NationStates Jolt Archive

WWJD...... if he saw the current major sects of Christianity and the most common beliefs of modern Christians?

(Well... some things to set before my prediction would really work. The Bible is complete fact, all of the horribly obvious mistakes in the Bible, like how there are multiple perceptions of Jesus's geneology and how there are actually things in the book after Genesis which wouldn't work if Genesis were true umm... umm... just ignore those. The whole stuff about how the story of Jesus seems to be stolen from the mythology of the Roman god Mithra, and how there is no historical evidence of Jesus except a blatant forgery... those things are all lies. The weird thing how Jesus died around Easter when the holiday was most likely invented in 200 or 300 AD and if Easter is mentioned in the bible it most have been added after then is also a lie. The missing, lost, and refound books of the Bible never actually existed, the modern Bible is right and what you read in it now is what was written 2000 years ago by the apostles and such. Except the old testament was written a long time before, because it was originally Jewish, like Jesus. That part didn't change.)

OK. ALL THAT ASIDE.

Jesus would look at all the beliefs of the Christian people, and aside from skewed moral justifications for wars and prejudices, his main problem would be their perception of God.

He would look in the hearts of his people and see that they feel they are sheep under a sheperd, and his heart would weep at the misfortune of their faith.

Then he would say something along the lines of "read da Bible more carefully, ho!"

Because, from the modern Bible, Jesus said "I am Divine. Through me, God acts; through me, speaks. Would you see God, see me; or see thee, when thou thinkest as I now think."

In more modern language, "God is a part of me, just as he is a part of you."

To stretch, yes, Jesus was the son of God, but that is more a metaphor than a literal meaning, and its also a metaphor which applies to all human beings (except, of course, girls are daughters, that barely even needs mentioning). This means, though, that people are not lambs, not sheep, not cattle being herded by a supreme being, but they are the supreme being, each and every one. They are one with an ultimate Divine Force, not one being ruled by it.

I think I prefer that perception of faith to the more common idea.




But then again, I don't even believe in God, so I just think that other people would benefit from this more empowering view of Christianity.

i say a hippy van.

http://www.highrock.com/personal/WWJD/

i say a hippy van.

http://www.highrock.com/personal/WWJD/

You could at least make a joke based on the actual thread :rolleyes:

If Jesus lived today he would be a gangsta. He would have a pimpin' ride, most likely a black 1964 Impala, which he would call his divine six-fo'. He would also have guns n shit, and would regularly visit the hos downtown to deliver his salvation.

If Jesus lived today he would be a gangsta. He would have a pimpin' ride, most likely a black 1964 Impala, which he would call his divine six-fo'. He would also have guns n shit, and would regularly visit the hos downtown to deliver his salvation.

Oh no it's going to fall apart now :( :headbang:

'tis Gnostic heresay! Burn him!

'tis Gnostic heresay! Burn him!

But the main point is actually IN the bible :(

You could at least make a joke based on the actual thread :rolleyes:

whats the fun in that?

oh, and there is always the argument that, and i quote "jesus is fucking metal"

which i fully support.

If Jesus lived today he would be a gangsta. He would have a pimpin' ride, most likely a black 1964 Impala, which he would call his divine six-fo'. He would also have guns n shit, and would regularly visit the hos downtown to deliver his salvation.

and he would speak jive.

while picking his huge afro.

and...

i got nothin'.

and he would speak jive.

while picking his huge afro.

and...

i got nothin'.

And the home-boys would call him 'J Chrizzle'.

http://www.azhiaziam.com/surfergirl8hot.jpg
Her
Jesus would do her

And the home-boys would call him 'J Chrizzle'.

fo' shizzle!

hah.. homies are fun.

http://www.azhiaziam.com/surfergirl8hot.jpg
Her
Jesus would do her

does that make me jesus?

He was Jewish and he's the reason that very few people are Jewish now.(Additionally he may regard the worship of him as idol worship, and then he is the reason that a large percentage of the world are idol worshipers.)
He was a pacifist and his followers started some of the most bloody wars in history.
He ended up giving the empire that killed him more time then it would have had otherwise.
And near none of his followers actually listen to him.
I'd think he'd find a corner and cry himself to sleep.

He was Jewish and he's the reason that very few people are Jewish now.(Additionally he may regard the worship of him as idol worship, and then he is the reason that a large percentage of the world are idol worshipers.)
He was a pacifist and his followers started some of the most bloody wars in history.
He ended up giving the empire that killed him more time then it would have had otherwise.
And near none of his followers actually listen to him.
I'd think he'd find a corner and cry himself to sleep.


Aside from those obvious points.

WWFSMD (http://www.venganza.org)

WWFSMD (http://www.venganza.org)

This prediction supposed that Christianity is right, it doesn't say it is.


Everybody knows that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is our one and only ruler.

I have been touched by his noodly appendage ;)

This prediction supposed that Christianity is right, it doesn't say it is.
Everybody knows that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is our one and only ruler.
I have been touched by his noodly appendage ;)

I am a tool of the noodly master. I am physically incapable of seeing "wwjd" without crossing it out and writing WWFSMD in its place. As I was unable to cross the letters out here, I was compelled to linky.

...I think that if Jesus was reborn today, the majority of people who call themselves Christians would discount his teachings as bullshit spewed by a bleeding-heart liberal.

i think that if jesus was rebon today, he would be pretty pissed that everyone has one of those damn crosses.

i think that if jesus was rebon today, he would be pretty pissed that everyone has one of those damn crosses.


Yeah, considering he was nailed to one, lol

Yeah, considering he was nailed to one, lol

at least jesus wasnt alive later. god forbid people go around wearing guillotines or electric chairs around their necks. or a dripping syringe.

I think that with all the parables he told he's appreciate the symbolism.

<snip>

This actually reminds me of a story about the fall of Lucifer as represented by a RPG I'm relatively fond of (In Nomine, for those interested) and it goes something like this. God is just about to create mankind, and tells his angels that he wants all of them to come to him, and whichever angel offered the best suggestion would be his favored.
(all paraphrasing, because it has been quite awhile)
Lucifer - "I can get 100% of the human race to come to you. The only thing that is required is to take away their free will."
God - "Interesting suggestion, I will consider it"
Jesus - "I would not take away free will from humanity, as it makes them special. Instead, I will go down and give myself up for their sins. You will not get 100% of them, but at least their lives will be their own."
God - "Much better, I'll use that one"
Lucifer gets pissed and rebels, taking a great many angels with him.
The point of this whole tangent? God doesn't want sheep, he wants people.

WWJD...... if he saw the current major sects of Christianity and the most common beliefs of modern Christians?

(Well... some things to set before my prediction would really work. The Bible is complete fact, all of the horribly obvious mistakes in the Bible, like how there are multiple perceptions of Jesus's geneology and how there are actually things in the book after Genesis which wouldn't work if Genesis were true umm... umm... just ignore those. The whole stuff about how the story of Jesus seems to be stolen from the mythology of the Roman god Mithra, and how there is no historical evidence of Jesus except a blatant forgery... those things are all lies. The weird thing how Jesus died around Easter when the holiday was most likely invented in 200 or 300 AD and if Easter is mentioned in the bible it most have been added after then is also a lie. The missing, lost, and refound books of the Bible never actually existed, the modern Bible is right and what you read in it now is what was written 2000 years ago by the apostles and such. Except the old testament was written a long time before, because it was originally Jewish, like Jesus. That part didn't change.)

OK. ALL THAT ASIDE.

Jesus would look at all the beliefs of the Christian people, and aside from skewed moral justifications for wars and prejudices, his main problem would be their perception of God.

He would look in the hearts of his people and see that they feel they are sheep under a sheperd, and his heart would weep at the misfortune of their faith.

Then he would say something along the lines of "read da Bible more carefully, ho!"

Because, from the modern Bible, Jesus said "I am Divine. Through me, God acts; through me, speaks. Would you see God, see me; or see thee, when thou thinkest as I now think."

In more modern language, "God is a part of me, just as he is a part of you."

To stretch, yes, Jesus was the son of God, but that is more a metaphor than a literal meaning, and its also a metaphor which applies to all human beings (except, of course, girls are daughters, that barely even needs mentioning). This means, though, that people are not lambs, not sheep, not cattle being herded by a supreme being, but they are the supreme being, each and every one. They are one with an ultimate Divine Force, not one being ruled by it.

I think I prefer that perception of faith to the more common idea.




But then again, I don't even believe in God, so I just think that other people would benefit from this more empowering view of Christianity.
This thread has potential for things other than just "crackin' my corn" ...
Good intro.

WWJD...... if he saw the current major sects of Christianity and the most common beliefs of modern Christians?

He'd convert to Islam.

I am a tool of the noodly master. I am physically incapable of seeing "wwjd" without crossing it out and writing WWFSMD in its place. As I was unable to cross the letters out here, I was compelled to linky.
The creepy thing is, your explanation is almost EXACTLY what i was asking myself to be the case, before i read this follow-up.

I say he'd be a Reform Jew. Or possibly a Unitarian. But most likely he'd stay Jewish.

And the home-boys would call him 'J Chrizzle'.
Hahaha! *FLORT*

I think this'd make YET ANOTHER good p/muppet name.

I say he'd be a Reform Jew. Or possibly a Unitarian. But most likely he'd stay Jewish.


Or that ... I can accept that .... but Islam is so damn close to what he practiced anyway, I'd say Islam.

Maybe a Muslim Jew.

Oh crap ... I *am* a Muslim Jew!

I AM JESUS!

Hooray!

He was Jewish and he's the reason that very few people are Jewish now.(Additionally he may regard the worship of him as idol worship, and then he is the reason that a large percentage of the world are idol worshipers.)
He was a pacifist and his followers started some of the most bloody wars in history.
He ended up giving the empire that killed him more time then it would have had otherwise.
And near none of his followers actually listen to him.
I'd think he'd find a corner and cry himself to sleep.
Damn if you don't know how to make a thread depressing. I was still chortling the J. Chrizzle when i hit this one.

Or that ... I can accept that .... but Islam is so damn close to what he practiced anyway, I'd say Islam.

Maybe a Muslim Jew.

Oh crap ... I *am* a Muslim Jew!

I AM JESUS!

Hooray!
The final test my son is in post number 11 of this thread

at least jesus wasnt alive later. god forbid people go around wearing guillotines or electric chairs around their necks. or a dripping syringe.
DAMNED STRAIGHT!
What'd the Commandments say about "Graven images?"

Well it's nice to know that Jesus has a sense of humor. :D

The final test my son is in post number 11 of this thread

I am all up into that ... tell me you know her personally and can hook me up.

I am all up into that ... tell me you know her personally and can hook me up.
Nope but good enough :) that proves it you are jesus

Nope but good enough :) that proves it you are jesus

Hooray! I am sooo gonna walk on water now.

All right, I done met my Savior. Woot woot.

Hooray! I am sooo gonna walk on water now.
Dude can you turn water into more then wine? I dont care for it

Now if you could turn it into a nice 50 year old bushmills

Or a good scotch

Or maybe a good vodka

Dude can you turn water into more then wine? I dont care for it

If I could turn water into anything, it would be a 30 year Glenfiddich ... and it would be all that came out of my kitchen tap.

If I could turn water into anything, it would be a 30 year Glenfiddich ... and it would be all that came out of my kitchen tap.
Havent had it but googling it

Single malt scotch

Sounds good to me :)

If I could turn water into anything, it would be a 30 year Glenfiddich ... and it would be all that came out of my kitchen tap.

Party at Keru's!

Also - no need to bring loaves, or fishes...

Party at Keru's!

Also - no need to bring loaves, or fishes...

Hehehe ... ah ... that made me laugh ... long and loud and clear.

I do so love the NS General regulars. Fine sense of humor, eh what?

:D

Anyway, he's right ... the second I make that come out of my kitchen tap is the second I invite everyone to live with me. Glenfiddich is the fountain of youth ... even if most of you American types can't pronounce it ... drink enough of it and you can!

Who needs loaves and fish? You can't turn them into booze.

Well, you can... but it wouldn't taste that good.

Hehehe ... ah ... that made me laugh ... long and loud and clear.

I do so love the NS General regulars. Fine sense of humor, eh what?

:D

Anyway, he's right ... the second I make that come out of my kitchen tap is the second I invite everyone to live with me. Glenfiddich is the fountain of youth ... even if most of you American types can't pronounce it ... drink enough of it and you can!

Hey, don't be lumping the Limey (with the Scottish grandparents) in with the uncultured heathens, here!

Yes sir, Glenfiddich is the good stuff. I'd even swear off Guinness for it.

Hey, don't be lumping the Limey (with the Scottish grandparents) in with the uncultured heathens, here!

Yes sir, Glenfiddich is the good stuff. I'd even swear off Guinness for it.


NO! Guinness is the perfect back for a snifter of Glenfiddich!

Scotch - and don't let them skirt-wearin' Pictish bastards fool you - was originally brewed by the Irish.

Swear off nothing. Enjoy both. :D

Plus, the Irish actually know how to spell "whiskey."

... some things to set before my prediction would really work. The Bible is complete fact, all of the horribly obvious mistakes in the Bible, like how there are multiple perceptions of Jesus's geneology and how there are actually things in the book after Genesis which wouldn't work if Genesis were true umm... umm... just ignore those..
where did you get the idea/find that Jesus's geneology is not perfectly straight forward about sho begot who? and you do relise that the books of the bible are not placed in chronological order right? they are kind of in order of occurance but not order of age?



The weird thing how Jesus died around Easter when the holiday was most likely invented in 200 or 300 AD and if Easter is mentioned in the bible it most have been added after then is also a lie.
easter is never mentioned in the bible, the reason that we celibrate easter when we do is becaue the passover celibration takes place at around the same time. Jesus was crusified around the time of passover.



... people are not lambs, not sheep, not cattle being herded by a supreme being, but they are the supreme being, each and every one. They are one with an ultimate Divine Force, not one being ruled by it.
you are right people are not sheep. The whole Shepherd sheep thing is an analogy.. a shepheard protecs his flock and provides for it, in the same way God does the same thing for thoes who trust in Him.
People are not god's, we are people, human beings not super nateral beings.. if that were the caes why would we be called human?


....But then again, I don't even believe in God, so I just think that other people would benefit from this more empowering view of Christianity.
if you dont even believe in some thing how can you offer insight on it?

NO! Guinness is the perfect back for a snifter of Glenfiddich!

Scotch - and don't let them skirt-wearin' Pictish bastards fool you - was originally brewed by the Irish.

Swear off nothing. Enjoy both. :D

Whiskey might have been brewed first by the Irish.... Scotch (being a Whisky, instead) has to be a Scottish invention, I'd venture.

Either way, though... I'm not complaining. Especially if it's on tap. :)

Antikythera, this is a discussion about alcohol.

where did you get the idea/find that Jesus's geneology is not perfectly straight forward about sho begot who? and you do relise that the books of the bible are not placed in chronological order right? they are kind of in order of occurance but not order of age?




easter is never mentioned in the bible, the reason that we celibrate easter when we do is becaue the passover celibration takes place at around the same time. Jesus was crusified around the time of passover.




you are right people are not sheep. The whole Shepherd sheep thing is an analogy.. a shepheard protecs his flock and provides for it, in the same way God does the same thing for thoes who trust in Him.
People are not god's, we are people, human beings not super nateral beings.. if that were the caes why would we be called human?



if you dont even believe in some thing how can you offer insight on it?


Damn ... someone got serious and ruined it ...

Whiskey might have been brewed first by the Irish.... Scotch (being a Whisky, instead) has to be a Scottish invention, I'd venture.

Either way, though... I'm not complaining. Especially if it's on tap. :)
Ive never had "on tap" whisky before

Up here only out of the bottle lol

where did you get the idea/find that Jesus's geneology is not perfectly straight forward about sho begot who? and you do relise that the books of the bible are not placed in chronological order right? they are kind of in order of occurance but not order of age?


There are issues with Josephs heritage I know that may be what he was reffering to

Would on tap whisky be as good as out of the bottle?

Damn ... someone got serious and ruined it ...
you can ignor my post and carry on with your fun... it matters not:)

Would on tap whisky be as good as out of the bottle?
I dont know I like tap beer better so I would like to try that whisky

Ive never had "on tap" whisky before

Up here only out of the bottle lol

If you ever find yourself near Dufftown, in Scotland....

(Oh - and, greetings, friend... not seen you much round here, lately).

:)

There are issues with Josephs heritage I know that may be what he was reffering to
joseph was of the line of david.. thats why he went to bethleham aka "the city of david"... how can that be an issue:confused:

I dont know I like tap beer better so I would like to try that whisky

And, there is another vacation... If you find yourself in Dublin, you might want to do the tour at the Guinness Brewery. (When I did it, you got two pints included in the ticket-price.... *sigh*)

I'm ashamed to say I've never had a Guinness.

joseph was of the line of david.. thats why he went to bethleham aka "the city of david"... how can that be an issue:confused:
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

So was joseph the son of Heli or Jacob?

joseph was of the line of david.. thats why he went to bethleham aka "the city of david"... how can that be an issue:confused:

Yes, well ... My son is of the line of David (through his mother) and, thus, has an equal opportunity to be the Messiah.

Oh, sure, it would be cool if he were ... but my son is no less significant than Jesus on the Messianic prophecy.

You gotta understand. True Jewish messianic prophecy doesn't exist in Tanakh. All those Isaiah quotes and Jeremiah quotes don't matter. They're not messianic. They point to the nation of Israel, nothing more.

There really are very few "prophecies" concerning the Messiah. The only thing we know is that he'll be a "he", be born of the house of David, bring all Jews (not some, but ALL) Jews to Israel, will rebuild the Temple, and will lead us to a great victory. No miracles, no walking on water, no water into wine, no raising of the dead ... just a guy like us ... not the son of god ... not some deus ex machina ...

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

So was joseph the son of Heli or Jacob?

Jacob and Heli are the same person differant name. this is a rather commin thing for jews to have more that one name, a good frind of mine goes by both sean and paul, two verry differant names but both refer to the same person.

Jacob and Heli are the same person differant name. this is a rather commin thing for jews to have more that one name, a good frind of mine goes by both sean and paul, two verry differant names but both refer to the same person.
Its Possible they were the same person
Its also possible that it is a recording error.

Personally I do not know enough to make the judgement between the two and have not seen any evidence one way or another in scripture.

Anyways I was just pointing out what the OP MAY have been talking about

I could be compleatly off it was just the first thing that came to mind

...yeah, and Simon/Peter.

Keruvalia what defines if a prophace is messianic or not?
(sorry not up to speed with exact jewish lingo.)

Its Possible they were the same person
Its also possible that it is a recording error.

Personally I do not know enough to make the judgement between the two and have not seen any evidence one way or another in scripture.

Anyways I was just pointing out what the OP MAY have been talking about

I could be compleatly off it was just the first thing that came to mind

thats fine.... this is actual the first time that i have ever noticed the different "name". thanks for pointing it out.

if you dont even believe in some thing how can you offer insight on it?
Well i'm sure everyone else will lob the rest of this post, but i'll answer this ...
objective perspective.

Keruvalia what defines if a prophace is messianic or not?
(sorry not up to speed with exact jewish lingo.)

A few things:

1] The Messiah will become a son of the covenant. There will be a Bar Mitzvah, which means there will be a brit milah. (He will be circumsized) All the vast movement of "circumsision is mutilation" morons cannot produce the Messiah.

2] The Messiah will be preceded by Elijah. Not some crazy naked guy in the desert, but the true Prophet. Not a single person in this world will fail to recognize him. Basically, there will be no doubt. If there is doubt ... no Messiah!

3] Solomon's Temple will be rebuilt. It hasn't ..... so no Messiah.

4] When the Messiah comes, there will be peace. Not GWB peace of "we got the bomb, so fuck you" peace, but true peace.

If you want true Messianic prophecy, read:

Genesis 3:15
Genesis 12:3; 18:18
Deuteronomy 18:15-19

Etc.

joseph was of the line of david.. thats why he went to bethleham aka "the city of david"... how can that be an issue:confused:

Well - Judaism has long held that Messiah must be of father-son lineage, direct from David.

If 'god' created Jesus through divine intervention, Joseph is not his real father... so Jesus is not Messiah.

If Joseph IS his real father, then Jesus is not 'born of virgin', and not 'the 'son of god'. Can't have it both ways.


Also - the Matthew account fails to match the Tanach account as to the descendents of David. Matthew ignores four ancestors listed in Tanach...

(Which MIGHT NOT be a problem, if Matthew didn't ALSO claim that there were only fourteen generations from 'carrying away into Babylon' to the birth of 'Christ'. This conflicts directly with the eighteen generations that would be accounted in the Tanach lineage).


Lastly - Joseph was of the line of Jeconiah... which means his bloodline is cursed, and Joseph could never actually ascend to the throne of David anyway... thus - he could not pass tht heritage on to Jesus, even if Jesus WERE his actual son.

And, you can't even look to the Luke account to bail you out... because the Jewish royal line is passed on through PATRILINEAL progression, and ALSO because it must be passed through the Solomonic line... while the Luke account cites Nathan as the route to David.

Oh come now. It's a bit much to call someone a moron because they don't like circumsision.

I was having more fun with the booze talk anyway.

But it is always good to have textual evidence. *flips through Genesis*

Jacob and Heli are the same person differant name. this is a rather commin thing for jews to have more that one name, a good frind of mine goes by both sean and paul, two verry differant names but both refer to the same person.

Speculation. The name Heli is referenced nowehere else, and the lineages do not match up.

Further... even the NUMBER of lineages don't match up... Luke gives 43 generations from David... Matthew gives only 27.

Well - Judaism has long held that Messiah must be of father-son lineage, direct from David.

If 'god' created Jesus through divine intervention, Joseph is not his real father... so Jesus is not Messiah.

If Joseph IS his real father, then Jesus is not 'born of virgin', and not 'the 'son of god'. Can't have it both ways.


Also - the Matthew account fails to match the Tanach account as to the descendents of David. Matthew ignores four ancestors listed in Tanach...

(Which MIGHT NOT be a problem, if Matthew didn't ALSO claim that there were only fourteen generations from 'carrying away into Babylon' to the birth of 'Christ'. This conflicts directly with the eighteen generations that would be accounted in the Tanach lineage).


Lastly - Joseph was of the line of Jeconiah... which means his bloodline is cursed, and Joseph could never actually ascend to the throne of David anyway... thus - he could not pass tht heritage on to Jesus, even if Jesus WERE his actual son.

And, you can't even look to the Luke account to bail you out... because the Jewish royal line is passed on through PATRILINEAL progression, and ALSO because it must be passed through the Solomonic line... while the Luke account cites Nathan as the route to David.
Good to know my antici ...........pation didn't leave me out to dry.
Now i'm all tingly!

Oh come now. It's a bit much to call someone a moron because they don't like circumsision.


No ... no no no .... I'm ...

Ok ...

Oy ...

First and foremost, the Messiah - as decided in the Jewish texts, based on the Abrahamic line - will be Jewish. The first and most important step in that is the brit milah.

You cannot have a brit milah unless the circumsize thing is part of it.

Not saying they're morons, but the big anti-circumsize movement is generally Secular/Christian in origin. I've yet to find a single Jewish or Muslim family who would think twice about snipping the foreskin.

I know what you meant, I was just splitting hairs.

Good to know my antici ...........pation didn't leave me out to dry.
Now i'm all tingly!

Extra points for Tim Curry in a corset.

Speculation. The name Heli is referenced nowehere else, and the lineages do not match up.

Further... even the NUMBER of lineages don't match up... Luke gives 43 generations from David... Matthew gives only 27.

lineages have been known to skip generations, this could account for the differant numbers.

I know what you meant, I was just splitting hairs.

Not the bunnies! Damnit!

Don't split the bunnies!

Oh wait ...

:D

Now ... back to the booze ....

Extra points for Tim Curry in a corset.

Don't dream it ... be it!

Bottoms up, brothers!

No ... no no no .... I'm ...

Ok ...

Oy ...

First and foremost, the Messiah - as decided in the Jewish texts, based on the Abrahamic line - will be Jewish. The first and most important step in that is the brit milah.

You cannot have a brit milah unless the circumsize thing is part of it.

Not saying they're morons, but the big anti-circumsize movement is generally Secular/Christian in origin. I've yet to find a single Jewish or Muslim family who would think twice about snipping the foreskin.

in my experiance i have yet to find a christian family that does not agree and practice circumsision.

Incidently ... WWJD = World Wide Jewish Domination

:D

in my experiance i have yet to find a christian family that does not agree and practice circumsision.

Aye ... but they let some cold, sterile hospital do it ...

They have no concept of the brit milah.

Bottoms up, brothers!
Ah, this thread is taking an ... interesting ... turn. Maybe i invoked Tim Curry at JUST the right time.

Extra points for Tim Curry in a corset.
Forgive me, it's the only mental image i have!
....except for him in a Muppets movie, and dressed as an Inquisitor or whatever he was in the remake The Three Musketeers.
Hmmm. I may have an issue or two to think over.

lineages have been known to skip generations, this could account for the differant numbers.

Not paying attention, my friend...

The lineage that Matthew follows is duplicated part of the way, in Tanach.

However, what Matthew cites as being fourteen generations, SKIPS four recorded generations.

Which is okay - EXCEPT that Matthew then goes on to claim it IS fourteen generations.... which it clearly is not. Matthew is not allowing for 'skipped' generations, he is calling it a factual fourteen.

Also - try comparing the lineages.... they actually cite the SAME people at some points... they just place them in different times.... (Shealtiel and Zerubbabel being most noticable).

Aye ... but they let some cold, sterile hospital do it ...

They have no concept of the brit milah.

in my personal opinion,(which probly does not matter much becaue i have never had children and i am not jewish by blood line or marrage or religion), God requests that boys be circumsised on the 8th day, and there is a triditional way of doing it, ie. brit milah. It is not how the deed is carried out, what is important is that it is done. and although the act is some times done in a hospital i know that many parents do the actual cutting, not a doctor.

in my experiance i have yet to find a christian family that does not agree and practice circumsision.

You must be bible belt US, then.... and even so... still fairly insular, I'd imagine.

Forgive me, it's the only mental image i have!
....except for him in a Muppets movie, and dressed as an Inquisitor or whatever he was in the remake The Three Musketeers.
Hmmm. I may have an issue or two to think over.

Cardinal Richelieu.

Also - the Demon in "Legend", and Pennywise in "It".... oh, and the Butler in "Clue'...

(Just off the top of my head).

It is not how the deed is carried out

Actually .. it is ...

I am Muslim by religion and the one thing I've always said to people is that if ceremony wasn't important to God, why did God give us so many instructions on it?!

Muslim prayer, for example ... if God didn't give a shit how we pray, why were instructions given? Same thing with the Christian "Lord's Prayer" ... isn't that instructions on how to pray?

So, to respectfully disagree, it is how the deed is carried out. We've been given instructions by the Almighty.

Cardinal Richelieu.

Also - the Demon in "Legend", and Pennywise in "It".... oh, and the Butler in "Clue'...

(Just off the top of my head).
Legend? That was a while ago. I hadn't sensed his peculiar nature at that age ... i was still preoccupied with quarter-fed video games like DigDug and one of the Flight Simulators.

As for Pennywise ... yeah, thanks for bringing THAT up. Christ if that motherf*cker weren't disturbing ENOUGH he went and did that.
As for "Clue", never watched it. Now i've got a strong aversive bias, apparently.
Yep, i've got an issue or two to sort out.

Actually .. it is ...

I am Muslim by religion and the one thing I've always said to people is that if ceremony wasn't important to God, why did God give us so many instructions on it?!

Muslim prayer, for example ... if God didn't give a shit how we pray, why were instructions given? Same thing with the Christian "Lord's Prayer" ... isn't that instructions on how to pray?

So, to respectfully disagree, it is how the deed is carried out. We've been given instructions by the Almighty.

the Lords prayer is an example of how you can/could to pray to God.... there is no right or wrong way to pray.
its fine if you do not agree with me, thankfuly we are allowed to formulat differant ideas from the things that have been placed befor us.
its late so iam going to call it a night.

What
Would
Dime
Bag
Do?

What
Would
Dime
Bag
Do?


What would Dimebag do?

Probably a lot of coke, then play some shitty guitar, and be worshipped by rednecks all over the world?

What would Dimebag do?

Probably a lot of coke, then play some shitty guitar, and be worshipped by rednecks all over the world?

He would tear shit up and bark at minorities!

He would tear shit up and bark at minorities!


Right on!

Cuz thats what uneducated, hate preaching southern metal bands do!

Woooooot!


/sarcasm

Right on!

Cuz thats what uneducated, hate preaching southern metal bands do!

Woooooot!


/sarcasm
Here is some back ground for you. The Dimebag I am talking about is a pit bull. Dime bag (or dimmers as we like to call him) is named after the Dimebag from Pantera. I hope this makes everything clearer now.

Here is some back ground for you. The Dimebag I am talking about is a pit bull. Dime bag (or dimmers as we like to call him) is named after the Dimebag from Pantera. I hope this makes everything clearer now.


Much.

Ive learned this:

1. You have a racist dog.

2. I still effin hate Pantera.

Much.

Ive learned this:

1. You have a racist dog.

2. I still effin hate Pantera.

When did I say I owned a bog named Dimebag?

When did I say I owned a bog named Dimebag?


Whatever name you wish to refer to your local wetlands by, is ok with me.

Say hi to Dimebag, the racist pitbull for me.

Whatever name you wish to refer to your local wetlands by, is ok with me.

Say hi to Dimebag, the racist pitbull for me.
Thank your for pointing out my spelling mistake in a smart ass way.

I will tell Dimebag you say hey the next time I see him

WWBBD?

(What Would Brian Boitano Do?)

Thank your for pointing out my spelling mistake in a smart ass way.

I will tell Dimebag you say hey the next time I see him


Thats what Im here for.

However, I will say that I have never met a normal, well raised PitBull, that was not a sweet licky-kissyface love monster.

Thats why I hate the stereotype that all pits are mean viscous killers.

WWBBD?

(What Would Brian Boitano Do?)

Im sure he'd kick an ass or two, thats what Brian Boitano would do.

does that make me jesus?
Anyone would do her

WWBBD?

(What Would Brian Boitano Do?)
If he was here right now, he would have kicked an ass or two thats what Brian Boitano would Do:D

WWBBD?

(What Would Brian Boitano Do?)
Same thing Jesus would do; Not take shit from anybody.

Same thing Jesus would do; Not take shit from anybody.
Well, Jesus took a lot of shit, like beeing killed and all...

Well, Jesus took a lot of shit, like beeing killed and all...
Yeah, but who got the last laugh? First, he completely takes the piss out of death itself, then makes People who do shit onto others around the world owe him their freekin' souls. 'sides, he absolutely ripped into everyone, and I mean literally everyone, who dealt shit out. That's about as low a shit-tolerance as you could possibly imagine.

Yeah, but who got the last laugh? First, he completely takes the piss out of death itself, then makes People who do shit onto others around the world owe him their freekin' souls. 'sides, he absolutely ripped into everyone, and I mean literally everyone, who dealt shit out. That's about as low a shit-tolerance as you could possibly imagine.

Good point I guess

Yeah, but who got the last laugh? First, he completely takes the piss out of death itself, then makes People who do shit onto others around the world owe him their freekin' souls. 'sides, he absolutely ripped into everyone, and I mean literally everyone, who dealt shit out. That's about as low a shit-tolerance as you could possibly imagine.

Rather depends which version of the story you believe...

To some he transcended death, and became all the more powerful for his little act of martyrdom...

To others, he got nailed to a tree, and died... just like we all would. The end.

Guess it depends which version you prefer.


Of course, those who prefer the shiny happy version also ignore the fact that a body crucified is probably caked in fecal matter half way down the thighs, also.... messes with the whole 'pure white lamb' image, I guess...

Of course, those who prefer the shiny happy version also ignore the fact that a body crucified is probably caked in fecal matter half way down the thighs, also.... messes with the whole 'pure white lamb' image, I guess...
I presume you're not completely acquainted with the notion of sacrificial ritual. Fair enough. Few are in this day and age. Just as well. >_>

I think the way Jesus got so physically abused in the story was to enhance the notion of the sacrificial context. Think about it; if you take a sheep and you sacrifice it, it's not a clean ceremony. The point is that you're appeasing whatever powers that are by having the victim pay the price. The messier, the worse the embarassment and thus the greater the recompense.

Of course, I don't feel that notion really works for several reasons. There are much better ones. Commonly, people accept that the death and resurrection was a bizarre but effective way of God putting a seal of approval on Jesus's life.

The way I like to look at it is that the Crucifixion was effectively an enormous question on the nature of God commonly held at its time, and one that seems to have been completely ignored by the mainstream following. Who is God that he can fulfil all of our prophecies through a man and die at our hands? What is God such that it can transcend life and death, and yet partake in them both? Questions worth asking regardless of your opinion on the factual validity of biblical testimony. To me, the inevitable result seems to be "Not the one we think it is".

Anyway, yeah. Jesus was a tough-talking rebel who didn't take crap from anyone, thus got on the wrong side of people in authority. So he got executed. Big deal. He made a stand for what he thought was right against what he thought was wrong, did so without the slightest bit of bloodshed and got worldwide recognition for (some variation of) his ideas. I reckon that's worth a few respect points, at least.

Me! I want Jack Daniels!

Oh wait, the religious thing... yeah... WWJD has a completely different meaning round my way.

Jesus would drink Jack.

Me! I want Jack Daniels!

Oh wait, the religious thing... yeah... WWJD has a completely different meaning round my way.

Jesus would drink Jack.
Jesus would drink anything and everything. I mean, someone who turns water into wine must have an astounding alcohol tolerance.

I presume you're not completely acquainted with the notion of sacrificial ritual. Fair enough. Few are in this day and age. Just as well.
Ah, i wouldn't be writin' cheques your butt can't cash ...

WWJD...... if he saw the current major sects of Christianity and the most common beliefs of modern Christians?

He'd be ROTFL...
Sorry, had to...
LOL

Ah, i wouldn't be writin' cheques your butt can't cash ...
Erm... butts can't cash cheques. Or, in other words, that comment went way over my head.

Do you mean that Grave obviously knows about the imagery associated with sacrifice, and that my notion of it is completely wrong?

Well...

Okay. Called my bluff on that one. But the point stands.

I presume you're not completely acquainted with the notion of sacrificial ritual. Fair enough. Few are in this day and age. Just as well. >_>

I think the way Jesus got so physically abused in the story was to enhance the notion of the sacrificial context. Think about it; if you take a sheep and you sacrifice it, it's not a clean ceremony. The point is that you're appeasing whatever powers that are by having the victim pay the price. The messier, the worse the embarassment and thus the greater the recompense.


I'm actually not entirely unfamiliar with the concept... but, that side of the God of Jacob and Isaiah doesn't play well to the punters.

Personally, I'm inclined to think (My heresy for the day) that the Cain and Abel story, that of Isaac, and the Jesus crucifixion, are all versions of the same story... each progressively trying to 'sanitise' the bloodthirsty nature of the Old Testament god.

After all... Cain is given immortality for sacrificing his dearest blood, Abraham was given a FORM of immortality for sacrificing his dearest blood, and Jesus GAINS immortality by BEING the 'dearest blood' sacrificed... and all three stories take place on an altar (although the nature of the altar changes, with each retelling).

I'm actually not entirely unfamiliar with the concept... but, that side of the God of Jacob and Isaiah doesn't play well to the punters.

Personally, I'm inclined to think (My heresy for the day) that the Cain and Abel story, that of Isaac, and the Jesus crucifixion, are all versions of the same story... each progressively trying to 'sanitise' the bloodthirsty nature of the Old Testament god.

After all... Cain is given immortality for sacrificing his dearest blood, Abraham was given a FORM of immortality for sacrificing his dearest blood, and Jesus GAINS immortality by BEING the 'dearest blood' sacrificed... and all three stories take place on an altar (although the nature of the altar changes, with each retelling).
Interesting connections, though I can't say I quite agree with the essence of reward for death. True, God requires it to happen, but I don't think he rewards those who cause it. Cain died eventually, Abraham didn't actually kill his son (though he was a right SOB with Ishmael) and Jesus was, well, immortal anyway. Points for the idea, though. ^^;

Erm... butts can't cash cheques. Or, in other words, that comment went way over my head.

Do you mean that Grave obviously knows about the imagery associated with sacrifice, and that my notion of it is completely wrong?

Well...

Okay. Called my bluff on that one. But the point stands.
Heh, good reply.
I was implying that Grave is rather formidable in this topic. I didn't have much else to add in that regard.

Heh, good reply.
I was implying that Grave is rather formidable in this topic. I didn't have much else to add in that regard.

Many thanks for kind words, my friend.

You're no slouch yourself.

Actually... Kamsaki is definitely one to watch, by the way.

Many thanks for kind words, my friend.
Always. *bows*

You're no slouch yourself.
Depends on the day, how much sleep i'd gotten, et cetera. Thanks!

Actually... Kamsaki is definitely one to watch, by the way.
Agreed. That's why i bumped the Jesus' God? thread.

Interesting connections, though I can't say I quite agree with the essence of reward for death. True, God requires it to happen, but I don't think he rewards those who cause it. Cain died eventually, Abraham didn't actually kill his son (though he was a right SOB with Ishmael) and Jesus was, well, immortal anyway. Points for the idea, though. ^^;

Cain died eventually? I'm not sure I could quote scripture to support that...

On the subject of Isaac... opinion is somewhat divided. I seem to remember hearing that some Midrash texts assert that Isaac DID die that day. Ultimately, however, it was the OBEDIENCE to the ORDER to kill, that was important. Abraham was rewarded for his preparedness to spill blood.

On the other hand... Jesus being immortal is questionable. (Hell, Jesus even having ever been 'mortal' is open to question). One could argue that, since he 'died', and was resurrected, he was, by definition, NOT immortal... UNTIL he was 'reborn'.

If one continues looking through the Old Testament, those who are often most highly prized (Moses, Joshua, David)... are also those who are likely to have the most blood on their hands.

I think there is avery strong case for the Old Testament 'god' being a god of blood sacrifice... and no blood is more 'precious' than that of humanity... ESPECIALLY those we hold most dear.... brothers, sons.... even his OWN son...

Cain died eventually? I'm not sure I could quote scripture to support that...
Genesis 7, RE: Grand flood? "Every living thing that moved on the earth perished - [including] all mankind". I presume that includes our unfortunate antihero.

On the subject of Isaac... opinion is somewhat divided. I seem to remember hearing that some Midrash texts assert that Isaac DID die that day. Ultimately, however, it was the OBEDIENCE to the ORDER to kill, that was important. Abraham was rewarded for his preparedness to spill blood.

...

If one continues looking through the Old Testament, those who are often most highly prized (Moses, Joshua, David)... are also those who are likely to have the most blood on their hands.

I think there is avery strong case for the Old Testament 'god' being a god of blood sacrifice... and no blood is more 'precious' than that of humanity... ESPECIALLY those we hold most dear.... brothers, sons.... even his OWN son...
Heh... amusing, in a somewhat wry sense, that Jesus claims in Mark 12 to represent the "God of the Living", huh?

A very interesting observation, I must say. I'm still not entirely convinced by the 'god of sacrifice' notion, though. Instances of conscious human sacrifice are infrequent throughout the tales, and many killings are done almost haphazardly, as though little meaning is placed on them.

However, what isn't so foreign is the notion of the God of Death. The theme dominates the Old Testament, right from the flood through the exploits of Noah's descendants and the exodus from Egypt to the many battles of the people of Israel. Peoples' lives are taken all over the show for the benefit of one little group. And, in a way, it makes sense for people not long out of a oneness with nature to think in this way.

Perhaps, rather than appealing to those with a tendency towards bloodlust, the God of the Old Testament is simply more apparent to those who have looked death in the face and performed its work?

And, erm, I wouldn't worry too much about watching me just yet. I'm quite content to explore mythological truths for the moment. But thanks for the compliment. I think... <_<;

The whole "Old Testament God was EEEVVVIIILLLL" idea actually had its own sect of Christianity and its own book of the Bible.

Didn't last to modern day, though.

Genesis 7, RE: Grand flood? "Every living thing that moved on the earth perished - [including] all mankind". I presume that includes our unfortunate antihero.


If 'antihero' he was. Being cursed to immortality doesn't sound like the story originally cast Cain as the bad guy, at all... sounds like revisionism to me.

As for the grand flood... several approaches to this.... First - read in Hebrew, it is nowhere near so certain that the whole world was drowned... indeed, it can be read as being a very specific area.... like "The world... as far as you can see" kind of thing.

Secondly, of course... is the nature of Cain AFTER the death of Abel. Looking at Genesis 4:14 - "Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me" - it is by no means clear that Cain could be affected by the Flood.

After all - the flood killed 'every living thing that moved upon the earth', but Cain was 'driven out... from the face of the earth'.

Perhaps Cain was returned to the Angelic Form from which Adam and Eve had so recently descended?


Heh... amusing, in a somewhat wry sense, that Jesus claims in Mark 12 to represent the "God of the Living", huh?

A very interesting observation, I must say. I'm still not entirely convinced by the 'god of sacrifice' notion, though. Instances of conscious human sacrifice are infrequent throughout the tales, and many killings are done almost haphazardly, as though little meaning is placed on them.

However, what isn't so foreign is the notion of the God of Death. The theme dominates the Old Testament, right from the flood through the exploits of Noah's descendants and the exodus from Egypt to the many battles of the people of Israel. Peoples' lives are taken all over the show for the benefit of one little group. And, in a way, it makes sense for people not long out of a oneness with nature to think in this way.

Perhaps, rather than appealing to those with a tendency towards bloodlust, the God of the Old Testament is simply more apparent to those who have looked death in the face and performed its work?


Personally, given the time and the place, I have no doubts that the original Hebrew peoples were as fond of blood sacrifice (even child sacrifice) as their neighbours are recorded as being. They just chose not to 'record' that little element of their history. Hell - if you are writing your OWN history, I guess that's the kind of thing you leave out.

And thus... the story of the hero Cain, who sacrificed his own brother because he loved his god... becomes the tale of the 'murderer' Cain, who brutally slays his brother, and is punished for it... although, the punishment doesn't look like much suffering, when you examine it.

And thus, the story of the father who slaughters his son, becomes the story of the father who ALMOST kills his own son - but God stops him at the last second.

But - buried within the scripture... there are enough clues to support the theory. For example: Genesis 12:23-4 "Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh. Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water".

The blood is poured as water on the floor, because thus was a ritual oblation given. Blood is given a symbolism akin to that of water (both are symbols of life), and is given as the special tribute of God when meat is prepared.

Thus - the very act of spilling blood on the ground, becomes a ritual of appeasement and an offering of thanks. How does Noah thank God for his safe journey?

It's one of those things that you can find support for, if you are looking for it...

(Like the mystical significance of the element of water... try reading the old testament in that light... see how many battles and significant events and decisions are made next to water.... like water is a messenger and source of destiny, perhaps)...


And, erm, I wouldn't worry too much about watching me just yet. I'm quite content to explore mythological truths for the moment. But thanks for the compliment. I think... <_<;

The way you comemnt in threads.... the ideas you suggest... amkes me suspect that, in you, we see a 'seeker after truth'. Such are ALWAYS worth watching.

The whole "Old Testament God was EEEVVVIIILLLL" idea actually had its own sect of Christianity and its own book of the Bible.

Didn't last to modern day, though.
A God of Death wouldn't necessarily be evil, ya know. Constantly killing little bits of ourselves is what keeps us healthy. I imagine the pattern could be replicated upwards.

A God of Death wouldn't necessarily be evil, ya know. Constantly killing little bits of ourselves is what keeps us healthy. I imagine the pattern could be replicated upwards.

Indeed... isn't it one of the core tenets of Christianity that one should 'die to oneself' every day? Kind of die, to be reborn, so to speak?

OntheRIGHTside

I'm confused. How is it you know all this stuff.

OntheRIGHTside

I'm confused. How is it you know all this stuff.

It doesn't look like it was through citing sources, that's for sure :/.