Jeremiah 22:28-30 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Although he was to be "written childless," in actuality, he wasn't childless at all. But the curse wasn't that he would literally be childless - it was that his seed could not inherit the throne of David and rule anymore in Judah. Therefore, obviously, the Messiah could not be a descendent of Jeconiah. Every faithful Jew in Jesus' time would have known this, which is why it is baffling at first that Matthew and Luke would have gone through the trouble of connecting Jesus with Jeconiah as they did. At least, it's confusing until you realize that the Jesus was intended to be the stumblingblock that God promised in the Old Testament to send to ensnare the notoriously idolatrous Jews. Think of him as sort of a vice cop on the God-Squad, if you will.

People!!! :headbang: Is everyone in the world blind?! Jesus is the son of God! He is our savior, and he loves us forever no matter what we have done, what we are doing, or what we will do. He's the caring God that wants the best for us! He's the only true God! Do you not realize that he died on the cross, a VERY VERY painful death, for our sins?! We were doomed to Hell before he died for us! Do you not see this? He wants you to accept him, because he will always love you and care for you. Even though sometimes, bad things might happen that make you want to question wheter or not there is a God, you need to understand that it is always happens for a reason. If you want eternal life after you die... If you want a caring, loving, and amazing God... If you want to be forgiven for your sins and always accepted... Then just pray to God right now, yes right now!, and ask him to forgive your sins. Ask him to come into your life forever and love you. Tell him you are sorry of all of your sins! And Amen. If any of you have any questions, please telegram me on nationstates. (Drpep) I will be happy to help. You are all in my prayers.Go bang your sister.

Go bang your sister.
Just because you dont agree with him does not mean start the personal insults

We shouldn't be so caught up in what he was, but instead of what he taught. Jesus taught us to be good people, to love our neighbor, and to accept and love even the lowiest of the lows. (Lepers and Prositutes). I think everyone can learn something from Jesus.

Okay...but he also taught us to hate our entire families and even our own lives if we are to be his disciples (Luke 14:26). He stated that his mission on earth was not to bring peace - to the contrary - he was specifically here to cause division within families (Matthew 10:34-36; Luke 12:49-53))! Not only did he teach us to hate our own earthly fathers, but he also demanded that we don't even acknowledge them as such (Matthew 23:9)!

The one thing I can say about Jesus is that he "walked the talk" - he was rude to his own mother and he publicly replaced his mother and his siblings in his heart with fellow cult members (John 2:1-4; Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35).

Jesus made no bones about the fact that he was anti-family. I don't know about you, but that alone is enough to qualify him as an antichrist in my book.

everyone knows he was a carpenter.

Just because you dont agree with him does not mean start the personal insults
This is not for disagreement, this is for obvious stupidity.

This is not for disagreement, this is for obvious stupidity.
Even if you feel that way the insults are not nessisary (just a friendly warning)

While I agree that the English and Arabic alphabets both developed from the same Semitic source, it is inaccurate to say that the English alphabet is largely Arabic. I am familiar with the Arabic alphabet, and find few similarities to the English one.

Okay - perhaps a more accurate way of saying it is that English is a Germanic Language, with an Arabic Alphabet.

Not necessarily that English uses what is now referred to as "Arabic", but that it is an Arabic language.

Yes - both modern arabic, and english have their written roots in one of the Semitic languages... probably Hebrew... through some transitions of langauge... English taking it's characters largely from the Greek, adopted from one of the Hebrew languages... most likely adopted originally from Egyptian... based on the similarity between certain 'reference' characters. (Such as, the similarity between the pictographs for the Egyptian 'alef', and the Hebrew 'alef').

The point was - however - that Aramaic is still a language, and even a written language... it is no LESS a written language because it borrows another alphabet for it's symbols. Any more that English is LESS a written langage, because it borrows other language symbols.

Even if you feel that way the insults are not nessisary (just a friendly warning)
nessisary ? Are US-Americans all that way?

A fraud who never exsisted.

nessisary ? Are US-Americans all that way?

Are you asking whether or not we all make typos? Yes, we all do make the occasional typo. (I even had to correct one I noticed in this message after I posted it!)

So where are you from that you are immune to them?

Jesus existed but was a normal man like you and me.

Here is another interesting take on the antichrist - one that shows that the Jesus-beast that Paul created is the one to which we can apply the number "666": http://www.messiah.org/CHAZWON.HTM

Are you asking whether or not we all make typos? Yes, we all do make the occasional typo. (I even had to correct one I noticed in this message after I posted it!)
So where are you from that you are immune to them?
From a place with a functioning school system. And most of the misspellings on this forum are not "occasional" typos but plain writing incapability (e.g. "nessisary"). And it is quite funny to see how some people here cannot even start threads without misspellings in the titles. That says a lot about the originators of those threads, does it not?

From a place with a functioning school system. And most of the misspellings on this forum are not "occasional" typos but plain writing incapability (e.g. "nessisary"). And it is quite funny to see how some people here cannot even start threads without misspellings in the titles. That says a lot about the originators of those threads, does it not?

I suppose this gives you something to feel all smug and superior about. There - I just ended a sentence in a preposition. That should really help you feel superior! (But before you get too uppity about that, please note that your first sentence in the post I quoted was an incomplete one.)

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that, although I may very well agree with your basic stance on Christianity, I would prefer to read thoughtful and intelligent posts that attack the issues rather than the other posters (not to mention their countries of origin). I just don't see a need to point out spelling errors and typos, unless such errors render the message unintelligible.

People!!! :headbang: Is everyone in the world blind?! Jesus is the son of God! He is our savior, and he loves us forever no matter what we have done, what we are doing, or what we will do. He's the caring God that wants the best for us! He's the only true God! Do you not realize that he died on the cross, a VERY VERY painful death, for our sins?! We were doomed to Hell before he died for us! Do you not see this? He wants you to accept him, because he will always love you and care for you. Even though sometimes, bad things might happen that make you want to question wheter or not there is a God, you need to understand that it is always happens for a reason. If you want eternal life after you die... If you want a caring, loving, and amazing God... If you want to be forgiven for your sins and always accepted... Then just pray to God right now, yes right now!, and ask him to forgive your sins. Ask him to come into your life forever and love you. Tell him you are sorry of all of your sins! And Amen. If any of you have any questions, please telegram me on nationstates. (Drpep) I will be happy to help. You are all in my prayers.

I'm curious, Drpep - were you born into Christianity or are you a recent convert? And if you are a recent convert, was your conversion the result of seeing the movie, "The Passion," by any chance? In any case, I'm wondering how much you've really studied about Christianity? Also, have you looked at it from only one side, or have you really studied it from all angles? Also, how do you reconcile your Christian beliefs with Christianity's violent and bloody history? Is this a problem for you at all?

I'm sorry, but i must wonder...what kinda idiots would say he's a fictional character?! I can understand if you call the Bible "Mythology". Heck you might as well say Buddha or Hitler was also mythological, after all none of us have ever seen them as well, yet he's recorded in history doing things no man thought possible to do.

But Jesus was certainly real...., there got it out of my system. =)

The blending of historical events (there were 16 or so people by the name), pure bullshit, and a long established local religion.

I suppose this gives you something to feel all smug and superior about. There - I just ended a sentence in a preposition. That should really help you feel superior! (But before you get too uppity about that, please note that your first sentence in the post I quoted was an incomplete one.)

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that, although I may very well agree with your basic stance on Christianity, I would prefer to read thoughtful and intelligent posts that attack the issues rather than the other posters (not to mention their countries of origin). I just don't see a need to point out spelling errors and typos, unless such errors render the message unintelligible.
1. What is my basic stance on Christianity?
2. I am already past discussing issues with people like Drpep who obviously are in a state of mental retardation, especially when the issues are recurring for the thousandth time in this forum. Actually I do not even want such people living on the same planet and share the same air. Words like "Jesus is the son of God! He is our savior..." make me want to go and kill the one who uttered them, for the sake of mankind's future. The world has already had enough of devout and braindead followers of religions (and their offshoots) worshipping the bloody Israelite version of Yah. I have zero tolerance for those fatal ideologies and my fury for their followers has become boundless.
3. If one does not care for the words and their spelling one surely also does not care for the message they are supposed to transport.

you can't be certain if someone was there or not two thousand years ago. believe the book if you like what it says, or don't if you don't like it.
don't try to convert others.

you can't be certain if someone was there or not two thousand years ago. believe the book if you like what it says, or don't if you don't like it.
don't try to convert others.


If he actually walked on water, and turned water into wine is one thing....but hasn't it been proven that that he existed regardless!

I can understand not believing the acts he done, what i cant believe are people, who doubted he existed in the first place!

I'm sure even the most enlightened Atheist, would agree that at the very least he existed! Right?!

1. What is my basic stance on Christianity?
2. I am already past discussing issues with people like Drpep who obviously are in a state of mental retardation, especially when the issues are recurring for the thousandth time in this forum. Actually I do not even want such people living on the same planet and share the same air. Words like "Jesus is the son of God! He is our savior..." make me want to go and kill the one who uttered them, for the sake of mankind's future. The world has already had enough of devout and braindead followers of religions (and their offshoots) worshipping the bloody Israelite version of Yah. I have zero tolerance for those fatal ideologies and my fury for their followers has become boundless.
3. If one does not care for the words and their spelling one surely also does not care for the message they are supposed to transport.

Your basic stance on Christianity (and the patriarchal religions in general, apparently) seems to be spelled out pretty thoroughly in point #2. That came through loud and clear before you ever posted this explanation, and as I said, I pretty much agree with you - outside of your stated urge to kill believers of said religions, of course. I also wonder about the intelligence of those who unquestioningly believe in those "fatal ideologies," and have little tolerance for those who would try to convert me to them. I certainly understand your frustration with fools, but killing those who are foolish is taking it a bit far. That would just make them martyrs, and you do know what happens when you make someone a martyr, don't you?

At any rate, not all U.S. Americans are illiterate fools, and I don't appreciate your implication that we are.

I'm sorry, but i must wonder...what kinda idiots would say he's a fictional character?! I can understand if you call the Bible "Mythology". Heck you might as well say Buddha or Hitler was also mythological, after all none of us have ever seen them as well, yet he's recorded in history doing things no man thought possible to do.

But Jesus was certainly real...., there got it out of my system. =)

I guess I would be the kind of idiot who would suggest this possibility. But apparently I'm in good company (read "The Jesus Puzzle," by Earl Doherty).

There is no credible proof that Yeshua ben Yosef existed, although I'll admit that such silence on the matter hardly constitutes proof that he didn't exist. While I will grant you the possibility that he may have existed, I do not buy the idea that he walked on water or raised the dead or any of the other legend-making nonsense written about him in the gospels. Assuming he did exist, any similarity between the myth and the man is likely to be minimal.

I guess I would be the kind of idiot who would suggest this possibility. But apparently I'm in good company (read "The Jesus Puzzle," by Earl Doherty).

There is no credible proof that Yeshua ben Yosef existed, although I'll admit that such silence on the matter hardly constitutes proof that he didn't exist. While I will grant you the possibility that he may have existed, I do not buy the idea that he walked on water or raised the dead or any of the other legend-making nonsense written about him in the gospels. Assuming he did exist, any similarity between the myth and the man is likely to be minimal.


Alright i stated that...obviously there's no proof on the "miracles" he did.... but i thought there was plenty of proof that at the very least he existed. Don't they have his brothers remains?

The only things u need to know about Jesus is what the show Family Guy showed us...
It's cool to love Jesus.
Jesus is the employee of the month.
If you play Jesus in golf, he will win.
If the wine at church is really the blood of Christ, then Jesus must have been wasted 24/7.
Jesus can turn water into funk.

And one more thing which comes from a poster in my room with a guy on it who has long hear, is wearing a robe, and is holding a kick ass guitar...
JESUS ROCKS.

Alright i stated that...obviously there's no proof on the "miracles" he did.... but i thought there was plenty of proof that at the very least he existed. Don't they have his brothers remains?

Apparently you are referring to the James ossuary - which was determined by the Israel Antiquities Authority to be a fake nearly 2 years ago? By the way, the ossuary owner was recently arrested and charged with forgery. So no - there is still no credible evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Well, to be honest, I believe totally and without question that he is the Son of God. My personal Saviour, and anyones Saviour who is willing to accept and follow him.

If I may speak the reasosn why I believe Jesus is the Son of God. To be honest and blunt, it is Christianity who has hurt Christianity. During the Medavil (probably spelled wrong) Era, the leaders of the Christian faith and those who they commanded did things that made people question their belief in God and his son Jesus. Such things were like the Pope, due to the Papacy having a low treasury, sending men out across Europe to sell small scrolls, these sellsmen told people that these scrolls were form the Pope himself and that if they purchased them that all their sins were forigven. Such an act goes against all that Christ taught, for one being that only God can forgive sins.

The Crusades, while their underlining cause may have been correct depending upon your personal belief, it is clear that they were not truly done in the name of God. How they were carried out and the reasons for why many went doomed the crusades from the beginning.

Once the people of Europe began to experiance and desire more freedom and thanks to the Age of Reason, it began to rapid decline of the Church. Again, to be blunt and honest, and I believe that people in current times have a sense of "I can solve all things myself".

However, I suppose that it is (the rabid hatred of Christians) is going to occur despite what Christians due to stop, prevent, or delay it. "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first." John 15:18.

I am also seeing that people feel that Christianity, in America anyway, is some kind of Southern thing, where uneducated people blindly follow God. Simply untrue, and I shouldn't have to explain why either.

I'm with Pterodonia, Jesus and Lucifer are the same. The Light Bringer, the Bright Morning Star.

If I may speak the reasosn why I believe Jesus is the Son of God. To be honest and blunt, it is Christianity who has hurt Christianity. During the Medavil (probably spelled wrong) Era, the leaders of the Christian faith and those who they commanded did things that made people question their belief in God and his son Jesus. Such things were like the Pope, due to the Papacy having a low treasury, sending men out across Europe to sell small scrolls, these sellsmen told people that these scrolls were form the Pope himself and that if they purchased them that all their sins were forigven. Such an act goes against all that Christ taught, for one being that only God can forgive sins.

The Crusades, while their underlining cause may have been correct depending upon your personal belief, it is clear that they were not truly done in the name of God. How they were carried out and the reasons for why many went doomed the crusades from the beginning.

Once the people of Europe began to experiance and desire more freedom and thanks to the Age of Reason, it began to rapid decline of the Church. Again, to be blunt and honest, and I believe that people in current times have a sense of "I can solve all things myself".

However, I suppose that it is (the rabid hatred of Christians) is going to occur despite what Christians due to stop, prevent, or delay it. "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first." John 15:18.

First you admit that Christianity has brought its problems on itself (although I note that you have failed to mention any of its more horrendous crimes against humanity), and then you say that hatred of Christianity is inevitable because the world hated Jesus first (also implying that such hatred is unwarranted in either case). Why is it that Christians seem to do everything in their power to incur the wrath of non-Christians, and then proudly wear it as a badge of honor?

I am also seeing that people feel that Christianity, in America anyway, is some kind of Southern thing, where uneducated people blindly follow God. Simply untrue, and I shouldn't have to explain why either.

You shouldn't have to explain this statement??? Well, I wish you would, as I have apparently overlooked the post where someone suggested Christianity in America was a "Southern thing" (unless, perhaps, by "Southern" you meant south of the Canadian border). Or are you the one suggesting that Southerners are uneducated?

I'm with Pterodonia, Jesus and Lucifer are the same. The Light Bringer, the Bright Morning Star.

Is this connection as obvious to you as it is to me, or do you find it to be kind of subtle? Because I'm wondering why Christians are having such a hard time connecting the dots on this one? Any theories?

People!!! :headbang: Is everyone in the world blind?! Jesus is the son of God! He is our savior, and he loves us forever no matter what we have done, what we are doing, or what we will do. He's the caring God that wants the best for us! He's the only true God! Do you not realize that he died on the cross, a VERY VERY painful death, for our sins?! We were doomed to Hell before he died for us! Do you not see this? He wants you to accept him, because he will always love you and care for you. Even though sometimes, bad things might happen that make you want to question wheter or not there is a God, you need to understand that it is always happens for a reason. If you want eternal life after you die... If you want a caring, loving, and amazing God... If you want to be forgiven for your sins and always accepted... Then just pray to God right now, yes right now!, and ask him to forgive your sins. Ask him to come into your life forever and love you. Tell him you are sorry of all of your sins! And Amen. If any of you have any questions, please telegram me on nationstates. (Drpep) I will be happy to help. You are all in my prayers.

Ummm... That would be taking your words above my experiences. I act on reason, experience and knowledge, not belief. Belief is to accept as fact, something you know nothing about. Accepting the belief's of another is called Faith. Faith leads to war.. I'm not so certain you noticed the Christianity vs Muslim war going on right now? Both sides says the other is an insane bunch and each other tries to blow the other up. (Unfortunately ones alot poorer than the other and cannot afford cruise missiles...)

Let us remind you of the great Noam Chomsky... "Common man does not base his actions on reason, but faith, and this naive faith requires nescessary illusion and emotionally potent oversimplification provided by the "mythmaker" to keep the ordinary person on course."

Governments, Organized religions and other have been using this same model for thousands of years.

I would like to think for myself, thank you kindly for your desire to fill me with fear of the afterlife and to drive me back down to go to a bar and be a good christian boy who will go to work, shut up, provide money for more wars and to drink and be sorrow-filled for the rest of my life.

I'll take option B. Which is "Think for myself and prepare for the upcoming wars you guys are making"

You shouldn't have to explain this statement??? Well, I wish you would, as I have apparently overlooked the post where someone suggested Christianity in America was a "Southern thing" (unless, perhaps, by "Southern" you meant south of the Canadian border). Or are you the one suggesting that Southerners are uneducated?[/QUOTE]

Well, he could be talking about the new Jesus of Oil, GW. Who might was well be shouting out to the world "We want yer stuff and we will roll our stupidly faithful men and women (good little chirstians) overtop of you and take yer stuff so me and my multimillionaire buddies can rape and pilliage this country on the backs of the dead and dying..."

Southerners are only stupid in the fact they can't see through that mans bullshit. Well, we can't be sure they even elected him, since no one verified the results like in previous elections.

Ummm... That would be taking your words above my experiences. I act on reason, experience and knowledge, not belief. Belief is to accept as fact, something you know nothing about. Accepting the belief's of another is called Faith. Faith leads to war.. I'm not so certain you noticed the Christianity vs Muslim war going on right now? Both sides says the other is an insane bunch and each other tries to blow the other up. (Unfortunately ones alot poorer than the other and cannot afford cruise missiles...)

Funny thing is, according to the "holy books" of the 3 patriarchal religions, each one was apparently ushered in by the same instigating angel, Gabriel. I wonder if they've noticed this odd little coincidence? And how interesting it is that they should all be at one another's throats after all these years. Hmmm.

If he actually walked on water, and turned water into wine is one thing....but hasn't it been proven that that he existed regardless!

I can understand not believing the acts he done, what i cant believe are people, who doubted he existed in the first place!

I'm sure even the most enlightened Atheist, would agree that at the very least he existed! Right?!

He probably existed, but he would be the first to tell you, he was just a man... So... Wouldn't the lesson be "Think for yourself and go against the grain, says what you mean, speak from your heart and you too may change the world for the better!"

Which with his followers managed to help bring about the end of the Roman Empire... So, that is a GOOD thing.

I'm guessing Muslim will be more prevalent after they bring down the new empire. Then they can talk about how Al-Sahr's resistance brought about the downfall of the evil empire. Then he will be written to have walked on water and such and oooo all impressive... ;)

And where is this contemporary historical documentation? Oh, I know you didn't say "contemporary", but if the only "historical" documentation that exists was recorded only after his death, then it's really only hearsay - which wouldn't count in a court of law and it doesn't count with me either. What if the only existing documentation of Abraham Lincoln's life had been recorded about a generation following his death - wouldn't that be at least a little bit suspect in your mind?


There is more contemporary evidence of Jesus than of Julius Ceasar yet there is no doubt he existed.

Well, he could be talking about the new Jesus of Oil, GW. Who might was well be shouting out to the world "We want yer stuff and we will roll our stupidly faithful men and women (good little chirstians) overtop of you and take yer stuff so me and my multimillionaire buddies can rape and pilliage this country on the backs of the dead and dying..."

Don't forget to mention Ann Coulter cheerleading from the sidelines with statements like this one: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Southerners are only stupid in the fact they can't see through that mans bullshit. Well, we can't be sure they even elected him, since no one verified the results like in previous elections.

Well, okay. But it isn't just Southerners - it's really the entire "bible belt" (which, for some mysterious reason, seems to include all of the Southern states).

Most likely he's a mishmash of various prophets/itinerant preachers/magicians/conmen and mythical story telling.

Historically we have no evidence of his existance other than the fabled originator of a small cult that eventually was adopted or usurped by the Roman Emperor. Of the actual man, there is nothing but a forged insertion in a near contemporary history and a forged bone box of his "brother."

There is more contemporary evidence of Jesus than of Julius Ceasar yet there is no doubt he existed.

Please name one contemporary source documenting the existence of Jesus.

Unlike Jesus, we know what Caesar looked like and we have a complete history of his life. We have words written by Caesar himself, as well as words written by both his friends and his enemies. We also have artifacts that confirm his life and death. It seems that all the "evidence" we have of a historical Jesus turns out to have been manufactured by the purveyors of fake antiquities for the purpose of making a fast buck off of the faithful.

If he was both he would take on the qualities of both so he was both a sinner and sin free

Interesting viewpoint but it still leaves the statement that he was a sinner completely valid (as well as sin free)

(argued ourselfs into a standstill)

Only if you believe in original sin would he be both. Which, I do not.

Ok here is one that has been puzzling me maybe you got a better perspective


Now god is omnipotent right

Now with the Christian god the there is the trinity … is each of them separately omnipotent or only them as one (a lot of people consider Jesus after risen to be omnipotent himself) but I guess I have not studied enough to know what doctrine says

I don't know about what every Christian would say, but I believe that each member was, is and always will be omnipotent. However, the method or role that each of them has determine how that omnipotence would be used. I don't know that it is a seperate power source or if this is something that is a part of their "oneness" and the Bible is relatively silent on that matter.

Historically we have no evidence of his existance other than the fabled originator of a small cult that eventually was adopted or usurped by the Roman Emperor. Of the actual man, there is nothing but a forged insertion in a near contemporary history and a forged bone box of his "brother."

Of course, you have to wonder what it meant to be a "brother of the Lord," when Jesus publicly rejected his mother and brothers, replacing them in his heart with fellow cult members:

Matthew 12:46-50: While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Who here believes in a god?

"There is more contemporary evidence of Jesus than of Julius Ceasar yet there is no doubt he existed. "

AFAIK, that is correct. Ok, so assume for a moment that this Jesus person actually existed. Assume also that the guy claimed to be the son of God. Hmm..... ok, from what I can see, that leaves you with very few options.

1. Lunatic
Clinically insane/out of his holy mind
2. Liar
Pulling one of the greatest pranks in the history of the world
3. Lord
The "way, the truth and the life"

You're gonna have to just pick one. Lucifer and Jesus? Now that's what I'd call lunacy. No proof of that anywhere. Speaking of proof, I've seen a case of miraculous healing, heard people speak in tongues, heard someone prophesy over others...... well, frankly that is too spooky to be ignored. So there's gotta be something in this whole Christianity thing, right? And give them credit for one thing: that kind of faith talks about an all-powerful, all-knowing being that just happens to have made everything in existence and loves every human on Earth. Enough to send this Jesus character to get killed. Not just killed, but killed in the most shameful way possible. After being tortured. All because he wanted to 'get rid of our sins' so we could 'follow Him'. Hmm. I don't know..... I think there are some clear pros to such a faith.

Who here believes in a god?

Just to clarify your question, by the word "god," are you implying a singular, masculine deity only? Or do you include any belief in a divine spirit or entity (or entities) of any sort?

I don't know about what every Christian would say, but I believe that each member was, is and always will be omnipotent. However, the method or role that each of them has determine how that omnipotence would be used. I don't know that it is a seperate power source or if this is something that is a part of their "oneness" and the Bible is relatively silent on that matter.
But by definition of omnipotent they can not all exist (there are issues with a single omnipotent deity existing in of itself)

Jeremiah 22:28-30

Thank you. You have an interesting argument.

Ok, so assume for a moment that this Jesus person actually existed. Assume also that the guy claimed to be the son of God. Hmm..... ok, from what I can see, that leaves you with very few options.

1. Lunatic
Clinically insane/out of his holy mind
2. Liar
Pulling one of the greatest pranks in the history of the world
3. Lord
The "way, the truth and the life"

You're gonna have to just pick one.

Please tell me that you're not claiming this as your original idea. Because, for some reason, I was under the distinct impression that it was Josh McDowell's idea. Assuming he existed (and I don't, by the way), why couldn't he have been both Lunatic and Liar? Are they mutually exclusive?

By the way, here is a link to some information about Josh McDowell you might be interested in: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/charade.html

Lucifer and Jesus? Now that's what I'd call lunacy. No proof of that anywhere.

Nothing I'd call proof, exactly - but there is evidence that the Jesus character was crafted by the gospel writers using elements taken from Isaiah 14, especially verses 12-19, as well as Ezekiel 28, especially verses 1-19. If you've actually read anything I've written here, you would already know that. If you're interested, please go back and read my posts in this thread, and then comment on the evidence I've already presented (as I don't particularly relish the idea of posting it all over again).

the guy was real, his dad wasnt

Thank you. You have an interesting argument.

Thank you for reading it - that's more than most will do, apparently.

So what is your stand on this issue, if I may ask?

First you admit that Christianity has brought its problems on itself (although I note that you have failed to mention any of its more horrendous crimes against humanity), and then you say that hatred of Christianity is inevitable because the world hated Jesus first (also implying that such hatred is unwarranted in either case). Why is it that Christians seem to do everything in their power to incur the wrath of non-Christians, and then proudly wear it as a badge of honor?

First I've ever heard of someone saying Christians try to incur the wrath of Non-Christians. Suppose someone had to. Actually no, I've yet to meet a fellow Christian (though I'm sure there are) that purposly try to get people angry with it. Proudly wear it as a badge of honor? Semi-true at best. I, personally, don't go around bragging that I've angered someone threw my belief. Though there are unlimited types of people in this world, so I'm sure at least some Christians have done that.

The statement about Christianity's flaws. I suppose regardless of whatever I say it will not be enough. All I saying is the only reason why Christianity is having trouble is because of our former leaders. Yes, those leaders before us did things that gave rise to the rabid Anti-Christian feelings that are now popular across the world. We all know the acts by the former Christian leaders, I saw no point in having to spell them out for you.

The Scripture comment wasn't suggesting that. It was actually to the Christians who are reading this thread.

I'm sorry, but i must wonder...what kinda idiots would say he's a fictional character?! I can understand if you call the Bible "Mythology". Heck you might as well say Buddha or Hitler was also mythological, after all none of us have ever seen them as well, yet he's recorded in history doing things no man thought possible to do.

But Jesus was certainly real...., there got it out of my system. =)

As far as I know, there is no verifiable proof that Jesus even existed... even the passage in Josephus is commonly held to be a forgery... and was written nearly a century after the fact...

First I've ever heard of someone saying Christians try to incur the wrath of Non-Christians. Suppose someone had to. Actually no, I've yet to meet a fellow Christian (though I'm sure there are) that purposly try to get people angry with it. Proudly wear it as a badge of honor? Semi-true at best. I, personally, don't go around bragging that I've angered someone threw my belief. Though there are unlimited types of people in this world, so I'm sure at least some Christians have done that.

The statement about Christianity's flaws. I suppose regardless of whatever I say it will not be enough. All I saying is the only reason why Christianity is having trouble is because of our former leaders. Yes, those leaders before us did things that gave rise to the rabid Anti-Christian feelings that are now popular across the world. We all know the acts by the former Christian leaders, I saw no point in having to spell them out for you.

The Scripture comment wasn't suggesting that. It was actually to the Christians who are reading this thread.

I have seen unconscious behavior of such not as much on the individual level (which happens) but on the religion as a whole

They seem to like to set themselves (again unconsciously) up to be martyrs (I think it may be built into how the religion started but just an undeveloped theory)

Things they do while not always seem to set them up so they can pretend to be the holy ones taking the uncalled-for (in their opinion) wrath of others.
Just a general feeling I get out of the religion rather then hard proof.

First I've ever heard of someone saying Christians try to incur the wrath of Non-Christians. Suppose someone had to. Actually no, I've yet to meet a fellow Christian (though I'm sure there are) that purposly try to get people angry with it. Proudly wear it as a badge of honor? Semi-true at best. I, personally, don't go around bragging that I've angered someone threw my belief. Though there are unlimited types of people in this world, so I'm sure at least some Christians have done that.

Incurring the wrath of non-Christians may not be their ultimate goal, but are you surprised that the non-Christian world would feel anger over such historical Christian actions as the Inquisitions, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, or the conquest, enslavement, forced conversion and destruction of indigenous cultures, for example? Then, when their own violent actions have caused the world to hate them, they amazingly see this as "proof" that they have indeed found the "One True Religion." And yet they cannot understand why the rest of the world has such a problem with Christianity. Amazing.

A lot of you are right. There was no real concrete proof that Jesus ever existed. The closest we get is the 'box of bones' that may have belonged to his brother.. On that box it said his name (I'll admit it, I forgot his name) and brother of Jesus, which is odd because they usually don't proclaim the brother these bone boxes. However, in defence of the fierce atheist intellectual, Jesus was a common name in those times.

We do know one article about Jesus. That Jesus the idea existed and that this idea has had the single most important impact in Western (perhaps Earth's) history. We base our concept of years off of him. In a matter of hundreds of years, Rome converted from a paganism to a salvation religion. These Christian churchs that was popping up all over Rome liberated women, ended the brutial practice of infanticide and took care of the ill as opposed to the Roman pratice of leaving them in isolation.

The printing press was invented in Germany just to create bibles faster. Some of our most fundamental (and just plain fun) institutions came out of the monistaries. Banks, Breweries, Cheese makers... The church was the only place African-Americans could safely congragate during the Civil Rights movement.

Judeo-Christianity is also responsible being a cornerstone in Capitalism. Hard to believe, but if you remove the element of everything being explained in terms of "This place is sacred, worship it." and replace with, "This is just a place. Let's see what we can make of it!", then obviously people are going to stop chopping 'magical' forests down and building more productive things, such as towns. Let's also not forgot the hard work ethic that it instills in people.

Finally, Judeo-Christianity is even responsible for science. I would go into detail about it, but my rides waiting outside.

The fact of the matter is that even if Jesus didn't exist, he still changed the world and how we lived in it. Like an invisible stone being thrown into a pond.

There is more contemporary evidence of Jesus than of Julius Ceasar yet there is no doubt he existed.

No. Absolutely untrue.

Julius Caesar IS recorded in contemporary texts.

Jesus wasn't even recorded in the Gospels until several years after his crucifixion... and not in an 'independant' source (Josephus - commonly agreed to be a forgery) until a century later.

Jesus was in fact all of the first 3 options, but primarily God and the Son of God. for those who think He was just a carfully craftd myth by the gospel writers, I would like to remind you that said writers lived in different time periods.

Jesus was in fact all of the first 3 options, but primarily God and the Son of God. for those who think He was just a carfully craftd myth by the gospel writers, I would like to remind you that said writers lived in different time periods.

Excellent. Well done.

He MUST have been factual... because all the accounts were written at different times.... ?

Jesus was in fact all of the first 3 options, but primarily God and the Son of God. for those who think He was just a carfully craftd myth by the gospel writers, I would like to remind you that said writers lived in different time periods.
If they lived in different time periods all would not have been able to realistically report Jesus life (not living in his time period they could not possibly have observed him in real life)

Jesus was some Jewish Dude, who thought he was something...but really was he?

Jesus was an artificially inseminated(sp?) human/alien hybrid. These were the same aliens that seeded our planet with life to begin with.

PS: Before you start attacking me, consider this: we currently have the knowledge needed to "seed" a planet, ie. what flora/fauna would be needed to sustain the environment/food chain. We also know what balance of terrain is needed for a healthy eco-system. We have also begun cracking the genetic code: cloning, gene therapy, etc. Who's to say someone else couldn't have done this a long time ago?

PSS: Sorry for trying to bring science and logic into this.

why are we always under attack when we talk about our Christian faith? i don't mind it that much, except it sucks to see all u people so eager to bite the hand that feeds u. but, in the end, it doesn't matter whether u finally see the truth or not, because after all has been said and done,"every eye shall see, every ear shall hear, every heart chall comprehend"; that is, u'll realise ur mistake after it's too late,or be proven wise in ur decision to accept Christ. as usual, u probably think i've lost my mind and am some kind of ranting, raving lunatic, but who cares? God bless.

Jesus was an artificially inseminated(sp?) human/alien hybrid. These were the same aliens that seeded our planet with life to begin with.

PS: Before you start attacking me, consider this: we currently have the knowledge needed to "seed" a planet, ie. what flora/fauna would be needed to sustain the environment/food chain. We also know what balance of terrain is needed for a healthy eco-system. We have also begun cracking the genetic code: cloning, gene therapy, etc. Who's to say someone else couldn't have done this a long time ago?

PSS: Sorry for trying to bring science and logic into this.

Hah! :D

I believe there was someone called jesus, but he was neither a son of god or a representative of god. just a man who believed he was the son of god or told people this, and believed in christianity in a big way. Arrrgh, let go of my neck!!

why are we always under attack when we talk about our Christian faith? i don't mind it that much, except it sucks to see all u people so eager to bite the hand that feeds u. but, in the end, it doesn't matter whether u finally see the truth or not, because after all has been said and done,"every eye shall see, every ear shall hear, every heart chall comprehend"; that is, u'll realise ur mistake after it's too late,or be proven wise in ur decision to accept Christ. as usual, u probably think i've lost my mind and am some kind of ranting, raving lunatic, but who cares? God bless.
The hand that feeds me?

If we relize it even if it is too late we have at least proved something ... that gods a bastard ;)

why are we always under attack when we talk about our Christian faith? i don't mind it that much, except it sucks to see all u people so eager to bite the hand that feeds u. but, in the end, it doesn't matter whether u finally see the truth or not, because after all has been said and done,"every eye shall see, every ear shall hear, every heart chall comprehend"; that is, u'll realise ur mistake after it's too late,or be proven wise in ur decision to accept Christ. as usual, u probably think i've lost my mind and am some kind of ranting, raving lunatic, but who cares? God bless.
(1) There is no absolute proof that your Christian religion is "the truth"
(2) There is no absolute proof that your Christian god even exists
(3) I used to be a Christian, and followed the religion blindly, but after I experience much loss in my life, I opened my eyes and questioned these teachings. Previously I had never considered NOT believe in this "god". Perhaps you should open your eyes, and ask yourself, "Do I really believe in God? Or do I only believe in Him because I have been told to?"

Even if he never existed, you can't argue with his teachings, even if the Bible was written by "some guy".
How can "be nice to each other" be a bad thing?

why are we always under attack when we talk about our Christian faith? i don't mind it that much, except it sucks to see all u people so eager to bite the hand that feeds u. but, in the end, it doesn't matter whether u finally see the truth or not, because after all has been said and done,"every eye shall see, every ear shall hear, every heart chall comprehend"; that is, u'll realise ur mistake after it's too late,or be proven wise in ur decision to accept Christ. as usual, u probably think i've lost my mind and am some kind of ranting, raving lunatic, but who cares? God bless.

The hand that feeds you?

Sorry - but what is christianity doing for me?

The hand that feeds you?

Sorry - but what is christianity doing for me?
I know it's oppressing ME and my political/spirtual beliefs. :mad:

People!!! :headbang: Is everyone in the world blind?! Jesus is the son of God! He is our savior, and he loves us forever no matter what we have done, what we are doing, or what we will do. He's the caring God that wants the best for us! He's the only true God! Do you not realize that he died on the cross, a VERY VERY painful death, for our sins?! We were doomed to Hell before he died for us! Do you not see this? He wants you to accept him, because he will always love you and care for you. Even though sometimes, bad things might happen that make you want to question wheter or not there is a God, you need to understand that it is always happens for a reason. If you want eternal life after you die... If you want a caring, loving, and amazing God... If you want to be forgiven for your sins and always accepted... Then just pray to God right now, yes right now!, and ask him to forgive your sins. Ask him to come into your life forever and love you. Tell him you are sorry of all of your sins! And Amen. If any of you have any questions, please telegram me on nationstates. (Drpep) I will be happy to help. You are all in my prayers.

Go preach on a different website

Jesus :mp5:

I picked Other.

You see, during that time period, there were dozens of guys claiming to be the messiah, all carrying the same sprue of divine powers, and their own little cabal of disciples. Jesus just happened to be the one who got the most publicity and/or most devout followers. That, and the fact that he himself never claimed to be the Messiah, giving him attention for an unfair trial. He, like many of the time, was just a con man. Jesus was meerly the most cunning of the lot.

I leave with this thought: It is all too fitting that a carpenter die nailed to a piece of wood.

I know it's oppressing ME and my political/spirtual beliefs. :mad:

Exactly... as far as I can tell... especially with Bush's 'Faith-based' incentives... we are FEEDING the hand that BITES US!

So what is your stand on this issue, if I may ask?

Well I'm not quite sure what you mean by "this issue" but I don't see any contradiction between the Jesus of the gospel writers and the promised Messiah of the Hebrew scriptures. I can see how you would come to your conclusions working from the assumption that Christianity follows what he taught, however - like you wrote, "Jesus led unfaithful Jews to believe it was suddenly okay to cast aside the Old Testament laws - somehow they no longer applied." I don't read that in the canonical accounts of him, though that seems to be the Jesus who Christianity follows - who I would, like you, equate with "the king of Babylon".

I don't see support for that kind of Jesus in the bible, though, either from the angle of Christians or the angle you've mentioned. It seems to me that you have seen the self-contradictions of Christianity's god and looked to the claimed "source" of Christianity (the Greek writings known as the "new testament") for an alternative explanation for their self-contradictory god without careful examination of the texts themselves. Many apologies if I have assumed too much, though.

Your Jeconiah argument is your strongest one, however, in my opinion. I can only answer by saying what I believe was mentioned by someone else in this thread, that the genealogy in Matthew was only crafted to show legal descent from Abraham & David, and therefore it was of Joseph, and God gets away on a technicality because Jesus wasn't genetically Joseph's son, and therefore not of the "seed" of Jeconiah. However, if you point out to me where those Solomon and Asa prophecies are, I'll have to re-examine the whole issue more closely, as that would prove my view wrong.

The Che Guevarra of his age.....?

There is more contemporary evidence of Jesus than of Julius Caesar yet there is no doubt he existed.
That is, of course, is bullshit. Jesus is not mentioned anywhere outside the biblical texts in any "contemporary" works, and that in this case means 30 years after his alleged existence at the earliest.
Julius Caesar on the other hand wrote several books and had a well-known affair with the queen of Egypt (and a son from that affair). Julius Caesar is mentioned by lots of really contemporary sources, i.e. by people who really lived at the same time (not 30 or more years later) whose written words we still have (e.g. Cicero, Catull whose sex parties Caesar regularly visited). We even have contemporary works of art to portray Caesar, instead of iconographic standardized renderings of Jesus only several decades after his death.

The Che Guevarra of his age.....?
That would be the complete and utter loser of his age?

That would be the complete and utter loser of his age?

No - be fair... the trouble-maker, who hung around with a criminal element, and ended up dead...

Sounds about right...?

No - be fair... the trouble-maker, who hung around with a criminal element, and ended up dead...
Sounds about right...?
That would be the complete and utter loser of his age...!
Ending up dead pretty much means to be a loser, does it not?

First of all, Jeconiah was known by several names in the bible. In the New Testament, he was called, "Jechonias." In the Old Testament, aside from "Jeconiah," he was also referred to as "Coniah" and "Jehoiachin."

Jeremiah 22:28-30 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Although he was to be "written childless," in actuality, he wasn't childless at all. But the curse wasn't that he would literally be childless - it was that his seed could not inherit the throne of David and rule anymore in Judah. Therefore, obviously, the Messiah could not be a descendent of Jeconiah. Every faithful Jew in Jesus' time would have known this, which is why it is baffling at first that Matthew and Luke would have gone through the trouble of connecting Jesus with Jeconiah as they did. At least, it's confusing until you realize that the Jesus was intended to be the stumblingblock that God promised in the Old Testament to send to ensnare the notoriously idolatrous Jews. Think of him as sort of a vice cop on the God-Squad, if you will.

Read this page. Click. (http://messianicart.com/chazak/yeshua/jeconiah.htm)

That would be the complete and utter loser of his age...!
Ending up dead pretty much means to be a loser, does it not?

Well, Christians seem to think it is the key to victory... :)

Imagine... if your biggest hero had, as his crowning acheivement... his horrible death at the hands of his enemies...

But - I was actually referring to the fact that the comparison WAS fairly close... just possibly not in the manner in which the other poster had intended...

Well, Christians seem to think it is the key to victory... :)

Imagine... if your biggest hero had, as his crowning acheivement... his horrible death at the hands of his enemies...

But - I was actually referring to the fact that the comparison WAS fairly close... just possibly not in the manner in which the other poster had intended...
It is a pretty bold thing to declare a dead man victorious. Especially when the guy had left no achievements and no legacy. (unlike Julius Caesar I might add...) But, well, Christians have always had a distorted perception of the world.

Other: Prophet of Allah

Other: Prophet of Allah
Why is that "other" ?

Why is that "other" ?
Because it isnt included in the choices...

I just want to give a great big slap to anyone who voted "Antichrist"

God/Son of God and the long awaited Jewish messiah are kinda synonymous, don't you think?

God/Son of God and the long awaited Jewish messiah are kinda synonymous, don't you think?
No. Why?

Read this page. Click. (http://messianicart.com/chazak/yeshua/jeconiah.htm)

And here are a couple of links for you to check out:
http://www.geocities.com/antimissionary
http://www.teshuvah.com/articles/Does_Yeshua_qualify_as_the_Messiah.htm

Who was Jesus?
He saves, but the rest take full damage :D

Your Jehoshaphat argument is your strongest one, however, in my opinion. I can only answer by saying what I believe was mentioned by someone else in this thread, that the genealogy in Matthew was only crafted to show legal descent from Abraham & David, and therefore it was of Joseph, and God gets away on a technicality because Jesus wasn't genetically Joseph's son, and therefore not of the "seed" of Jehoshaphat. However, if you point out to me where those Solomon and Asa prophecies are, I'll have to re-examine the whole issue more closely, as that would prove my view wrong.

I'm guessing you meant my Jeconiah argument. Here is God's promise that if David's blood descendants would follow God, they would rule on his throne forever more:

Psalms 132:10-12: For thy servant David's sake turn not away the face of thine anointed. The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore.

And here is God's promise that Solomon's descendants would rule over Israel forever:

1 Chronicles 22:9,10: Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.

Here is the passage showing that Asa's heart was right with God, which qualifies his blood descendants to rule on the throne of David:

1 Kings 15:8-14: And Abijam slept with his fathers; and they buried him in the city of David: and Asa his son reigned in his stead. And in the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel reigned Asa over Judah. And forty and one years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom. And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. And also Maachah his mother, even her he removed from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove; and Asa destroyed her idol, and burnt it by the brook Kidron. But the high places were not removed: nevertheless Asa's heart was perfect with the LORD all his days.

So if God can be counted on to keep his word, the Messiah had to be a blood descendant of King David through both Solomon and Asa, but not Jeconiah. Jesus does not qualify.

(3) I used to be a Christian, and followed the religion blindly, but after I experience much loss in my life, I opened my eyes and questioned these teachings. Previously I had never considered NOT believe in this "god". Perhaps you should open your eyes, and ask yourself, "Do I really believe in God? Or do I only believe in Him because I have been told to?"

I believe in my God because I have studied many different subjects and interpreted the facts as pointing that their is a personal God as described in the Christian Bible. Actually with my worldview, your #1 and #2 are wrong.

I believe in my God because I have studied many different subjects and interpreted the facts as pointing that their is a personal God as described in the Christian Bible. Actually with my worldview, your #1 and #2 are wrong.
Obviously you have studied nothing. Otherwise you would not assume that there (are you natively speaking English ?) is a personal god described in the Christian Bible. The god described in the Bible is not Christian, and not even Jewish, and he has in no way personal ties with anyone.

Jesus was an anarchist revolutionary in Spain.

Oh wait, did you mean the Jesus in that one book that Christians read?
Oops, I had the wrong Jesus.

My favorite Jesus is Little Jesus from the game Fallout 2. I killed him and took his unique combat knife which deals 5-14 HP damage and takes 3 action points to use.

I just want to give a great big slap to anyone who voted "Antichrist"
Why?

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, no?

I believe in my God because I have studied many different subjects and interpreted the facts as pointing that their is a personal God as described in the Christian Bible. Actually with my worldview, your #1 and #2 are wrong.

Curious. I DON'T believe in my God because I have studied many different subjects and interpreted the facts as pointing that there is NO personal God as described in the Christian Bible.

Curious. I DON'T believe in my God because I have studied many different subjects and interpreted the facts as pointing that there is NO personal God as described in the Christian Bible.

But your just wrong Grave, ;)

But your just wrong Grave, ;)

Oh, I SEE..... I get it now.

I was 'wrong'... what a fool I've been.... :) ;)

Fictional?? He WAS an actual person you know. And the Romans really DID kill him.

Christ = Antichrist?

Here's something to think about for the 40% or so who voted that Jesus is God and/or the Son of God:

Matthew 7:13,14: Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

So which choice represents the "strait gate" so far in this poll? I mean think about it - those of you who believe in the concept of the Antichrist - how did you think the Antichrist was going to deceive even the very elect? The bible came right out and said it would be with signs and wonders, did it not? The New Testament boldly describes a man who fits the Christian expectations for the Antichrist - almost to a "T" - and yet you still worship him as God! Why are you even looking anywhere else for your Antichrist? He's been right in front of you the entire time!

But by definition of omnipotent they can not all exist (there are issues with a single omnipotent deity existing in of itself)

I'm not saying that I can explain it perfectly, but explaining the infinite would require being infinite and speaking to someone with the capacity to understand the infinite and I am not and I suspect you are not infinite either, no offense.

This is actually one of the things I expect to enjoy throughout eternity. Learning who God is will be infinitely interesting and engaging. How three can be combined in one and still be all powerful individuals is a concept I lack the capacity to get my mind around, but that doesn't make it impossible, and I'd rather base my beliefs on the Word of God than on my limited/finite capacity to reason and understand.

Fictional?? He WAS an actual person you know. And the Romans really DID kill him.

Christ = Antichrist?

It's a bit of a paradox.

By the way, how can you kill a god?

By the way, how can you kill a god?

You can't unless He lays down His life for the people who want to kill Him.

Incurring the wrath of non-Christians may not be their ultimate goal, but are you surprised that the non-Christian world would feel anger over such historical Christian actions as the Inquisitions, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, or the conquest, enslavement, forced conversion and destruction of indigenous cultures, for example? Then, when their own violent actions have caused the world to hate them, they amazingly see this as "proof" that they have indeed found the "One True Religion." And yet they cannot understand why the rest of the world has such a problem with Christianity. Amazing.

I have reading/skimming through the responses that have been posted about this particular topic. I have seen how other Christians on this site have blamed it on the leaders of that time. There may have been other excuses too but i just didn't catch them all. Frankly there have been way too many excuses. It comes down to responsibility. Are we as Christians (talking to the believers here a bit......) willing to accept what our 'brothers and sisters' have done? Are we willing to just let our stupid pride get out of the way, humble ourselves and ask for forgiveness. It was not our leaders who made the mistakes, it was all of them! All Christians are not perfect. All Christians need to be real not fake acting like everything is okay. Cause it's not. Yes, we trust God and we have faith in Him but we still have our pains and our struggles. Why can't we let the world see that? See that we are not that much different. Jesus walked amonst the 'sinners' and we spend too much time trying to steer clear of them.

Okay i'm gonna stop with the rebuke.

I have been milling over this for sometime and it hurts. I may be the only Christian to do this but i certainly hope not. To all of you out there that have seen our screw ups and our bad calls and very very costly mistakes. I want to apologize and say that I'm sorry. There is nothing that i can do on my own to make up for the debt that was lost and the lives there were lost for sake of religion. I'm sorry that entire villages and pockets of culture we dessimated for the sake of 'conversion from their heathen ways'. Trust me, i do feel a little bit disgust when i think of all the awesome cultures and languages and traditions that were lost.

I don't want to make this long winded. I just wanted to say from one Christian to everyone else who feels wronged and hurt and judged by us 'religous people', i'm sorry. I truly am.

We are not perfect (we as in Christians) and we try to claim to be. I can't run down a list of the why's and the how's. I ask this though, the only one that is perfect and is in the right is Jesus. We all try in our feeble way to become like Him. So, when you judge our beliefs and our 'religion' i ask that you study the Word cause that is the truth. Everything on top of that has been added by imperfect people that need to be weighed by the Bible.

I thank you for your time and please know my sincere regret for what my brothers and sisters have done.

I have reading/skimming through the responses that have been posted about this particular topic. I have seen how other Christians on this site have blamed it on the leaders of that time. There may have been other excuses too but i just didn't catch them all. Frankly there have been way too many excuses. It comes down to responsibility. Are we as Christians (talking to the believers here a bit......) willing to accept what our 'brothers and sisters' have done? Are we willing to just let our stupid pride get out of the way, humble ourselves and ask for forgiveness. It was not our leaders who made the mistakes, it was all of them! All Christians are not perfect. All Christians need to be real not fake acting like everything is okay. Cause it's not. Yes, we trust God and we have faith in Him but we still have our pains and our struggles. Why can't we let the world see that? See that we are not that much different. Jesus walked amonst the 'sinners' and we spend too much time trying to steer clear of them.

Okay i'm gonna stop with the rebuke.

I have been milling over this for sometime and it hurts. I may be the only Christian to do this but i certainly hope not. To all of you out there that have seen our screw ups and our bad calls and very very costly mistakes. I want to apologize and say that I'm sorry. There is nothing that i can do on my own to make up for the debt that was lost and the lives there were lost for sake of religion. I'm sorry that entire villages and pockets of culture we dessimated for the sake of 'conversion from their heathen ways'. Trust me, i do feel a little bit disgust when i think of all the awesome cultures and languages and traditions that were lost.

I don't want to make this long winded. I just wanted to say from one Christian to everyone else who feels wronged and hurt and judged by us 'religous people', i'm sorry. I truly am.

We are not perfect (we as in Christians) and we try to claim to be. I can't run down a list of the why's and the how's. I ask this though, the only one that is perfect and is in the right is Jesus. We all try in our feeble way to become like Him. So, when you judge our beliefs and our 'religion' i ask that you study the Word cause that is the truth. Everything on top of that has been added by imperfect people that need to be weighed by the Bible.

I thank you for your time and please know my sincere regret for what my brothers and sisters have done.
1. Too late.
2. Since you are still adhering to the fatal ideologies expressed in the Bible, your apology is worthless anyways. Go study the Word and you find what the god of the Bible is not worth worship.

1. Too late.
2. Since you are still adhering to the fatal ideologies expressed in the Bible, your apology is worthless anyways. Go study the Word and you find what the god of the Bible is not worth worship.



ouch, thats harsh Ankher, perhaps you should show some respect for a well written post instead of flaming all over the place.

ouch, thats harsh Ankher, perhaps you should show some respect for a well written post instead of flaming all over the place.
Well-written? Maybe, but that does not make up for the content. And I have absolutely no respect for the despicable thoughts expressed in this text.

Well-written? Maybe, but that does not make up for the content. And I have absolutely no respect for the despicable thoughts expressed in this text.

Personally, I applaud it.

I think it was a very brave post... a Christian admitting that Christians HAVE given everyone else a rough ride.

I'm no fan of the bible, or it's messages of war - but (I assume) Bible Quotin Prophets seems to genuinely feel bad for the past and present sins of the church.

More power to him (or her), I say.

Personally, I applaud it.

I think it was a very brave post... a Christian admitting that Christians HAVE given everyone else a rough ride.

I'm no fan of the bible, or it's messages of war - but (I assume) Bible Quotin Prophets seems to genuinely feel bad for the past and present sins of the church.

More power to him (or her), I say.

Big of you GI, as usual. :) For an athiest, you make a pretty good "C"hristian sometimes. ;)

Hobo? Vagabond? Sniper rifle toting emoticon? :sniper:

Im gonna say that the jesus that people know and love is completely fictionalized... while he might have been an actual person I highly doubt that he could have been more than a wandering preacher...

I've never read the bible, I've gone to church maybe a total of 2 times in my life (outside of weddings and funerals) and I dont really feel I have a need for some sort of super religious figure to save me from eternal damnation. Why? because I dont care enough to devote a large chunk of my life to something I dont believe in just to win myself a ticket into a heaven that may not exist.

when I have some proof as to the existance of an almighty being i'll be sure to cut my morning jog a little short to attend sunday mass. Until then jesus is nothing but a sun baked vagabond who thought he was the son of god because his parents told him so.

Big of you GI, as usual. :) For an athiest, you make a pretty good "C"hristian sometimes. ;)

Thank you for the "C"! :)

I rarely have problems with people with big c's. :) And B.Q.P. is currently acting the part, certainly.

I regret the things 'christians' have done. I do not consider all Christians to be part of the same movement, however.

I think it was very big of B.Q.P. to step up to the plate like that, hard enough WITHOUT the slings and arrows or his adversaries.

Choose the description that fits him best in your mind; please explain if you choose "Other."

As I see it, Jesus seems to have been a character who was carefully crafted by the gospel writers using several Old Testament texts that spoke of an evil ruler who wanted to be worshipped as God. Although these rulers are not specifically named, they are given various suggestive titles, such as "King of Babylon" or "Lucifer" and "King of Tyrus" or "Prince of Tyrus," for example (Babylon means "confusion by mixing," "Lucifer" means "morning star," and Tyrus means "rock"). Some obvious examples of such passages can be found in Isaiah 14 (especially verses 12-19) and Ezekiel 28 (especially verses 1-19). Additionally, Jesus goes so far as to identify himself as the "morning star" in Revelations 22:16, making this hypothesis a bit difficult to dispute.

Also, two of the gospel writers (Matthew and Luke) went out of their way to craft genealogies that would actually prove that Jesus couldn't be the long awaited Jewish Messiah. First of all, the Messiah was supposed to be a descendent of King David through both Solomon and Asa. For another, the Messiah could not be a descendent of the cursed branch of Jeconiah. Neither genealogy showed the proper line of descendency through both Solomon and Asa, and both showed that he was descended from Jeconiah - either implicitly (Luke) or explicitly (Matthew). Why?

Combine these facts with some of the anti-family comments that have been attributed to Jesus by the gospel writers (among other things), and you seem to have a pretty unsavory character who is currently being worshipped as God by about a third of the world's population. Does this seem odd to anyone else besides me?

A few questions

- To what end? Why would these people want to twist Jesus to be who he wasn't
- Why then? Why did people suddenly feel the need to falisify a messiah then?

A few questions

- To what end? Why would these people want to twist Jesus to be who he wasn't
- Why then? Why did people suddenly feel the need to falisify a messiah then?

1) Because of the Roman occupation.

2) There were hundreds of 'messiahs', Neo. And all of them were proved false, by the Jews. Incidentally - they ALSO don't accept Jesus as messiah... which MIGHT tell you something.

So - both questions answered by two words: Need, and Opportunity.

Jesus was a revolutionary thinker influenced by contemporaries such as John the Baptist. Through knowledge of the scriptures that discussed the coming of the "Messiah" he engineered propaganda events such as his entrance into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey (which had been described in one of the prophesies of a messiah) in order to gain support for his revolutionary group with the aim of liberating Palestine. He was then crucified for the crime of encouraging people not to pay the Roman taxes.

I have reading/skimming through the responses that have been posted about this particular topic. I have seen how other Christians on this site have blamed it on the leaders of that time. There may have been other excuses too but i just didn't catch them all. Frankly there have been way too many excuses. It comes down to responsibility. Are we as Christians (talking to the believers here a bit......) willing to accept what our 'brothers and sisters' have done? Are we willing to just let our stupid pride get out of the way, humble ourselves and ask for forgiveness. It was not our leaders who made the mistakes, it was all of them! All Christians are not perfect. All Christians need to be real not fake acting like everything is okay. Cause it's not. Yes, we trust God and we have faith in Him but we still have our pains and our struggles. Why can't we let the world see that? See that we are not that much different. Jesus walked amonst the 'sinners' and we spend too much time trying to steer clear of them.

Okay i'm gonna stop with the rebuke.

I have been milling over this for sometime and it hurts. I may be the only Christian to do this but i certainly hope not. To all of you out there that have seen our screw ups and our bad calls and very very costly mistakes. I want to apologize and say that I'm sorry. There is nothing that i can do on my own to make up for the debt that was lost and the lives there were lost for sake of religion. I'm sorry that entire villages and pockets of culture we dessimated for the sake of 'conversion from their heathen ways'. Trust me, i do feel a little bit disgust when i think of all the awesome cultures and languages and traditions that were lost.

I don't want to make this long winded. I just wanted to say from one Christian to everyone else who feels wronged and hurt and judged by us 'religous people', i'm sorry. I truly am.

We are not perfect (we as in Christians) and we try to claim to be. I can't run down a list of the why's and the how's. I ask this though, the only one that is perfect and is in the right is Jesus. We all try in our feeble way to become like Him. So, when you judge our beliefs and our 'religion' i ask that you study the Word cause that is the truth. Everything on top of that has been added by imperfect people that need to be weighed by the Bible.

I thank you for your time and please know my sincere regret for what my brothers and sisters have done.

Thank you, BQP. You seem to be sincere in expressing your regret, even though I'm reasonably certain you personally had nothing to do with any of the atrocities I've mentioned. (Past lives are another matter entirely, and if we were to consider that possibility, then any one of us is in danger of being counted guilty, I'm afraid.) I seldom see this attitude of contrition from Christians, and it touches my heart that you felt compelled to genuinely express such feelings. I'm sorry that there are some here who are too mean-spirited to accept your statement in the spirit it was obviously intended.

Past atrocities aside, I still have issues with the Christian faith, mainly because of the Christian tendency to proselytize and to insist that their way is the only way while all other spiritual paths are false and lead to eternal damnation. If Christians would just stop doing that, I doubt there'd be many who would feel compelled to debate the issue (I certainly wouldn't, at any rate).

In any case, please don't take any of my statements personally - they're not aimed specifically at you (unless you're one of those who is doing the proselytizing, of course). But as long as there are Christians out there who insist on shoving their religion down everyone's throats, I will feel compelled to make an equally strong case against their beliefs. It's what I do.

Jesus was both the Son of God and the Jewish Messiah.

Proper contextual reading of the Bible reveals as much, and since the Bible has a mountain of autographical and contextual evidence behind it being untampered with (which I can give) and quite a convincing argument that it is, in fact, inspired (which I can also give), there is actually no legitimate evidence that proves he isn't.

Take the lineages, for instance. Mary and Joseph were both from David's direct lineage (far enough removed that this wasn't a gross relationship). Mary was not related through the royal lineage, though Joseph was. However, because of God's curse upon King Jehoiakim (also in the royal lineage), none of Jehoiakim's direct decendants were allowed to become king. This opens a paradox. The Messiah was to be King of the Jews, yet he could not be a direct decendant of the royal line because of the curse. On the same token, he could not become king without being in the royal line. Jesus was the only one in Jewish history to fit this mold. If he was born of a virgin birth, as Scripture reads to be true, then he was in the direct line of David, as promised in the Old Testament, and he was avoiding the curse, as Joseph was not his biological father, and he was able to claim Kingship as a result of the rights given after being adopted as Joseph's son. Thus, virgin birth is the only way that the Messiah would be able to come (which makes claims by the likes of Judas Maccabbeus seem absurd).\

But forget the discussion. I would like to also ask forgiveness for my brothers and sisters (redeemed Christians) who continue to live as if being a Christian means you are above everyone else. I am sorry for the people who bomb abortion clinics in my God's name. I am sorry for the rioters who cause havoc in His name. I am sorry for the ones that try to trick others into becoming Christians with slick gimmicks and deceptive talk, doing so in the Lord's name. I am sorry for the genocide that has unjustly taken place in my God's name. I am sorry for the picketers who try to further their political agendas under God's name.

When you look at what being a Christian means, look at Jesus Christ. The rest of us, though we try, are the biggest failures at acting like Christians. We have become ignorant, believing whatever we are told by a preacher in the pulpit. As Hutchinson put it, "Unthinking faith is a curious offering to be made to the Creator of the human mind." I am sorry for us when we do just that, and drag you down with us.

Don't look at Christians to get a picture of Christianity. Look at Christ.


"I love their Christ. I hate their Christians."
~Ghandi

EDIT: Well, I guess I am in the boat with BQP. I can't make excuses for what some 'c'histians do, and I find it sad (no offense intended) that an atheist knows more about what Christianity is than most professed Christians. Kudos, Grave.

Thank you, BQP. You seem to be sincere in expressing your regret, even though I'm reasonably certain you personally had nothing to do with any of the atrocities I've mentioned. (Past lives are another matter entirely, and if we were to consider that possibility, then any one of us is in danger of being counted guilty, I'm afraid.) I seldom see this attitude of contrition from Christians, and it touches my heart that you felt compelled to genuinely express such feelings. I'm sorry that there are some here who are too mean-spirited to accept your statement in the spirit it was obviously intended.

Past atrocities aside, I still have issues with the Christian faith, mainly because of the Christian tendency to proselytize and to insist that their way is the only way while all other spiritual paths are false and lead to eternal damnation. If Christians would just stop doing that, I doubt there'd be many who would feel compelled to debate the issue (I certainly wouldn't, at any rate).

In any case, please don't take any of my statements personally - they're not aimed specifically at you (unless you're one of those who is doing the proselytizing, of course). But as long as there are Christians out there who insist on shoving their religion down everyone's throats, I will feel compelled to make an equally strong case against their beliefs. It's what I do.

This is why I talk about 'christians' - who are the people who claim the faith... and Christians... who are the people who ACTUALLY live Christ-like lives.

There are very few people on this forum that I have separated into the Christian category... FutureExistence, Dempublicents and Personal Responsibilit are the only ones I can think of, off the top of my head.

And a surprisingly large number of 'christians'...

I believe in my God because I have studied many different subjects and interpreted the facts as pointing that their is a personal God as described in the Christian Bible. Actually with my worldview, your #1 and #2 are wrong.
Where is the absolute proof that the Christian Religion is absolute truth and your God exists?

Jesus was both the Son of God and the Jewish Messiah.

Proper contextual reading of the Bible reveals as much, and since the Bible has a mountain of autographical and contextual evidence behind it being untampered with (which I can give) and quite a convincing argument that it is, in fact, inspired (which I can also give), there is actually no legitimate evidence that proves he isn't.

Take the lineages, for instance. Mary and Joseph were both from David's direct lineage (far enough removed that this wasn't a gross relationship). Mary was not related through the royal lineage, though Joseph was. However, because of God's curse upon King Jehoiakim (also in the royal lineage), none of Jehoiakim's direct decendants were allowed to become king. This opens a paradox. The Messiah was to be King of the Jews, yet he could not be a direct decendant of the royal line because of the curse. On the same token, he could not become king without being in the royal line. Jesus was the only one in Jewish history to fit this mold. If he was born of a virgin birth, as Scripture reads to be true, then he was in the direct line of David, as promised in the Old Testament, and he was avoiding the curse, as Joseph was not his biological father, and he was able to claim Kingship as a result of the rights given after being adopted as Joseph's son. Thus, virgin birth is the only way that the Messiah would be able to come (which makes claims by the likes of Judas Maccabbeus seem absurd).\

But forget the discussion. I would like to also ask forgiveness for my brothers and sisters (redeemed Christians) who continue to live as if being a Christian means you are above everyone else. I am sorry for the people who bomb abortion clinics in my God's name. I am sorry for the rioters who cause havoc in His name. I am sorry for the ones that try to trick others into becoming Christians with slick gimmicks and deceptive talk, doing so in the Lord's name. I am sorry for the genocide that has unjustly taken place in my God's name. I am sorry for the picketers who try to further their political agendas under God's name.

When you look at what being a Christian means, look at Jesus Christ. The rest of us, though we try, are the biggest failures at acting like Christians. We have become ignorant, believing whatever we are told by a preacher in the pulpit. As Hutchinson put it, "Unthinking faith is a curious offering to be made to the Creator of the human mind." I am sorry for us when we do just that, and drag you down with us.

Don't look at Christians to get a picture of Christianity. Look at Christ.


"I love their Christ. I hate their Christians."
~Ghandi

EDIT: Well, I guess I am in the boat with BQP. I can't make excuses for what some 'c'histians do, and I find it sad (no offense intended) that an atheist knows more about what Christianity is than most professed Christians. Kudos, Grave.
1. Proper contextual reading of the Bible reveals that it does not have a mountain of autographical and contextual evidence behind it. Furthermore the comparative study of the Bible and sources outside the Bible shows that the overall theological concept developed in biblical texts (and only there) is not founded in the actual beliefs of the people living in the Middle East 3000-something years ago. There is no occurence of a monotheistic theological concept in any historical source prior to the age of David and his successors, when the first biblical texts were written down from oral traditions (the cult temporarily introduced by Akhenaten in Egypt just a few years earlier is not completely monotheistic). Even the symbol used to represent the monotheistic god's name YHWH does not appear earlier than that. There surely was only one cult of a god called Yah prior to the Exodus some 450 years earlier and it was not monotheistic and it was not especially Hebrew. The god of Abraham and his offspring is not as the Bible describes and has never been. So any statements the Bible subsequently makes are without a proper basis.
2. Proper contextual reading of the Bible reveals that it is pretty easy to write a text about a person so that it appears as if that person fulfills prophecies of earlier writings. We have no actual historical knowledge on who Mary or Joseph really were or from what lineage. The gospels' authors of course had easy play to create a connection between these two and the lineage of (the chieftain who collaborated with the enemy) David, in a way as to fit the description of the lineage of the messiah, as Aluminumia described it (based on Isaiah and Jeremiah I suppose).

I picked option number 1.

And here are a couple of links for you to check out:
http://www.geocities.com/antimissionary
http://www.teshuvah.com/articles/Does_Yeshua_qualify_as_the_Messiah.htm

This response comes from B.R. Burton,

The curse of Jeconiah was annulled as the Talmud says (look at my article, it thoroughly proves it, YET THESE SITES STILL ARE TRYING TO CLAIM IT. Do they not know their own traditions? Or are they playing on the ignorance of those who don't know them? Moreover, let's say for one moment it was not annulled. According to Midrash Tanchuma, Messiah descends from Zerubabbel, grandson of Jeconiah! Then, how can we have a Messiah? Moreover, the arguments are weak. Mary doesn't confer the Kingship, Joseph does (through adoption/inheritance), Miryam's toledot (genealogy) in Luke, is to show that he is physically from David.

Moreover, they commit a logical fallacy by setting up a scenario with limited options - i.e. if I find value in the Jewish traditions, I have to accept everyone of them as divine inspiration? That is a complete joke. IF they were wrong about Yeshua, doesn't mean they were wrong about everything. The historical circumstances between early Nazarene Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism produced much of the POLEMIC between the two. Moreover, Singer's statement that it doesn't occur in the Bible is also wrong, as I have shown through the phraseology that God procaims to Zerubavel in Haggai, as the Rabbis themselves have noted.

"missionaries can't have it both ways" is interesting that Singer says that. Wait a minute, if we cant have it "both ways" then why can he? Why is it that he can believe in the Talmud, and then throw out the TIRED Jeconiah argument?

This is all logical fallacy. They can't apply the same rules to themselves that they apply to others.

Ankher, all you had to do was ask. I would be happy to actually write it. I actually had already, but I screwed something up and it wasn't saved.

I am off to work for now, so I don't have time. However, I will be back to reply in more detail.

My cousin Rere's last ex-boy firend, that bastard still hasn't paid child support for poor little Bonquifa. That son of god shit can only get you too far. Immaclate conception my ass.

I picked option number 1.
With a name like that does not suprize me

Proper contextual reading of the Bible reveals that it does not have a mountain of autographical and contextual evidence behind it.

Well, for time's sake, I will cover just some of the basics. I could start out with the fact that, if you count the Vulgate, there are over 24,000 New Testament manuscripts that agree with each other (without, there are still almost 14,000). When I say they agree, I am meaning that these are not the ones that have seemed to veer off the original text. To point out the significance of this, I will compare a few more widely accepted pieces. The New Testament was finished in about AD 100. The earliest found copy was written in AD 125. The span of 25 years is unbelievably short. Compare Homer's Iliad, for example. This was completed some time around 900 BCE. The earliest copy was found in 400 BCE. Twenty-five years leaves a lot fewer instances for change than five hundred. In addition, there are only 643 existing copies that agree of the Iliad. Or you could look at the writings surrounding the philosopher Plato. We only have eleven manuscripts that were supposed to have been written by him. If the 14,000 pieces of tangible evidence is not mountainous in comparison, then the Iliad is not likely to have ever been written by Homer and there is a good chance that Plato never existed. Naturally, I don't believe either of those, but for one to ignore the evidence surrounding biblical legitimacy, one would have to intentionally turn a blind eye to avoid being compelled to believe those two propositions.

I could point out that the Bible lines up with other major historical events (the reign of Caesar, the fall of Jerusalem and the temple therein, the different Caesars during the times of the apostolic church, etc.) in history with near-perfect accuracy. Also, there have been people mentioned in the Bible that were not known of to the rest of the world until recently. Take James, the brother of Jesus. Until recently there was no "proof" other than the Bible that he existed. Recently, however, his burial box was recovered in an archaeological expedition. On the box, in a style of Aramaeic used only between roughly 10-70 AD is written the words, "James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus."

Also David, for example. Such a mighty king as mentioned in Scriptures and yet no modern evidence? That would be curious until twelve years ago, when Avraham Biran recovered a piece of basalt with lines of writings on it. No line was complete, but in one of the lines, the words "House of David" appear clearly. This is in addition to Mesha Stela, which also makes reference to him.

In 1990, they found the tomb of Caiaphas, the High Priest of Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin. Then there was the Jehoash Inscription, making reference to Solomon's Temple.

But I would not expect you to simply take those as absolutely as some. Rightly so, as those are small pieces of evidence.

The Bible contains no historical errors and is in line with scientific laws (The exception is the recording of miracles, as the very definition of a miracle would be something that defies science. However, even the sciences hold some theories to be true that defy science.). The only places where the Bible "contradicts" itself is in small, trivial matters which were likely a result of the fact that most books were written in hindsight and memories were not crystal-clear (ex. Matt. 27:37 with Mk. 15:26 with Lk. 23:38 with Jn. 19:19).

Some more evidences:

~ It was written over a span of 1500 years, yet never contradicts itself.

~ It was written over nearly 40 generations by around 40 authors (depending on what you do with Hebrews) with different backgrounds and different education levels and still, no author contradicts another.

~ It was written over three different continents (Europe, Asia, Africa) and in three different languages (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaeic) and still remains cohesive.

~ It maintains a common theme, dispite all those differences.

It has survived persecution, which is odd. If those who "began" Christianity were making it up or exaggerating, it is unlikely that they would die for it. Many religions have martyrs, but most others were started by a person or group of people that were not persecuted. Christianity was persecuted from the beginning up until Constantine (who ended up butchering it, anyway).

It has also survived criticism. I love logic, and I think that it is good to put it to good use to determine the quality of ideas. Those who have attempted to use "logic" to refute Christianity have yet to make many strides. Christianity, on the other hand, has made logical strides to put flesh with the faith, so to speak. Thomas Aquinas, for example, wrote a piece that you have likely heard of called Summa Theologica, which uses scientific principals in order to prove the existence of a Supreme Creator. It makes for a good read if you have any spare time.

In addition, it has outlasted numerous other "religions," many of which made similar claims (Isis and ressurection, Gnosticism and God being Spirit, Ishtar and virgin birth). These were either refuted or dropped at the pressure of persecution.

There is no occurence of a monotheistic theological concept in any historical source prior to the age of David and his successors, when the first biblical texts were written down from oral traditions.

Not quite true. Even most historians who do not profess Christianity admit that both Abraham and Job were monotheistic.

Even the symbol used to represent the monotheistic god's name YHWH does not appear earlier than that.

This is true, to a point. You do fail to recognize that there were other ways of referring to the Lord. That was simply the acronym used in place of His name. For instance, the words shadday (שׁדּי), 'ĕlôhîym (אלהים), and yehôvâh (יהוה) were all used in the days of Job, either before or contemporaneous with Abraham.

The god of Abraham and his offspring is not as the Bible describes and has never been. So any statements the Bible subsequently makes are without a proper basis.

Proof? Evidence?

Proper contextual reading of the Bible reveals that it is pretty easy to write a text about a person so that it appears as if that person fulfills prophecies of earlier writings. We have no actual historical knowledge on who Mary or Joseph really were or from what lineage. The gospels' authors of course had easy play to create a connection between these two and the lineage of David, in a way as to fit the description of the lineage of the messiah, as Aluminumia described it (based on Isaiah and Jeremiah I suppose).

See burial box of James. Joseph was legit, though much is not known about him other than his lineage. In addition to that, your statement itself is not contextually accurate. Looking through Jewish history, they were very particular about familiy lineages. It is almost obscenely doubtful that both of these people would have neglected to know their own, as that would have been considered socially unacceptable and even rebellious. Also, the whole point of the prophecies being fulfilled was that they seemed to be unfulfillable (Is that even a word?). The lineage conundrum itself seems like a paradox until it is fulfilled, as I mentioned in an earlier post.

After all this, I am willing to admit that there are some things about the Bible that are based on faith. The whole idea of inspiration (which nobody questioned) is one that is based on presuppositions. I am willing to go so far as to say that if the presupposition upon which you build all of your worldview is that there is no God, then your view would have logical validity. However, even that presupposition is one that is making some huge assumptions.

A few questions

- To what end? Why would these people want to twist Jesus to be who he wasn't
- Why then? Why did people suddenly feel the need to falisify a messiah then?

These are good questions, and I admit that I have no real answers - only theories. Okay - nothing so grand as theories - hypotheses, maybe. All right - so I've got a couple of vague ideas floating around in my head somewhere. Let me see if I can pull them out for you.

First of all, my idea is that they weren't so much twisting Jesus to be who he wasn't - they created him as they wanted him to be right from the get-go. For whatever reason, they wanted to make him appear to be fulfilling the Messianic prophesies of the Old Testament, while at the same time, leaving more obscure clues that revealed him as fulfilling "prophesies" of a much darker nature to anyone who took the time to search for the truth.

Why would they do this, you ask? The Readers' Digest version of my answer is that there never seems to be any shortage of people who insist on doing their part in artificially bringing old "prophesies" to fulfillment, just like some people today are trying to bring about Armageddon. Strange, I know, but that seems to be human nature.

In the Old Testament, God promised to send the notoriously idolatrous Jews a stumblingblock to ensnare any would-be idolators, kind of the same way a vice cop dressed as a prostitute would be sent to the red-light district to ensnare the would-be johns. The New Testament even comes out and describes Jesus as a stumblingblock to the Jews, though they try to make it sound as if he was sent for the purpose of being worshipped as God, which the Jews failed to do for the most part. Of course, the idea that God would send a man who he expected and wanted the Jews to worship as God makes no sense whatsoever, since God had specifically told them all along that he is neither a man or a son of man, and there is no savior beside him. He was so adamant about this that his first Commandment to the Jews was that they must have no other gods before him, and the penalty for violating this commandment was death! During his lifetime (i.e., prior to his crucifixion), Jesus was made to say that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Since he was also enticing those lost sheep to violate the first Commandment and worship him as God, and he stated that his mission was to cause division - well, although I may not have the world's best explanation for the question of why he would intentionally lead those lost sheep even further astray - I'd say his role was pretty clear.

Take James, the brother of Jesus. Until recently there was no "proof" other than the Bible that he existed. Recently, however, his burial box was recovered in an archaeological expedition. On the box, in a style of Aramaeic used only between roughly 10-70 AD is written the words, "James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus."

I agree with most of what you wrote in your post, but this here was proven to be a forgery.

Thank you, BQP. You seem to be sincere in expressing your regret, even though I'm reasonably certain you personally had nothing to do with any of the atrocities I've mentioned. (Past lives are another matter entirely, and if we were to consider that possibility, then any one of us is in danger of being counted guilty, I'm afraid.) I seldom see this attitude of contrition from Christians, and it touches my heart that you felt compelled to genuinely express such feelings. I'm sorry that there are some here who are too mean-spirited to accept your statement in the spirit it was obviously intended.

Past atrocities aside, I still have issues with the Christian faith, mainly because of the Christian tendency to proselytize and to insist that their way is the only way while all other spiritual paths are false and lead to eternal damnation. If Christians would just stop doing that, I doubt there'd be many who would feel compelled to debate the issue (I certainly wouldn't, at any rate).

In any case, please don't take any of my statements personally - they're not aimed specifically at you (unless you're one of those who is doing the proselytizing, of course). But as long as there are Christians out there who insist on shoving their religion down everyone's throats, I will feel compelled to make an equally strong case against their beliefs. It's what I do.

I will try and keep this to the point. First off, there has been some confusion as to my sex....i'm a female. :)

And to respond to what you wrote. Thank you for your reply, it was very kind. And you are right when you say that some accept the apology and some will always be unsatisfied. About Christians proselytizing everything. Well, if I were to say that Christianity was not the only way to heaven and to salvation, I would not be adhering to the Word of God and what Jesus said. Jesus said in John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth and the light, no one comes to the father except through me." If I call myself a follower of Christ then i have to follow his commands. And that is one of them.

Now, concerning the 'shoving religion down peoples throat.' You are not the only one who hates that, i certainly do. I try my best to live like Christ did. To have a heart for all those that I meet. To help the needy and the brokenhearted and those in mourning, etc. It is hard because there are so many that are just that. What I don't do (and certainly not in this forum) is walk about saying, "you're going to Hell, you need Jesus......fire....brimstone.....destruction.....alskdjf;aweo....etc." You have heard them on the street corners, pulpits, maybe even TV. They are my brother and sisters and I love them, so....i'm going to try and not stomp on them anymore.

So to all of you who have had Christians shoving their beliefs on you and condeming you and God knows what else.....i'm sorry. I'm sure somewhere in my short lifespan i have been guilty of the same thing.

Jesus never forced anyone to believe in Him. He didn't go around yelling at people because they were going to hell. When he did out rightly rebuke someone, it was one of His own. One being Peter and the religious people of His day (Pharisees, Saducees, Herodians, and .....maybe one other). He rebuked these people because of what they knew, they knew the TANAK (Torah, Neveim, Ketuvim) (sp?)). I'm not sure where this verse and i was doing a search on it....still can't find it as of yet. But somewhere in the Bible (in all it's many many pages....) there is a verse that says something like, A man will be judged by what he knows (paraphrase!). So saying that......The more I learn about the Bible and study it, the more I have to answer for. In Romans it talks about how "man is without excuse." This refers to how nature accounts for God not including the Bible. Sort of like....this. The Bible is called "Special Revelation" and creation is called "General Revelation." This is kind of like....God reveals himself to us 'through special revelation via Bible" and then God reveals himself to us through 'general revelation'. This is one of those thing you learn when you take seminary classes (which i am....)

Here is what Jesus did do. He sat down and hung out with 'sinners'. The so called outcasts of society. The ones that everyone looked down on. He even said to a Pharisee, "I have not come to call the righteous but to seek out the lost. Does a doctor go to those who are healthy? No he goes to help those who are sick."(Paraphrase) I reminded of people who actually did this. Like Mother Theresa, people on the Mercy Ships(look at mercyships.org)
and i'm sure many others. Those nameless, faceless, placeless people who don't care about the fame, the lights, the cameras, and all that jazz. Just serving the people on hand and foot. There are people out there that do this but only when someone screws up is it ever seen.

Anyway, there is alot of legalism out there. And certainly rules are good but some are too much. Hence why Jesus talked about the Tradition of the Elders. The Pharisees were getting so wrapped up in the law instead of "loving the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength and then love thy neighbor." Christianity is supposed to be about Jesus, not all the mumbo jumbo. There is the word that is thrown around alot but it is true. It is about a relationship with God not a religion.

Okay, i think i have said enough for one day, thank you all for reading.

Jezus is your sister...

E, I remember that being found (2002, I believe), but I did not recall it ever being proven a forgery, though, as always there were those that were making that decision the minute it was discovered.

The reason I was skeptical toward the idea that it was a hoax is that if one was to attempt to forge something that would prove the authenticity of Joseph or even Jesus, one would think that they would forge something a little less indirect. There is already evidence of James' life, or at least more than that of Joseph. (Leafs through notes from over the years) In addition, noted paleographer André Lemaire of Sorbonne University in Paris (not what you would call a defender of Christianity, by virtue) validated the inscriptions. Any legitimate source as to the validity of the proof against it? I am eager to know.

Who says I can't be wrong? ;)

BQP, I am truly sorry for thinking you were male. I saw the word "Prophet" in your name and was thinking masculine (feminine would be "Prophetess"). Please forgive me.

And that was yet another wonderful post. You have the right idea about what it means to show Christianity. It is impossible for us to fully live a Christian life, but in attempting to do so, we set our own life aside (Romans 6) so that we are then submitting to the will of God and not ourselves. This is vital because our own will is selfish and fallen, whereas God's will, given to us in His Word, teaches us that we are to love those that, unfortunately many of our brothers and sisters do not love. I would admit that I am as guilty as anyone, as I am sure you do as well.

Your paraphrase was an excellent one. It went straight to the heart of what Jesus was saying.

I am glad you threw in the part of loving the Lord "with all your heart, soul, mind (which most Christians skip over, anymore, making their faith weak and difficult to explain to others, as we are instructed to do in I Peter 3:15), and strength." I don't know what you meant about the "mumbo-jumbo" part (could be trivial things like baptism, modes of praise, Calvinism/Armineanism, Millenialism, etc.), but if you mean the things that are not vital to a saving realization of Christ, then I fully commend you for putting it in such a way.

At the same time, it is still important to know the reasoning behind why we believe what we believe, logically and clearly, as I Peter 3:15 commands, and it is imperative that it is not something from a post-modern, individualistic perspective, such as "You ask me how I know He lives. He lives within my heart!" ;) Don't worry, I do love that songs melody, but that part of it just doesn't fit in a real explanation.

Finally, I loved what you said at the end. "It is about a relationship with God not a religion." It really is. Our relationship with God is vital throughout the teachings of the apostles. The word from which we form the word "religion," religio, literally means "to bring into bondage" or "to enslave." God is not forcing humanity into slavery. At the same time, when we live according to His will, we essentially make ourselves slaves. Think of it this way:

A woman had just married a man. As they sat in their hotel room after the wedding, he made out a list of things that she was to do for him, such as when the morning coffee had to be made, when she rubbed his feet, what she cooked and when, etc. As the years passed, she loyally followed this, hating every second of it. After about twelve years, the husband died, and she stuck the list away in the attic. Two years later she married another man. He was different. He showed her true (agape ;) ) love, and she loved her new marriage. One evening, while she was cleaning out the attic, she found this piece of paper. It was the list. She read over it and began to cry as she realized that she still did each one of these things. The difference was that instead of fear driving her to do them, like her first marriage, it was love that drove her to do them now.

That story was told to me awhile ago about a real person. It is a wonderful example of how our relationship with God does, in fact, involve us willing serving Him as a servant. It is not an American idea to willfully be a servant, but it is a biblical principle. I just thought I would share that. All in all, I really enjoy how you think, BQP.

Pterodonia, great thoughts about Jesus. I am actually a theologian, by degree, and you are asking questions that not enough 'c'hristians like to think about. Many just dismiss them, but they need addressed. I like the way you think, confronting tough issues like that.

First, there were many who did try to fulfill some of the prophecies. The easiest one is the one I mentioned earlier, Judas Maccabbeus. The difference with Jesus from the rest of these is that there is not one prophecy about hâ mâshîyach (משׁיח) that is not fulfilled in some capacity by Jesus. The truth is that these prophecies were not all fulfilled in the ways that were anticipated. For instance, this "Messiah" would be a King, so the Jews were watching for a ruler to overthrow Rome. This leads to the reason that the Jews would not set Jesus up to be this long-awaited Messiah. He was not what they thought they were waiting for. They, therefore, would not want him to be "it." In a way, it seems funny; the Jews wanted someone that would rule in a finite kingdom in Israel. What they got, according to the gospels, was a King whose rule would be infinite in length and would have eternal consequences, rather than temporary. This disappointed them, however, because of the wedge between the Romans and the Jews (especially the Galileeans, who were considered trouble-makers by the Romans and Jews alike). That is why the idea was not popular in its time. That is likely why Peter would deny being a disciple after Jesus' death. It explains much of the reasons behind the crucifixion. In all, it is unlikely that the people of Jesus' time set him up to be the Messiah. In fact, it is highly likely that they were less willing to accept him as that Messiah than those who had claimed it before his birth.

If he was anything but God (the whole Trinity aspect is a huge can of worms), then he would have been diverting the Jews. If he was God, however, they are still worshipping God and nobody else.

Where is it mentioned, in the Old Testament, that God was going to send the Jews a stumbling block to ensnare all would-be idolaters? I am unfamiliar with that. Also, where in the New Testament does it say that Jesus was sent as a stumbling block? References would be helpful.

Ah, I love my lunch hour.

Jesus was a sensitive man
HITLER WAS A SENSITIVE MAN
HITLER WAS A SENSITIVE MAN
HITLER WAS A SENSITIVE MAN
HITLER WAS A SENSITIVE MAN

HE WENT TO ART SCHOOL WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER
HE WANTED TO BE A PAINTER
HITLER WAS A VEGETARIAN
HE WAS ALSO A NON SMOKER

HITLER WAS A SENSITIVE MAN
HITLER WAS A SENSITIVE MAN
HITLER WAS A SENSITIVE MAN
HITLER WAS A SENSITIVE MAN

HE HIRED GAY AND HANDICAPPED OFFICERS
HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT OVERPOPULATION
IF HITLER WAS ALIVE TODAY
HE'D LISTENED TO THE CURE, THE SMITHS, AND DEPECHE MODE

HITLER WAS A SENSITIVE MAN
HITLER WAS A SENSITIVE MAN
HITLER WAS A SENSITIVE MAN
HITLER WAS A SENSITIVE MAN

References would be helpful.

Good luck getting scriptural references. In my experience, most people making wild claims about "what the Bible says" have little to no way of backing it up.

Personal examples of this include but are not limited to the following statements...

Jesus interacted with Jews exclusively.

Animals could talk before the flood of Noah.

God hates fags.

If you're good enough, you get into heaven.

Christians are commanded to persecute Jews and anyone who isn't "white".

... I'm serious. I've actually had people claiming these to be in the Bible, but then not have a single reference in support of it. Each of them critics of these pseudo-tenets, not proponents of them. ... with the exclusion of the first, that is... Someone actually tried to convince me of that one. But my point is, most people aren't going to give you a reason why they think "Christians" believe what they do. The cause for that is frequently that their arguments against that form of religion and way of thought are themselves hearsay. They haven't actually read these things in the Bible personally.

Very few who claim that the Bible contradicts itself actually offer up viable examples. It's a lot easier to echo the words of others than speak for yourself and your own experience.

EDIT: Well, I guess I am in the boat with BQP. I can't make excuses for what some 'c'histians do, and I find it sad (no offense intended) that an atheist knows more about what Christianity is than most professed Christians. Kudos, Grave.

(No offense taken here).

Thank you. :)

Aggresia,

Good luck getting scriptural references. In my experience, most people making wild claims about "what the Bible says" have little to no way of backing it up.

Yes, I have heard wild claims even preached from pulpits with either no Scriptural backing, poor Scriptural backing (using the punctuation to prove a point, when the Bible did not originally have punctuation or even spacing), or contextual butchery. And Christians wonder why we aren't taken seriously. We don't know our own teachings and we pretend that we do, making us even less credible.

Personal examples of this include but are not limited to the following statements...

Jesus interacted with Jews exclusively.

Animals could talk before the flood of Noah.

God hates fags.

If you're good enough, you get into heaven.

Christians are commanded to persecute Jews and anyone who isn't "white".

... I'm serious. I've actually had people claiming these to be in the Bible, but then not have a single reference in support of it. Each of them critics of these pseudo-tenets, not proponents of them. ... with the exclusion of the first, that is... Someone actually tried to convince me of that one. But my point is, most people aren't going to give you a reason why they think "Christians" believe what they do. The cause for that is frequently that their arguments against that form of religion and way of thought are themselves hearsay. They haven't actually read these things in the Bible personally.

Sadly, I have heard them from both those attempting to expose Christians as invalid and those who claim to be Christians, themselves. It truly sickens me about the second part. As I am not, by affiliation, part of the first group, I am not as distraught, but it is a shame that people, both Christians and pagans (which simply means non-Christians, and carries no sinister meaning) have let their skills in argument, apologetics, and reason be so underdeveloped and lazy. We tend to use solely deductive reasoning, but fail to ever validate our source. I feel like a fossil.

Well, ask my family. They might just agree on that last part. ;)

Very few who claim that the Bible contradicts itself actually offer up viable examples. It's a lot easier to echo the words of others than speak for yourself and your own experience.

Yes, this is a world that sodomizes the argumentum ad vercundiam fallacy (the appeal to authority fallacy). We, as a world, tend to draw our reasonings from unquaified, irrelevant, or biased authorities to further our point. It is like using a quote from a renouned actress on the war to add validity to one's argument. The actress, famous as she may be, is unqualified to be held as a credible source, irrelevant to the issue of the war, and likely biased, as most seem to be. Sad spin.


Grave, you are most welcome.

Jesus was a spiritually enlightened man who did not want a whole powerful religion to be formed in his name. He was peaceful, and wise. It is possible that Jesus and the Buddha were the same man.

Sidenote- How the HECK does it make sense that Jesus suffered for OUR sins? How does that work? What kind of logic IS that?

Yek, it would work along the same lines (though, more extremely, I suppose) as someone paying a debt that was so overwhelming for myself, that I could never pay it back.

Why do you think that Jesus "did not want a whole powerful religion to be formed in his name?" Did he happen to say something to that effect? I do recall him saying, "I am the Way, the Tuth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through me." Also, you could look at the point where Peter actually announces that Jesus is the Christ. Jesus responds, saying, "On this rock, I will build my church." Sounds like he already knew he was supposed to be at the center of a relationship with God. The fact that he did aknowledge himself to be the Messiah and the Christ would mean that if he was nothing more than a spiritually enlightened man, then he was also a liar . . . or he could've been insane. There are only three options:

1. He was a liar. He claimed to be the Christ and the Messiah, knowing he wasn't.
2. He was a lunatic. There was something phychologically wrong with him that made him state such claims.
3. He was exactly who he claimed to be.

To accept that he was merely a wise, inspired, spiritual man is to also say that he was either living a life teaching things about himself that he didn't even believe (lying) or that he was insane to the point that he just thought he was the Messiah and Christ, but still happened to live a moral life and teach moral values.

(Waiting for the "Messianic Secret" argument . . . ;) )

For the record, I agree, though only to a point. His entire life, he spent his time teaching that it was God that was to be the center, thus ignoing his own will to make room for the will of his "Father's" will. Then again, his being God in the Trinity (I can't wait for the questions about that one. If you want to talk about something that doesn't seem to make sense, look no further.) would have put him at the center of that statement.

How logical is it that Jesus would die for our sins? Not very, from a selfish, humanistic, individualistic, post-modern mindset. In fact, selflessness would be the only reason for Jesus to have gone through with doing what he did. His deity was the only plausible reason for him alone to be able to do it. If that is drawn into question, then immediately, he should probably be listed as a lunatic. After the defenses, which are so sound and valid, that he gave the religious leaders, it would seem odd for him to have been so quiet in his own defense, before his execution, which would also necessitate that he would have died pointlessly.

Yek, it would work along the same lines (though, more extremely, I suppose) as someone paying a debt that was so overwhelming for myself, that I could never pay it back.

Why do you think that Jesus "did not want a whole powerful religion to be formed in his name?" Did he happen to say something to that effect? I do recall him saying, "I am the Way, the Tuth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through me." Also, you could look at the point where Peter actually announces that Jesus is the Christ. Jesus responds, saying, "On this rock, I will build my church." Sounds like he already knew he was supposed to be at the center of a relationship with God. The fact that he did aknowledge himself to be the Messiah and the Christ would mean that if he was nothing more than a spiritually enlightened man, then he was also a liar . . . or he could've been insane. There are only three options:

1. He was a liar. He claimed to be the Christ and the Messiah, knowing he wasn't.
2. He was a lunatic. There was something phychologically wrong with him that made him state such claims.
3. He was exactly who he claimed to be.

To accept that he was merely a wise, inspired, spiritual man is to also say that he was either living a life teaching things about himself that he didn't even believe (lying) or that he was insane to the point that he just thought he was the Messiah and Christ, but still happened to live a moral life and teach moral values.

(Waiting for the "Messianic Secret" argument . . . ;) )

For the record, I agree, though only to a point. His entire life, he spent his time teaching that it was God that was to be the center, thus ignoing his own will to make room for the will of his "Father's" will. Then again, his being God in the Trinity (I can't wait for the questions about that one. If you want to talk about something that doesn't seem to make sense, look no further.) would have put him at the center of that statement.

How logical is it that Jesus would die for our sins? Not very, from a selfish, humanistic, individualistic, post-modern mindset. In fact, selflessness would be the only reason for Jesus to have gone through with doing what he did. His deity was the only plausible reason for him alone to be able to do it. If that is drawn into question, then immediately, he should probably be listed as a lunatic. After the defenses, which are so sound and valid, that he gave the religious leaders, it would seem odd for him to have been so quiet in his own defense, before his execution, which would also necessitate that he would have died pointlessly.

Actually - there is one fundamental flaw in the "Three Options" argument.

The average christian believes that the Bible is the absolute word of god... fair enough.

The average Muslim believes that the Koran is the absolute word of god... which starts to present something of a problem.

EVERY religion thinks it has the divinely inspired, perfect scripture... but many of them are utterly exclusive... which is the crux of the matter.

To the christian - EVERY other religious text must be flawed (at best), or just a fiction.

Now - if every OTHER text is a fiction... why assume any different for the Bible?

Oh - maybe they are ALL BASED ON truths... but, perhaps they ALL imagine parts of the narrative.

So - the fourth option might be that the story is party incorrect, or even, entirely fictional.

Maybe Jesus made NONE of the claims attributed to him... maybe THOSE claims were 'edited' in after?

Maybe Jesus is a combination of hundreds of oral tradition stories, culminating in ONE character... like the King Arthur or Robin Hood 'characters'.

Actually, there are many who claim that the bit about "I am the Way" and "None can come to the father but through me" were words that were put into his mouth, possibly even posthumously.

The stuff Dan Brown describes in "The Da Vinci Code" is not wholly based on fiction - there was indeed a Council of Nicea, and it was indeed that council that declared Jesus as identical with God (homoousious, or of the same substance), not a mortal son/disciple of God (that had been proposed by Arius, and was rejected). And the actual Bible, in its present form, was not fully compiled at that point. It would have been easy to sneak in a few references or mistranslations that cemented this divinity.

Pterodonia, great thoughts about Jesus. I am actually a theologian, by degree, and you are asking questions that not enough 'c'hristians like to think about. Many just dismiss them, but they need addressed. I like the way you think, confronting tough issues like that.

Thank you, Aluminumia. Coming from you (who obviously enjoy using your mind for its intended purpose), that means a lot to me. :)

Where is it mentioned, in the Old Testament, that God was going to send the Jews a stumbling block to ensnare all would-be idolaters? I am unfamiliar with that. Also, where in the New Testament does it say that Jesus was sent as a stumbling block? References would be helpful.

Here is the first biblical reference to stumblingblocks or stones of stumbling:

Leviticus 19:14: Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD.

It isn't quite clear from that passage what a stumblingblock is, precisely - only that you shouldn't lay one before the blind. Maybe the next reference will give us at least somewhat of a clue:

Isaiah 8:13-15: Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.

Hmmm...still not particularly clear, but I think it has something to do with the way God is being worshipped, versus how he wishes to be worshipped. Moving on...God lays stumblingblocks before those who do not hearken to his words or his law:

Jeremiah 6:19-21: Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it. To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me. Therefore thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will lay stumblingblocks before this people, and the fathers and the sons together shall fall upon them; the neighbour and his friend shall perish.

Okay, it seems that God has made his wishes known to his people via his word and his law, and he expects them to take heed. That is all well and good, but apparently even those who do not stumble themselves, but allow others to do so without warning them, are in serious trouble:

Ezekiel 3:20: Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

So a stumblingblock is something God lays before people who are committing sin or iniquity, and are not following his word. The picture is starting to get a little bit clearer, but apparently some fine tuning is still required, as I still have no idea from the above passages what a stumblingblock is. Maybe Ezekiel will elaborate a bit more on this subject:

Ezekiel 14:2-11: And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumblingblock of their iniquity before their face: should I be enquired of at all by them? Therefore speak unto them, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to the prophet; I the LORD will answer him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols; That I may take the house of Israel in their own heart, because they are all estranged from me through their idols. Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations. For every one of the house of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth in Israel, which separateth himself from me, and setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to a prophet to enquire of him concerning me; I the LORD will answer him by myself: And I will set my face against that man, and will make him a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him off from the midst of my people; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. And they shall bear the punishment of their iniquity: the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him; That the house of Israel may go no more astray from me, neither be polluted any more with all their transgressions; but that they may be my people, and I may be their God, saith the Lord GOD.

I can see clearly now (*with a nod to Johnny Nash*) - the stumblingblock of one's iniquity is the idol one worships in one's heart, which separates the idolator from God!

And here is a final Old Testament warning that the stumblingblocks are to be destroyed along with those who stumble on them:

Zephaniah 1:3: I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the LORD.

And here is the first New Testament reference to Jesus as a stumblingstone, though, in contrast to the Old Testament warnings, one is actually being encouraged here to worship it:

Romans 9:31-33: But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

E, I remember that being found (2002, I believe), but I did not recall it ever being proven a forgery, though, as always there were those that were making that decision the minute it was discovered.

The reason I was skeptical toward the idea that it was a hoax is that if one was to attempt to forge something that would prove the authenticity of Joseph or even Jesus, one would think that they would forge something a little less indirect. There is already evidence of James' life, or at least more than that of Joseph. (Leafs through notes from over the years) In addition, noted paleographer André Lemaire of Sorbonne University in Paris (not what you would call a defender of Christianity, by virtue) validated the inscriptions. Any legitimate source as to the validity of the proof against it? I am eager to know.

It was declared a forgery by the Israeli Antiquities Authority. I tried to find something original by them, but the closest I could find was quotes from them in an A.P. article: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/128/story_12837_1.html. Hope that's satisfactory.

Pterodonia,
I have been reading your posts and you have either a great knowledge of the Bible or you are a great researcher or neither of these. I was curious and you don't have to answer this if you don't want to. What is your story? How did you get to where you are today. What paths has life taken you down? Obviously, you can answer this to your on discretion or not at all. I'm just being that silly cat that is praying not to be killed by curiousity. ;)

Hope the weather is good where all of you are. Down here we are on the third day of...cloudy/rainy/dark weather. Certainly not normal for Florida. Oh, whatever, i'm indoors, it's all good.

=)

Pterodonia,
I have been reading your posts and you have either a great knowledge of the Bible or you are a great researcher or neither of these. I was curious and you don't have to answer this if you don't want to. What is your story? How did you get to where you are today. What paths has life taken you down? Obviously, you can answer this to your on discretion or not at all. I'm just being that silly cat that is praying not to be killed by curiousity. ;)

Ah yes, curiosity - my favorite downfall! ;)

Well, let's see...I had no religious training at all until I was nearly in my teens. My mother, who had been raised in a Fundamentalist Christian family, had temporarily broken away from religion when she ran away from home at the age of 17. She married my father at the age of 24 (it was her second marriage), and I showed up about 8 months later. Okay - you probably didn't want quite that much detail, so fast forward to when I was about 12 and my mother joined the Mormon church and basically forced my sisters and me to do the same (though I was the last hold-out on the baptism thingy).

When I was a sophomore in high school, she forced me to go to Seminary classes, where I was steeped in the Mormon interpretation of the New Testament every morning before school 5 days a week for the entire school year. I also had to attend one church function or another several times a week for several years - until I was about 16 or maybe 17 - so I was getting a crash course in everything I had missed up until the point when my mother discovered The One True Religion. I was about 17 when my mother seemed to have quietly decided that Mormonism wasn't The One True Religion after all, and she and the rest of the family got to take a break from the brainwashing sessions for awhile.

I stayed the summer with my grandmother in Oklahoma the year I turned 18, and the only reading material she had in the house was a bible. So I started reading it from the beginning every night before bedtime. It was very interesting and thought-provoking, but I didn't have anyone to discuss those thoughts with.

I returned home to California when summer came to a close, and returned to college. I moved out at the age of 19 after I had completed 2 years of college, and got down to the business of sowing my wild oats. I forgot all about religion for several years, eventually married and had two children of my own. I guess I didn't really get interested in it again until my mother returned to her Fundamentalist Christian roots sometime around June of 1980, and when - surprise, surprise - she tried her best to convert me and my children. That's when I started looking at Christianity to see if it might indeed be the right religion for me.

I didn't really have anything against Christianity to begin with. I wasn't too sure about Jesus being God incarnate or the Son of God or any of that, but I more or less assumed he was the good person everyone said he was, and I thought the Christian lifestyle was a pretty decent one. I read a lot of books by Christian authors, and even visited several Christian churches to try to find the right one for me.

But my first clues that Christianity may be one great big lie actually came from the bible itself! I was very disturbed to read things that Jesus supposedly said that were anything but "Christlike" - such as the admonishment to hate your family if you want to be his disciple, and that his mission on earth was to destroy families! There were also some odd statements in various places that basically said that God sends strong delusions to those who do not love the truth so that they will believe a lie!

Then, sometime in the late 90's, I was at a point where I really wanted to know what was true more than anything else. I knew how Christians prayed to have truth revealed to them, and somehow it didn't seem right - praying to be shown the truth, but praying only in the name of the very one who may turn out to be the greatest deceiver of all time! So I finally decided one day that I would pray with a sincere heart and a single mind, to the Spirit of Truth - whoever that was - that I might know the Truth, no matter what that turned out to be. I figured that if Jesus was really all that Christians believed him to be, then that would be revealed to me without me prejudicing myself to receive only one particular version of the truth by praying in his name.

After that point, I read books by non-Christian authors, as well as Christian ones. I didn't just read the bible - I studied it. I bought Greek and Hebrew Interlinear bibles so I could see for myself the original words used and how they were interpreted. I use the Blue Letter Bible site as my primary internet resource, and I use the concordance and commentaries extensively. I do not have a degree in theology, but I have certainly done my share of studying the bible and Christian history, and I feel that I have been given the truth bit by bit as I've been willing to work for it, though sometimes the going seems a bit slow.

Well, I hope I haven't completely bored you senseless - but there's my story in a nutshell.

Originally Posted by Pterodonia
Here is the first biblical reference to stumblingblocks or stones of stumbling:

Leviticus 19:14: "Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD."

It isn't quite clear from that passage what a stumblingblock is, precisely - only that you shouldn't lay one before the blind.

This, contextually, implies an obstacle (mikshôl). I am inclined to believe, given the context of the passages around it (They all seem very literal.), that this is using the term literally to mean something put in front of a physically blind person. I am almost certain that this is not a figurative stumblingblock. It is certainly condemned, either way.

You have got to love Leviticus and Deuteronomy! (In your spare time, check out Deuteronomy 23:12-13. Don't ask my why I have this memorized. ;) )

Maybe the next reference will give us at least somewhat of a clue:

Isaiah 8:13-15: "Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken."

Hmmm...still not particularly clear, but I think it has something to do with the way God is being worshipped, versus how he wishes to be worshipped.

This is a fun one. Unlike the first, this is not likely a literal object meant to physically trip anyone. Rather, reading the surrounding passages, it becomes clear that Isaiah is taking comfort in God. In this passage, he has already been accused by the Israelites, and they are not happy with Isaiah. However, this is saying that, in the relations of Isaiah with the Israelites, God will confound the Israelites, as they are not heeding Isaiah as the Lord's prophet.

Basically, God has sent His people a prophet in Isaiah and they want to kill him, so God protects the one He sent over the rebellious ones that are trying to kill Isaiah by being Isaiah's protection against the Israelites by confounding their efforts, even though they are His chosen people.

Moving on...God lays stumblingblocks before those who do not hearken to his words or his law:

Jeremiah 6:19-21: "Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it. To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me. Therefore thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will lay stumblingblocks before this people, and the fathers and the sons together shall fall upon them; the neighbour and his friend shall perish."

Okay, it seems that God has made his wishes known to his people via his word and his law, and he expects them to take heed.

This is the Lord speaking of His judgment of the nation of Israel, as a result of them continuing to not listen to His prophets, or "watchmen," as they are described in verse 17. This type of stumblingblock, while figurative, still uses the same Hebrew word as the passage from Leviticus. This is to imply that God will allow Israel to be tripped up. As far as how that is accomplished, this immediate text just says something about the "people from the north." When lining this up with history, it would make sense, both by time and by geography, as well as the rest of the book, that these were the Babylonians. Essentially, God is allowing the Israelites to be captured by the Babylonians, as He would "trip up" their efforts to resist.

That is all well and good, but apparently even those who do not stumble themselves, but allow others to do so without warning them, are in serious trouble:

Ezekiel 3:20: "Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand."

So a stumblingblock is something God lays before people who are committing sin or iniquity, and are not following his word. The picture is starting to get a little bit clearer, but apparently some fine tuning is still required, as I still have no idea from the above passages what a stumblingblock is.

(Insert about ten minutes of reading here.)

This passage is actually a warning from the Lord to Ezekiel as the Lord originally calls him to be a prophet. This warning is merely an explanation of the responsibilities of a prophet and the repercussions of not caring for such responsibilities (such as a righteous man who falls into sin . . . It is the prophet's responsibility to go to that man and warn him that he is living in sin. The picture of a stumblingblock is merely what God uses to describe His judgment that would kill the man living in disobedience. The stumblingblock is actually a minor part of this passage. It essentially means nothing more than what God would use to fulfill His justice. It is a tool in this, and not a main concept in this text.

Maybe Ezekiel will elaborate a bit more on this subject:

Ezekiel 14:2-11: "And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumblingblock of their iniquity before their face: should I be enquired of at all by them? Therefore speak unto them, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to the prophet; I the LORD will answer him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols; That I may take the house of Israel in their own heart, because they are all estranged from me through their idols. Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations. For every one of the house of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth in Israel, which separateth himself from me, and setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to a prophet to enquire of him concerning me; I the LORD will answer him by myself: And I will set my face against that man, and will make him a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him off from the midst of my people; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. And they shall bear the punishment of their iniquity: the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him; That the house of Israel may go no more astray from me, neither be polluted any more with all their transgressions; but that they may be my people, and I may be their God, saith the Lord GOD."

I can see clearly now (*with a nod to Johnny Nash*) - the stumblingblock of one's iniquity is the idol one worships in one's heart, which separates the idolator from God!

You nailed it on that one. The stumblingblock in this is a figurative one that the Israelites placed their own metaphorical way, thus causing them to stumble into iniquity (which, by the Hebrew word, can also be used to mean "sin").

And here is a final Old Testament warning that the stumblingblocks are to be destroyed along with those who stumble on them:

Zephaniah 1:3: "I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the LORD."

This is speaking of the "Day of the Lord." In this day, the Lord will remove all the stumblingblocks, or enticements (There is a slight difference with this word in Hebrew and most of the others.), or things that will separate man from the Lord because they cause man to fall into iniquity. It is right in line with the previous passage you mentioned.

And here is the first New Testament reference to Jesus as a stumblingstone, though, in contrast to the Old Testament warnings, one is actually being encouraged here to worship it:

Romans 9:31-33: "But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."

This word is actually different in the original text. While most of these examples were the Hebrew word "mikshôl" (מכשׁול) or something closely related, this is the phrase "proskomma lithos" (λίθοςπρόσκομμα <-- Damn, that looks scary!), which is likely to have meant, culturally, a "point of apostasy or diversion." The stumblingstone, however, is not the rock of offense. These are two separate things that are to have been placed in "Sion." The text is saying that if anyone would believe in the Rock of Offense, he has no need to be ashamed. Think of it similarly to the garden of Eden. The Lord placed two opposing trees in the garden: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. It was up to the humans to decide of which to partake.

There is an additional New Testament reference in I Peter, but for the life of me, I cannot remember where.

Nice digging! I enjoyed that! And that is a great story, as well. I, for one, was not bored in the least.

First Peter 2:4-8



But my first clues that Christianity may be one great big lie actually came from the bible itself! I was very disturbed to read things that Jesus supposedly said that were anything but "Christlike" - such as the admonishment to hate your family if you want to be his disciple, and that his mission on earth was to destroy families!

You might want to compare that against your Mormon upbringing. Just an observation, not meant to offend.

Thanks, EFTO, both for the article and the I Peter reference.

While the article seems a bit shaky, it does draw enough doubt in my mind that I would not be willing to bet on it. Good thing my stance is not just confined to that finding.

Grave n idle, I knew you wouldn't disappoint! Excellent post.

Once again, I am called to defend my stance. You guys are wearing me out. ;)

Unfortunately, I have a dinner appointment set up that is going to be here any second. In addition, I will likely be swamped with a few things I need to finish. It is looking like another long night, so maybe tomorrow afternoon (about 26 hours from now) I can respond. Kosher?

I look forward to this.

I really appreciate your story. I for one have learned that who we are today is a sum of our experiences and the knowledge that we have attained through the years. Now i have more of a feel of where you are coming from. That helps with conversations such as these.

Your Mormon upbringing. I have never been in the Mormon circles, i was brought up Christian so coming from my view of things....Mormon's were considered a cult to me. (still do actually). I can say one thing about them that i do appreciate. They work really hard at being what their religion calls them to be. But it comes down to that relationship/religion thing again. They are more about religion then an actual relationship with God and Jesus Christ. (I may be wrong....they may emphasis it more then i think but....that is just from what i have heard....). And the fact that they give up 2 years of their life to be missionaries. They are a well oiled machine.

And i can understand the brainwashing. They are really good at that. And their training of apologectics too. I wouldn't be surprised if your knowledge of how to study the scriptures came from some of your Mormon attendance. I was in a cult for awhile and if anyone knows this group they will disagree with me that it is a cult. I was in Freemasonry and to be more specific, the International Order of Job's Daughters. It is kind of a long story but to keep it short. I thought it was a good group, grounded in the Bible but it's links to Masonry and their teachings slip in. And Masonry is a religion on it's own. I can provide some sites that talk about this in depth. Don't have the room or the time to dig in. And the fact that i don't have my Ritual anymore or a Mason ritual to dig through.

Long story short....i can understand the brainwashing! I was in it for three years before God started lifting the vale of my eyes. When i think of what God did, i think of John 9 when Jesus opens the eyes of the blind man. It such an awesome story and how he goes to testify to his accusers without fear that it was Jesus who did it. =)

I appreciate the fact that you are seeking the truth. So many people just accept what others say instead of really wrestling with it. In my experience God has never failed me, i believe He is who He says He is. If you take offense to the idea of me praying for you to find to truth, then i won't, but until you tell me not to, i will. Thank you for being open and trust me, i wasn't bored. =)

This word is actually different in the original text. While most of these examples were the Hebrew word "mikshôl" (מכשׁול) or something closely related, this is the phrase "proskomma lithos" (λίθοςπρόσκομμα <-- Damn, that looks scary!), which is likely to have meant, culturally, a "point of apostasy or diversion." The stumblingstone, however, is not the rock of offense. These are two separate things that are to have been placed in "Sion." The text is saying that if anyone would believe in the Rock of Offense, he has no need to be ashamed. Think of it similarly to the garden of Eden. The Lord placed two opposing trees in the garden: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. It was up to the humans to decide of which to partake.

The one thing we seem to agree on is that a stumblingblock, at least in the Old Testament, was not ever a good thing - is that a fair statement? And we also seem to agree that, at least in the Romans passage I quoted, it probably indicates a "point of apostasy or diversion" - right? However, I disagree that the stumblingstone and the rock of offense were two different things - especially in light of another New Testament passage that identifies Jesus specifically as a stumblingblock to the Jews:

1 Corinthians 1:23,24: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.


There is an additional New Testament reference in I Peter, but for the life of me, I cannot remember where.

I believe this is what you were referring to:

1 Peter 2:6-8: Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

I believe that this means that in order to not stumble on this stone, one must not turn the stone into an idol, which has always been disallowed by the God of Israel. The idea seems to be that while the stone may very well be pointing to God, if one chooses to look to the stone rather than to God, then one will stumble on the stone and be destroyed.

There is no scripture clearer on the point that Jesus was not to be worshipped as God than John 3:14, at least, if one knows the entire story of Moses and the serpent he held up in the wilderness:

John 3:14: And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

This is an obvious reference to the brass serpent Moses made and put on a pole so that the people would be healed of their snake bites when they looked at it:

Numbers 21:6-9: And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

But that doesn't quite give you The Rest of the Story - the story of the brass serpent doesn't have the rosiest ending one could possibly imagine:

2 Kings 18:1-4: Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah. And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did. He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

It is also interesting to note that, according to the Matthew genealogy, in addition to genealogical information given in the Old Testament, one of the great, great,...,great grandmothers of Jesus was named "Nehushta."

Nice digging! I enjoyed that! And that is a great story, as well. I, for one, was not bored in the least.

Thanks, Aluminumia! :)

Thanks, EFTO, both for the article and the I Peter reference.

While the article seems a bit shaky, it does draw enough doubt in my mind that I would not be willing to bet on it. Good thing my stance is not just confined to that finding.

Grave n idle, I knew you wouldn't disappoint! Excellent post.

Once again, I am called to defend my stance. You guys are wearing me out. ;)

Unfortunately, I have a dinner appointment set up that is going to be here any second. In addition, I will likely be swamped with a few things I need to finish. It is looking like another long night, so maybe tomorrow afternoon (about 26 hours from now) I can respond. Kosher?

I look forward to this.

Thank you... always nice to find an actual STIMULATING debate.... so many on these fora degenerate into "It must be true, the bible says...." versus "sorry, can't hear you...la la la la la...".

so later on in history people began putting a name to the place and hell was chosen, probably taken from greek mythology, hades.
The name seems suspiciously more similar to Hel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hel_%28goddess%29), Norse goddess of the ignominiously dead in a realm of the same name.

I belief Jesus did exist because there is mention of him in writing besides the Bible.

To me, he seemed like someone who pissed off because he was a carpenter in a desert without any good wood to carpent. So he was mad that his life sucked, so he blamed the government. He has his nefarious cohorts spread rumors about him by word of mouth (the only way) to gain support to change the government. He used religion much like Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson and Louis Farakhan do, to catapult themselves into the public eye, while gaining support for appearing so moral.

Ofcourse speaking out against the government will get you killed in those times, and his actions against powerful religious leaders didn't help either. He was beaten and tortured because the people had first hand knowledge Jesus was full of ..it, unlike the people of Italy, who were stupid enough to believe the apostles or were just also looking for any excuse to change the powers that be. So Italy started the Catholic church based on the new bible written and crafted to carefully answer any challenge brought up by ridiculous story of Jesus, 30 years after his death. Such as: "If he was god, how come he died?" "Well...he didn't die, he rose up 3 days later, and only us apostles and people you will never know did saw"

And since then, the Catholic church gained power by deceit and murder and "spread the gossip" until they gained control over Europe by the Dark Ages. They had people do 4 things during that time, eat, reproduce, pray and die. Apparently, that wasn't good enough for their god, because he gave them all the plague, or maybe that was just sweet justice served by earth itself.

Thankfully, the Renaissance came along where the smart people of that time realized what bull religion was and humanity started to make some progress. Unfortunately, church, temple and the synagogue still exist and make every effort to thwart further progress and prevent humans from reaching their full potential.

So in my opinion, the actual Jesus was a criminally who got what he deserved in life, but in death became a made-up figure to start a revolution, which subsequently built a ruthless empire and power membership of some of the dumbest people on earth.

I belief Jesus did exist because there is mention of him in writing besides the Bible.


Nothing written, independently, even close to the same time.

And, the next nearest 'independent' reference, has long been established as almost certainly a fake, and occurs multiple decades later...

First Peter 2:4-8

You might want to compare that against your Mormon upbringing. Just an observation, not meant to offend.

Um, okay - here is the passage you apparently wanted me to compare against what you referred to as my "Mormon upbringing":

1 Peter 2:4-8: To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

I'm not offended - baffled, perhaps - perplexed, maybe - but definitely not offended. Sorry, but I just don't get the connection. Could you please explain what you meant?

Also, just to clarify something - I'm not sure you could accurately label my upbringing as "Mormon," exactly - I'd never even heard of the LDS church until I was 12, and wasn't baptized until I was 14. I don't think I attended church at all anymore by the time I was 17. In biblical times, I would have practically been considered an adult by 12, and an "old maid" if still unmarried by 14! Okay - that may be somewhat of an exaggeration, but I'm just trying to illustrate that I was far beyond the age when simple brainwashing techniques could be employed to make me believe what I consider to be utter nonsense. I mostly consented to being baptized just so the home teachers wouldn't come by and annoy me every week with it. I gained a tiny amount of peace by just going along with the program.

Jesus was a spiritually enlightened man who did not want a whole powerful religion to be formed in his name. He was peaceful, and wise. It is possible that Jesus and the Buddha were the same man.

Sidenote- How the HECK does it make sense that Jesus suffered for OUR sins? How does that work? What kind of logic IS that?

Jesus said that he came not to bring peace but rather to cause division - particularly among family members. He also required his would-be disciples to hate their family members and even their own lives. He even went so far as to tell them not to call any man on this earth "Father," and he refused to allow a potential disciple to bury his recently deceased father before following him. I don't know about you, but that's not my idea of a spiritually enlightened or peaceful person.

As for why it might have made some kind of sense for Jesus to be the one to suffer for the sins of mankind - well, he did seem to take credit for introducing sin to the world in the first place - so who better to suffer for that action than Jesus? I'm not saying that I feel anyone should suffer the way he supposedly did - but to tell you the truth, I really don't believe the whole passion story or that Jesus even necessarily existed as a flesh and blood man on this earth. But to try to make even the tiniest bit of sense out of the whole "Jesus-died-for-our-sins" thingy, I'd have to assume Jesus was responsible for sin in the first place (especially since he hinted at that very thing in John's gospel).

Um, okay - here is the passage you apparently wanted me to compare against what you referred to as my "Mormon upbringing":

1 Peter 2:4-8: To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

I'm not offended - baffled, perhaps - perplexed, maybe - but definitely not offended. Sorry, but I just don't get the connection. Could you please explain what you meant?

...


Well, it seems that you are somewhat offended that someone drew this parallel, if only in the sense that you didn't identify with it...

So, out of curiosity, what exactly are you not offended by?


Jesus said that he came not to bring peace but rather to cause division - particularly among family members. He also required his would-be disciples to hate their family members and even their own lives. He even went so far as to tell them not to call any man on this earth "Father," and he refused to allow a potential disciple to bury his recently deceased father before following him. I don't know about you, but that's not my idea of a spiritually enlightened or peaceful person.

You have to value your relationship with God above that of family... say your family was of another religion, and offered you money (or, in some societies, your continued existence) in exchange for converting. Obviously you have to make a choice. This is what He was referring to. Plus, the guy who wanted to "bury his father" was probably using that as an excuse of some sort.


As for why it might have made some kind of sense for Jesus to be the one to suffer for the sins of mankind - well, he did seem to take credit for introducing sin to the world in the first place - so who better to suffer for that action than Jesus? I'm not saying that I feel anyone should suffer the way he supposedly did - but to tell you the truth, I really don't believe the whole passion story or that Jesus even necessarily existed as a flesh and blood man on this earth. But to try to make even the tiniest bit of sense out of the whole "Jesus-died-for-our-sins" thingy, I'd have to assume Jesus was responsible for sin in the first place (especially since he hinted at that very thing in John's gospel).

Jesus could not have introduced sin into the world in any form or fashion. If you want to make such an outrageous claim, at least post the specific verse so I can read it and determine how you got that notion.

Well, it seems that you are somewhat offended that someone drew this parallel, if only in the sense that you didn't identify with it...

So, out of curiosity, what exactly are you not offended by?

As I stated before, I wasn't offended by anything that EFTO wrote - merely confounded. I wondered if he/she posted the correct passage, because I saw no connection whatsoever. So far, EFTO hasn't said anything to me that is even remotely offensive, though I can see how my message might have come across that way to the casual reader - given the limitations of this medium and all.

I also wanted to correct any notion that my upbringing was primarily a Mormon one - it really wasn't, seeing as how I hadn't even heard of the LDS church until I was practically a teenager and had no religious training at all prior to that point. And even then, my mother's Mormon phase only lasted a few years.

There is a funny incident that comes to mind, though, speaking of the religious training of young children. When I was about 6 or 7 years old, one little girl asked me what my religion was. I told her I didn't have one, and she responded with, "Don't be silly - everybody has a religion!" Well, I certainly didn't want to be the odd child out, so I asked her what her religion was. When she told me she was Catholic, I said "Oh, well I guess I am too." That seemed logical to me, since it was the only religion I'd even heard of at that age. Anyway, she seemed to be satisfied with that and was then able to move on to other topics. I had to ask my mother later on what religion we were. She confirmed that we didn't have one, but to be on the safe side, I didn't mention that to anyone else.

You have to value your relationship with God above that of family... say your family was of another religion, and offered you money (or, in some societies, your continued existence) in exchange for converting. Obviously you have to make a choice. This is what He was referring to. Plus, the guy who wanted to "bury his father" was probably using that as an excuse of some sort.

Jesus was never at a loss for words, if one can believe what is written of him in the gospels, so why couldn't he have clearly stated what he meant so that we wouldn't have to try to twist his words around and argue the point 2000 years later? If your interpretation is what he really meant, he should have said so, plain and simple.

Jesus could not have introduced sin into the world in any form or fashion. If you want to make such an outrageous claim, at least post the specific verse so I can read it and determine how you got that notion.

John 15:22: If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.

So there was some nebulous "them" who were without sin until Jesus came and spoke to them, giving them knowledge of good and evil so that now they have no excuse for their sin. I wonder who might have been sinless 2000 years ago until Jesus finally spoke with them? Or do you think that maybe he was referring to some period of time much further back than 2000 years? But wait a minute - Ezekiel does speak of some anointed being who was in the Garden of Eden and who was perfect until iniquity was found in him:

Ezekiel 28:13-15: Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Do you think there might be a connection here?

Based on the choices--

I hopse that you find somehting else.

As many have said in this thread, faith is the ability to believe without any or all evidence. The Bible is here, true but it was not written by Jesus or anyone alive at the time, or who had parents or grandparents at the time for that matter. By nature Athiests are the opposite of the faithful, they do not have the ability to believe without evidence. Therefore, it has come to my attention that the endless struggle between religious and non-religious people will never come to any ends. The core philosophies of these two types of people are irreconcilable.

As for me, I am an atheist, but I have given up arguing to get anywhere but not to defend my views when they are attacked. I myself do not believe in any god. A note to any religious people, if there is one thing that "gets my goat" it is the conversion spiel given by all religious people and seemingly memorized from birth. I'm sure everyone has had experience with this.

"If you don't convert to (insert religion here) you will (insert unpleasant consequence) in (insert unpleasant place). May (insert God here) save you."

Well, I got news for you. If there is a hell I will relish my eternity there. It sounds good. It would be hot, free of religious zealots, and I could spend my eternity with the likes of Ghandi, Buddha, Aristotle, Plato, etc, the list goes on. Personally, it is offensive to me to be expected to accept your personal religious beliefs.

Just something to consider.