NationStates Jolt Archive

Regarding Jesus, Jews, and Gentiles since that seems to be the topic now:

In the old testament, you see the predictions of Jesus coming sacrifice in books like Genesis, Psalms, Isaiah and other books. Especially Isaiah.
Isaiah says that Jesus will to save Israel it does not say specifically he will save the gentiles. But it does say he will be a light to the Gentiles. A light by which the gentiles will be saved.

In the New Testament, Jesus came. The jews, as we all know, rejected him.
The story of the samaritan woman is something. He noted he was sent only for Israel, which is to say, for the Jews. He was supposed to be a light through the Jews for the Gentiles. The Jews refused this. So Jesus had his disciples go directly to the Gentiles. Note also that it was a Gentile, Pontius Pilate, who tried to save Jesus while the jewish high priests were trying to kill him. The priests prevailed by blackmailing Pilate.

The Gentiles had greater faith than the Jews did. Hence salvation became directly possible for them. They no longer had to go through the jews because the jews had either abandoned or abused their position that God had given them.

so you are suggesting that pretty much everyone in israel spoke greek as well as aramaic?

and did everyone in rome speak greek too?

It does seem that Koine (common) Greek was much like modern English, in it's almost universal usage. It is not unlikely that most people in the Holy Land and beyond, spoke Koine as - at least - a second language.

2. Jesus and Peter and the other disciples spoke Aramaic, not greek. Greek was the language of the very rich. Not the language of the common people. Of the Apostles, only Paul spoke Greek.

Prove it.

Prove it.
And I thought no one would ask.
:p


http://members.aol.com/assyrianme/aramaic/history.html

Note that: "Although Greek had spread throughout these Eastern lands, Aramaic remained dominant and the linqua franca of the Semitic peoples. This continued to be so until Aramaic was superseded by a sister Semitic tongue, Arabic, about the 13th century A.D. to the 14th century A.D., when Arabic supplanted Aramaic after the Arab conquest in the 7th Century."

http://www.peshitta.org/initial/aramaic.html

"Despite Hellenistic influences, especially in the cities, that followed the conquests of Alexander the Great of Macedonia, Aramaic remained the vernacular of the conquered peoples in the Holy Land, Syria, Mesopotamia and the adjacent countries. It ceded only to Arabic in the ninth century A.D., two full centuries after the Islamic conquests of Damascus in 633, and Jerusalem in 635"

http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/syriac_language.html

"More Jewish documents have been found written in Aramaic dating at intervals between the 3rd century BC until the latter half of the 1st century AD. These include Aramaic documents found amongst the famous Dead Sea Scrolls. These finds show that Aramaic was the language that most Jews spoke in their everyday lives before, during and after the time of Jesus. Since Jesus preached to very ordinary people in Judea, Galilee and the regions of southern Syria, it follows that He definitely would have spoken in Aramaic. So Aramaic was the language in which His teachings and sayings were delivered and the language used to record His teachings by those who listened to Him. The fact that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, means that we should try to understand His sayings with reference to the Aramaic language, (not the Greek language) in the context of the Jewish culture of those times and localities, (not Greek or Western culture). "

http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/aramaic.htm

"Despite Hellenistic influences, especially in the cities, that followed the conquests of Alexander the Great of Macedonia, Aramaic remained the vernacular of the conquered peoples in the Holy Land, Syria, Mesopotamia and the adjacent countries. It ceded only to Arabic in the ninth century A.D.,"

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/A/Aramaic.asp
http://www.mountlebanon.org/aramaiclanguage.html
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/aramaic.htm

"Aramaic, a language which was the lingua franca of much of the Near East from about 7th century BC until the 7th century AD, when it was largely replaced by Arabic"

While greek did become the official language of the governments, Aramaic remained the lingua franca for the people of Palestine and other middle eastern nations.

i guess if it makes y'all feel better you can ignore what is plainly written in the bible.

if jesus SAYS he is only there to save the jews, i dont see why we should reinterpret it to make it more palatable to us.

its not like its a parable where he is talking in allegory and his ideas MUST be interpreted. this was him talking about his ministry.

if you look at that passage i quoted from ACTS youll see that it was debated by the apostles themselves. they had presumably heard jesus say it, they certainly seemed to believe it themselves at least enough to take the question very seriously. and it seems that it was decided by peter only on evidence that gentiles could receive the holy spirit.

The discussion in Acts was not about whether or not Christ came only to save the Jews. It was already agreed upon that they should be ministering to the Gentiles - spreading the Gospel there. The argument in question was whether or not those who would convert to Christianity had to become Jews first - ie. had to be circumcized/follow Levitical law/etc. There was no question of whether or not a Gentile could be saved - the only question was the path they must take to do so.

And I thought no one would ask.
:p


http://members.aol.com/assyrianme/aramaic/history.html

Note that: "Although Greek had spread throughout these Eastern lands, Aramaic remained dominant and the linqua franca of the Semitic peoples. This continued to be so until Aramaic was superseded by a sister Semitic tongue, Arabic, about the 13th century A.D. to the 14th century A.D., when Arabic supplanted Aramaic after the Arab conquest in the 7th Century."

http://www.peshitta.org/initial/aramaic.html

"Despite Hellenistic influences, especially in the cities, that followed the conquests of Alexander the Great of Macedonia, Aramaic remained the vernacular of the conquered peoples in the Holy Land, Syria, Mesopotamia and the adjacent countries. It ceded only to Arabic in the ninth century A.D., two full centuries after the Islamic conquests of Damascus in 633, and Jerusalem in 635"

http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/syriac_language.html

"More Jewish documents have been found written in Aramaic dating at intervals between the 3rd century BC until the latter half of the 1st century AD. These include Aramaic documents found amongst the famous Dead Sea Scrolls. These finds show that Aramaic was the language that most Jews spoke in their everyday lives before, during and after the time of Jesus. Since Jesus preached to very ordinary people in Judea, Galilee and the regions of southern Syria, it follows that He definitely would have spoken in Aramaic. So Aramaic was the language in which His teachings and sayings were delivered and the language used to record His teachings by those who listened to Him. The fact that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, means that we should try to understand His sayings with reference to the Aramaic language, (not the Greek language) in the context of the Jewish culture of those times and localities, (not Greek or Western culture). "

http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/aramaic.htm

"Despite Hellenistic influences, especially in the cities, that followed the conquests of Alexander the Great of Macedonia, Aramaic remained the vernacular of the conquered peoples in the Holy Land, Syria, Mesopotamia and the adjacent countries. It ceded only to Arabic in the ninth century A.D.,"

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/A/Aramaic.asp
http://www.mountlebanon.org/aramaiclanguage.html
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/aramaic.htm

"Aramaic, a language which was the lingua franca of much of the Near East from about 7th century BC until the 7th century AD, when it was largely replaced by Arabic"

While greek did become the official language of the governments, Aramaic remained the lingua franca for the people of Palestine and other middle eastern nations.


Well done.

But, irrelevent.

You said that Greek was a language of the rich. You IMPLIED it was the ONLY language that Jesus and his buddies would have known.

You have cited some evidence here that puts Jesus-era documents in Aramaic, and yet The Books of the Maccabees (for example) were NOT found in Aramaic or Hebrew... they were ONLY found in Koine.... and those books date to 200 years BEFORE Jesus.

The same is true (that they were found only in Koine) for the books of Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, and Baruch. (All of which are 'canonical' to Catholics).

Far from being a language of the rich, Koine truly WAS a lingua franca... in the Holy Lands AND far beyond.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek)

Edit: Also: Koine [n] a common language used by speakers of different languages; "Koine is a dialect of ancient Greek that was the lingua franca of the empire of Alexander the Great and was widely spoken throughout the eastern Mediterranean area in Roman times".

http://lookwayup.com/lwu.exe/lwu/d?w=koine/n/5168056

Well done.

But, irrelevent.

You said that Greek was a language of the rich. You IMPLIED it was the ONLY language that Jesus and his buddies would have known.

You have cited some evidence here that puts Jesus-era documents in Aramaic, and yet The Books of the Maccabees (for example) were NOT found in Aramaic or Hebrew... they were ONLY found in Koine.... and those books date to 200 years BEFORE Jesus.

The same is true (that they were found only in Koine) for the books of Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, and Baruch. (All of which are 'canonical' to Catholics).

Far from being a language of the rich, Koine truly WAS a lingua franca... in the Holy Lands AND far beyond.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek)

Edit: Also: Koine [n] a common language used by speakers of different languages; "Koine is a dialect of ancient Greek that was the lingua franca of the empire of Alexander the Great and was widely spoken throughout the eastern Mediterranean area in Roman times".

http://lookwayup.com/lwu.exe/lwu/d?w=koine/n/5168056
No. I implied that aramaic was the only language spoken by Jesus and his disciples.

As the links state, while greek did become an official language, it never preplaced Aramaic. Aramaic held it's place against the greek.
Not to mention that not everyone accepts those books you mentioned as part of the Bible.

No. I implied that aramaic was the only language spoken by Jesus and his disciples.

As the links state, while greek did become an official language, it never preplaced Aramaic. Aramaic held it's place against the greek.
Not to mention that not everyone accepts those books you mentioned as part of the Bible.

I actually meant Aramaic, for that second sentence... but the point remains... you would most likely be wrong.

Yes, Aramaic MAY have been the chief language of the geography, but there is evidence IN the scripture, that suggests it was not the only one...

Jesus appears to quote earlier sources - from Genesis to Enoch. Both texts were Hebrew, so Jesus must have been at least passably fluent in a second language.

Other passages show the Apostles appearing to reference earlier scripture, but from Greek translations... which suggests a second language for at least SOME of the apostles was (a form of) Greek.

Archeological and historic evidences show that Aramaic and Greek were both well represented in the area at the time, and the fact that Jesus was born into a Jewish community, STRONGLY suggests that he would have been raised with Hebrew as first or second language.

You continue to construct strawmen... I didn't say Aramiac was replaced by Greek - I said that Greek was the 'lingua franca' of that area, and beyond.

I didn't say that the texts I described are universally recognised as 'canonical'... but they ARE recognised by the entire Catholic church, and they ARE evidence that, even in Jesus time and before, Koine was a sufficiently well-enough represented language, that scriptures were composed in it.



Another little snippet from Wikipedia says: "It is likely that Jesus knew both Hebrew and Aramaic, and perhaps also some work-related Greek. A few words of Latin may have been known to Jesus. However, these were probably learned through the medium of Greek and confined to various symbols of Roman rule (like the 'denarius' coin)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus

So - it is commonly accepted that Jesus was AT LEAST bilingual, and with some knowledge of Greek likely....

Emm. Look at the historical falsehoods here. Did you take revisionist history or something?

First off, as noted in posts before:
1. Alexander never got to rule Israel. He died too young. It was his general and his general's descendants who ruled Israel, they did it with an iron fist. Hence the reason for all the rebellions by the Isrealites against the Greek government in Syria.
2. Jesus and Peter and the other disciples spoke Aramaic, not greek. Greek was the language of the very rich. Not the language of the common people. Of the Apostles, only Paul spoke Greek.

Now then:
Judea was also taken over by Babylon. It did not, I repeat did not survive to be taken over by Rome. It was taken first by Babylon, the Persia, the Greece who passed it to the Seleucids who got taken over by Rome.
In the time of Rome, the land of Israel was collectively called Judea. Though there was a small section called Samaria where the samaritans lived.

Like I said, "Israel" didn't exist, as we've seen above. Neither Alexander nor his generals ruled a place that hadn't existed since 722 BCE. Only Judah existed. Furthermore, no one said Alexander ruled Judah for any period of time, only that he conquored it and instated his laws. You've commited the fallacy of the red herring.

Now, you also seem to be confusing "Judea" with "Judah." Judah was the kingdom that stretched back to the split of a united Israel, while Judea was a Roman province of annexed land in the Middle East that didn't share boundries with the ancient kingdom of Judah. And no, in the time of Rome, Judea was not collectively called Israel. I've cited example after example to demonstrate that there was an Israel/Judah dichotomy that existed during that time period, from contemporary Jewish sources. You're just giving me a claim with no support.

While Babylon did take over Judah, not "Judea", and exile its people, they were allowed to return. This is what the whole book of Ezra is about. I know that Christians don't generally read Ezra, but it explains how the Jews were allowed to return to Judah. From that point on, a sucessive line of Jewish kings ruled on and off in an independent and semi-independent Judah depending on whom if anyone was the conquoring empire at the time. The fact that other nations took the land does not mean that it didn't survive, as we see many instances of an independent and vassal-state Judah post-exile.

You're also wrong to state that Judah was taken from the Seleucids by Rome. Judah managed to gain its independence for about two centuries between these two Empires when it was ruled by the Jewish, independent, Hasmoean dynasty.

Now, reading through the websites you posted on another post to demonstrate that Jesus would have spoken Aramaic but not Greek, I don't find any that really support your point or even claim that. They claim that Aramaic was the more common language and that Jesus spoke Aramaic, which I agreed with and stated in a previous post. Nowhere do they comment on how pervasive Greek was, nor do they state that Jesus or the apostles didn't speak Greek. They also don't claim that Greek was a language spoken only by the educated or wealthy in that region, like you stated.

You've taken websites that say that Aramaic was a common language, or linga franca, which we all know, and attempted to use them to support the conclusion that Greek was not widely spoken and understood. This a formal fallacy referred to as drawing a negative conclusion from affirmative premises.

If you read through some of the complete articles I posted previously on Greek, you will see that it was so common among the Jewish masses that the rabbinical authorities had to create a ban on studying in Greek because they were losing competency in their native languages. This happened as early as the Hasmonean dynasty.

In the old testament, you see the predictions of Jesus coming sacrifice in books like Genesis, Psalms, Isaiah and other books. Especially Isaiah.
Isaiah says that Jesus will to save Israel it does not say specifically he will save the gentiles. But it does say he will be a light to the Gentiles. A light by which the gentiles will be saved.

Its ironic that you would refer to what I cited from Jewish sources about Jewish history earlier as "historical revisionism" while posting something like this.

When you claim there are prophecies about Jesus in Jewish scriptures, this is historical revisionism by definition. Why? Because Jews, historically, did not view many of the modern Christian proof-texts to be prophecy at all, and they certainly did not view them to be about Jesus. To claim they are prophecy, or about Jesus, is a revision from their historical contexts.

Isaiah is a good example. Christians revised chapters away from their historical contexts, like Isaiah 7, 9, 53, etc. Nowhere in Isaiah does it state that the messiah, or Jesus, would come to be a light for the Goyim. It states that Israel as a people would be a light unto the Goyim. Christians interpreted these verses later on down the line in a different way, thus revising them historically, as being about a messiah and Jesus.

Actually I spent a lot of time refuting these types of proof-texts on my website. You should be able to view it from the link in my signature.

I didn't say that the texts I described are universally recognised as 'canonical'... but they ARE recognised by the entire Catholic church, and they ARE evidence that, even in Jesus time and before, Koine was a sufficiently well-enough represented language, that scriptures were composed in it.

Not only were many scriptures composed in Greek, but by the first century, possibly even as early as the second century BCE, the entire Hebrew Bible, the Tanach, was translated into Greek by Jews. The Greek translation was the Septuagint, and it was widely read and studied in the Jewish population as well.

We also have monumental works from Jews in Greek, like those of Philo. This is significant because Philo wrote extensive treasties comparing the logos with God - exactly as we see in the first chapter of the gospel of John. When John says "The Word was God" he essentially ripped off Philo. So this demonstrates that the works of this Jewish philosopher who wrote in Greek were widely read and popular enough during the early 1st century to be borrowed from by whatever anonymous author wrote John.

Philo's popularity in Judea alone during the early first century is a good argument for just how popular Greek was, compiled with the fact that the gospels borrow from his philosophy.

thanks for these posts, tropical.

i have a hard time finding answers to the kind of questions that pop into my head. i look on the net but they tend to answer what are at best similar questions. not to mention using big theological words that tend to confuse me when im just looking for a practical answer

so do you think that peter would have gotten along just fine in rome using greek?

I dont understand why people bother to argue in these kinda posts, cause even if you mean to strat off civuilsed it always ends in some argument. Christians will not be able to convert Athiests on a forum and vice versa so stop trying.

Also, you used the word 'pwned' that made me laugh!

The discussion in Acts was not about whether or not Christ came only to save the Jews. It was already agreed upon that they should be ministering to the Gentiles - spreading the Gospel there. The argument in question was whether or not those who would convert to Christianity had to become Jews first - ie. had to be circumcized/follow Levitical law/etc. There was no question of whether or not a Gentile could be saved - the only question was the path they must take to do so.
yes but the debate came about presumably because jesus said things like the quote from matthew.

if you have to become a jew first, then only jews are being saved.

if you dont have to become a jew first, then anyone can be saved.

that there was a debate over it means that it had to be worked out. it wasnt a given that non jews could be saved.

ADDITIONAL IN EDIT

and i find it telling that in the debate peter didnt say "hey guys, i was THERE when jesus said that stuff. he was goading us on, he really meant that it should be obvious to everyone, even morons like us that caananites could be saved"

but he didnt. his evidence was from the field where he found that non jews were as likely as jews were to receive the holy spirit.

Not only were many scriptures composed in Greek, but by the first century, possibly even as early as the second century BCE, the entire Hebrew Bible, the Tanach, was translated into Greek by Jews. The Greek translation was the Septuagint, and it was widely read and studied in the Jewish population as well.

We also have monumental works from Jews in Greek, like those of Philo. This is significant because Philo wrote extensive treasties comparing the logos with God - exactly as we see in the first chapter of the gospel of John. When John says "The Word was God" he essentially ripped off Philo. So this demonstrates that the works of this Jewish philosopher who wrote in Greek were widely read and popular enough during the early 1st century to be borrowed from by whatever anonymous author wrote John.

Philo's popularity in Judea alone during the early first century is a good argument for just how popular Greek was, compiled with the fact that the gospels borrow from his philosophy.

Since you raised the subject of the 'appropriation' of Philo... it made me think of something I noticed recently... Christianity claims a lot of 'types' are presented in the Hebrew Scriptures, that presage the coming of Christ in the Greek Scriptures... but, in many cases, it actually seems the other way around... like Jesus being given (as his last words on the cross) Tehillim 22:2, or the 'beatitudes' being so reminiscent of lines from Tehillim 37:11, 24:3-6, 107, or Yeshayahu 61:7.

Almost like the text attributed to the Jesus figure is 'constructed' from snippets of Hebrew scripture...

Since you raised the subject of the 'appropriation' of Philo... it made me think of something I noticed recently... Christianity claims a lot of 'types' are presented in the Hebrew Scriptures, that presage the coming of Christ in the Greek Scriptures... but, in many cases, it actually seems the other way around... like Jesus being given (as his last words on the cross) Tehillim 22:2, or the 'beatitudes' being so reminiscent of lines from Tehillim 37:11, 24:3-6, 107, or Yeshayahu 61:7.

Almost like the text attributed to the Jesus figure is 'constructed' from snippets of Hebrew scripture...

Yes, absolutely. In fact, this wasn't only done with Jesus and the Hebrew Bible, but we find this done with other religious texts and figures. The Essenes did it regarding their Righteous Teacher all throughout their sect-specific scriptures. The followers of Bar Kochba went back and reinterpreted scriptures to refer to Kochba, as well.

We also see sayings attributed to Jesus that existed in Rabbinic Judaism previously. And ironically enough, from Pharisees. The Golden Rule, for example, was developed by Rabbi Hillel about 100 years before Jesus existed. The same thing with the "Two Greatest Commandments." Jesus' ruling on divorce, that it was only permissable in the case of adultery, was exactly what Rabbi Shammai ruled about 100 years previously too. The parable of the house built on sand was invented by Hillel, as well. There is more, I could go on and on. Very little of what is attributed to Jesus and the gospels is original.

I'm going to interject here, and its normally not my way, but I was reading the Book of Daniel. In the Book of Daniel, its spells out the end of 4 empires. The Babylonian Empire fell first. It was taken over by the Persian/Mede army. Then the Persians fell to the Greeks who then fell to the Romans. We all know what happened to that empire.

The reason I brought this up, is to show that We had the prophecy of these empires falling or collapsing and it happened just as Daniel told King Neb (yea I abbreviated it to the first three letters. I hope you get my meaning).

He constently dreamt of this happening.

Jesus himself was a prophet. He forsaw the future and what he said came true. He said that someone was going to betray him and Judas did just that. He told Peter he would deny Him 3 times and that occured. He worked miracles that no one could've done like turning water to wine or raise people from the dead. He even healed the infirmed. God sent Jesus for us all so that through him, we can all see the Kingdom of God.

The Book of Daniel suggests the brutality of the Greeks against Israel and it happened just as predicted.

so do you think that peter would have gotten along just fine in rome using greek?

The Eastern part of the Roman Empire (at that time) actually had two 'official languages', being Latin and Greek.... but Greek was a popular language throughout the Empire... especially because of the expansion of the Empire into areas like Egypt (which had been under Macedonian/Greek) rule.

Jesus himself was a prophet. He forsaw the future and what he said came true. He said that someone was going to betray him and Judas did just that. He told Peter he would deny Him 3 times and that occured. He worked miracles that no one could've done like turning water to wine or raise people from the dead. He even healed the infirmed. God sent Jesus for us all so that through him, we can all see the Kingdom of God.

According to the Torah, Jesus fit the criteria for a false prophet. The Torah actually states that false prophets will get some prophecies true and that they will be able to do miracles. The fact that what Jesus taught was inconsistent with the Torah and that he made at least one false prophecy (actually I found ten in Matt. alone - http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id8.html) demonstrates that he wasn't a prophet of God according to the criteria that the Torah lays down.

Christians often make the mistake of using Jesus' miracles as evidence for his divinity, or that he was a good teacher or prophet. This simply isn't the case when you realize that even false prophets can do those things, according to the Torah (See Deut. 13).

The Eastern part of the Roman Empire (at that time) actually had two 'official languages', being Latin and Greek.... but Greek was a popular language throughout the Empire... especially because of the expansion of the Empire into areas like Egypt (which had been under Macedonian/Greek) rule.
thanks for the answer

is there any reference to peter actually GOING to rome in the bible? the only thing i found was that in 1st peter he says he is writing from babylon which is understood to be rome.

i know its tradition that he died in rome but is there any biblical evidence of it?

According to the Torah, Jesus fit the criteria for a false prophet. The Torah actually states that false prophets will get some prophecies true and that they will be able to do miracles. The fact that what Jesus taught was inconsistent with the Torah and that he made at least one false prophecy (actually I found ten in Matt. alone - http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id8.html) demonstrates that he wasn't a prophet of God according to the criteria that the Torah lays down.

Christians often make the mistake of using Jesus' miracles as evidence for his divinity, or that he was a good teacher or prophet. This simply isn't the case when you realize that even false prophets can do those things, according to the Torah (See Deut. 13).

What I found interesting is that the Muslims also considered him a prophet but not a false one. To me, Jesus was not a false prophet. As to making false Prophecies, I would like you to list the chapter and verses of these so called false prophecies. Remember also Tropical Sands, that the jews also rejected Jesus as the Messiah. I wouldn't exactly trust what they say in regards to Jesus being a False prophet as it is a known fact that when you reject someone, you tend to say bad things about that person.

Yes, absolutely. In fact, this wasn't only done with Jesus and the Hebrew Bible, but we find this done with other religious texts and figures. The Essenes did it regarding their Righteous Teacher all throughout their sect-specific scriptures. The followers of Bar Kochba went back and reinterpreted scriptures to refer to Kochba, as well.

We also see sayings attributed to Jesus that existed in Rabbinic Judaism previously. And ironically enough, from Pharisees. The Golden Rule, for example, was developed by Rabbi Hillel about 100 years before Jesus existed. The same thing with the "Two Greatest Commandments." Jesus' ruling on divorce, that it was only permissable in the case of adultery, was exactly what Rabbi Shammai ruled about 100 years previously too. The parable of the house built on sand was invented by Hillel, as well. There is more, I could go on and on. Very little of what is attributed to Jesus and the gospels is original.

And, much of the material specific to the Jesus 'history' is strikingly similar to material found in either the Hindu Vedas (1400 years OLDER than the Jesus story), the earliest forms of Buddhism (about 600 years older than the Jesus story), or the Egyptian Horus story (at least 2000 years older than the Jesus story)... or, more directly to the Greek/Roman mythologies (Perseus - born of a virgin, Mercury - as a Logos figure and teacher, Aesculapius - as a healer, translated to 'heaven')...

What I found interesting is that the Muslims also considered him a prophet but not a false one. To me, Jesus was not a false prophet. As to making false Prophecies, I would like you to list the chapter and verses of these so called false prophecies. Remember also Tropical Sands, that the jews also rejected Jesus as the Messiah. I wouldn't exactly trust what they say in regards to Jesus being a False prophet as it is a known fact that when you reject someone, you tend to say bad things about that person.

Well, fair enough. I'm not going to argue with you and shout "neener neener, he was too" or anything. Thats a core belief of Islam and Christianity, so of course you believe he is a prophet or something else.

I'll list a few, but the link I posted there was to the ten false prophecies I found in Matthew and listed on my website.

Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the son of man coming in his kingdom. (Matt 16:28)

Here is one. Jesus told his apostles who were with him that he would return before at least the last of them died. But he didn't. Its 2000 years later, and he still hasn't returned.

(Matt 23:36) Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation.

This is one where you would have to read the whole chapter, but in summary Jesus stated that the moon would no longer give light, the stars would fall from the sky, he would return, all nations of the earth would mourn, etc.

(Matt 24:33-35) So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, until all these things be fulfilled.

Pretty much the same thing as above.

Now, I would keep in mind a few things when reading these verses. The first is the historical context. Christians in the first century believed that Jesus would return in their generation, in their lifetimes. No one believed that Jesus would return hundreds or thousands of years down the line. If you took a time machine back to the first century and told them Jesus would not return in 2000 years, they would either think you were lying or they would leave the religion because what Jesus said was obviously false.

Noting that, it is also important to remember that the word for generation used in Greek here is put so it is in the present tense. It doesn't, and can't, refer to some future generation thousands of years off. It must refer to the generation that existed when it was spoken. I only mention that because when I show these verses to Christians, one of their first reactions is to interpret "this generation" as meaning some distant, future generation rather than the present tense that it is written in.

Regarding what you said about the Jews rejecting Jesus, and thus not trusting them because of this, I would like to point out that Jews were not the only ones during that time period that rejected Jesus for Biblical reasons. For example, the philosopher Celsus also noticed that Jesus didn't really fill the messianic prophecies. Thats the same reason that the Jews rejected him.

thanks for the answer

is there any reference to peter actually GOING to rome in the bible? the only thing i found was that in 1st peter he says he is writing from babylon which is understood to be rome.

i know its tradition that he died in rome but is there any biblical evidence of it?

I believe you are right. Offhand, I can only think of the Babylon reference as SCRIPTURAL evidence... and it certainly wouldn't be the only time in Christian literature that 'Babylon' is used as a codeword for Rome... Revelation, Baruch, Esdras... all contemporary-ish texts that use the same 'code'.

There are OTHER evidences that might support the idea that Peter was in Rome... the archeological evidence of the St. Peter's Basilica (which, allegedly holds the bones OF Peter), and historical testimonies from Tertullian, Ignatius of Antioch, and Irenaeus in the first 2 centuries...

All in all, the Biblical evidence would be the weakest evidence, but none of it is overwhelming.

And, much of the material specific to the Jesus 'history' is strikingly similar to material found in either the Hindu Vedas (1400 years OLDER than the Jesus story), the earliest forms of Buddhism (about 600 years older than the Jesus story), or the Egyptian Horus story (at least 2000 years older than the Jesus story)... or, more directly to the Greek/Roman mythologies (Perseus - born of a virgin, Mercury - as a Logos figure and teacher, Aesculapius - as a healer, translated to 'heaven')...

Yup, for sure. In fact, its more than similiar, a lot of the Jesus story developed from the strong influence of these pagan religions in the region. The early Christians noticed and admitted the influence too. It was too strong to deny, so they invented excuses for it. Such as Martyr's diabolical mimmicry.

Some of the things Jesus said, aside from being ripped off from Rabbinic Judaism, were ripped off from pagan sources too. Like "Forgive them, they know not what they do" is found in The Bacchae.

There is so much that 'pagan influences on the Jesus story' really needs its own thread. :cool:

I believe you are right. Offhand, I can only think of the Babylon reference as SCRIPTURAL evidence... and it certainly wouldn't be the only time in Christian literature that 'Babylon' is used as a codeword for Rome... Revelation, Baruch, Esdras... all contemporary-ish texts that use the same 'code'.

There are OTHER evidences that might support the idea that Peter was in Rome... the archeological evidence of the St. Peter's Basilica (which, allegedly holds the bones OF Peter), and historical testimonies from Tertullian, Ignatius of Antioch, and Irenaeus in the first 2 centuries...

All in all, the Biblical evidence would be the weakest evidence, but none of it is overwhelming.
thanks

i have trouble reading through anything but the gospels, the epistles make my eyes glaze over. so i thought i might be missing something.

Yup, for sure. In fact, its more than similiar, a lot of the Jesus story developed from the strong influence of these pagan religions in the region. The early Christians noticed and admitted the influence too. It was too strong to deny, so they invented excuses for it. Such as Martyr's diabolical mimmicry.

Some of the things Jesus said, aside from being ripped off from Rabbinic Judaism, were ripped off from pagan sources too. Like "Forgive them, they know not what they do" is found in The Bacchae.

There is so much that 'pagan influences on the Jesus story' really needs its own thread. :cool:
i went to your webpage. bookmarked it. now im on the page you linked to called "the pagan origins of the christ myth".

ive been looking for a page like this. id love it if you started a thread on it after this one peters out. thatll give me time to read the site, and yours, and get some chores done. i hate to get into a thread after its already gone a couple hundred posts.

thanks

i have trouble reading through anything but the gospels, the epistles make my eyes glaze over. so i thought i might be missing something.

Now, I realise this is going to be the GREATEST HERESY EVER....

The Reader's Digest did a 'condensed' Bible in 1982, which is actually very easy to read.

Okay - it misses out a lot of stuff... (especially in the Old Testament... that get's pretty badly chopped), so - just because you don't find it in THAT version, doesn't mean it isn't in ANY version... but it IS a very easy read... which would be useful if you wanted to get a 'feel' for the story under the text.

Of course - I don't even know how you'd go about finding one... I got mine second-hand.

Oh... wait: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0276420136/sr=1-1/qid=1144008940/ref=sr_1_1/102-0136458-5073756?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books.

hatcheted

There are many different ways to interpret a prophacy.

To start with: Matthew 16:28 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the son of Man coming in his kingdom.

My Question to you is, how is this a false prophacy? In verse 27, it states that "For the Son of man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done."

He is actually predicting his death, which did come true.

Matthew 23:36 I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

All I can say is, nice selective reading. If your going to quote a verse, it is better to quote verses before it in order to get a full understanding. Cherry picking verses does nothing.

"33:You Snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34: Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35: And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the alter. 36: I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation

So I have to ask you, what precisely was false? This did happen to this generation. So again, how is this false?

Matthew 24:33-35, This one I could give except for one thing! How is a generation defined by God? Another thing, When Jesus died on the Cross, it was near Summer time. The sun was also darkened and the moon did not give its light (verse 29) By reading the whole prophacy, what makes us think that in fact, it didn't occur when he said it did? For all we know (and I could be stretching it) there was a new earth created after Jesus died but not as noticable as we thought it might be!

Ok granted, I am not a bible expert. After all I am only a teen. I can only comprehend what I believe to be the truth.

i went to your webpage. bookmarked it. now im on the page you linked to called "the pagan origins of the christ myth".


D'oh! I should have read TS's site before I posted that stuff about Perseus, etc... I could have saved half the time of typing, by just posting a link!

Now, I realise this is going to be the GREATEST HERESY EVER....

The Reader's Digest did a 'condensed' Bible in 1982, which is actually very easy to read.

Okay - it misses out a lot of stuff... (especially in the Old Testament... that get's pretty badly chopped), so - just because you don't find it in THAT version, doesn't mean it isn't in ANY version... but it IS a very easy read... which would be useful if you wanted to get a 'feel' for the story under the text.

Of course - I don't even know how you'd go about finding one... I got mine second-hand.

Oh... wait: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0276420136/sr=1-1/qid=1144008940/ref=sr_1_1/102-0136458-5073756?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books.

i read once years ago that at that time it was the best selling version of the bible. i saw it in a book store once

i just never could get past the idea of "only the important words of god" aspect of a condensed bible.

There are many different ways to interpret a prophacy.

Well, what I gave you was the way early Christians saw it. They believed that Jesus would return in their lifetimes, in their generation. They didn't think that Jesus' coming kingdom referred to his death, they thought it referred to the messianic age. They also didn't think that generation meant something other than a 20-30 year timeframe.

So I have to ask you, what precisely was false? This did happen to this generation. So again, how is this false?

I would like to point out that Matthew 23:33-36 didn't happen. While Jesus stated the Pharisees would crucify prophets and teachers, there is not a historical record of a Pharisee crucifying a person at any point in time. There are only four methods of execution permissable under Jewish law, crucifixion isn't one of them.

However, this verse is one that makes a good case for the idea that the gospels were written by Goyim rather than Jews. A Jew would know the details of Jewish law better and Jewish customs, but a Goy wouldn't necessarily be familiar with this, and it wouldn't be a stretch for a Goy who knows the Jesus story to write an account that includes the possibility of Jews crucifying people.

Matthew 24:33-35, This one I could give except for one thing! How is a generation defined by God? Another thing, When Jesus died on the Cross, it was near Summer time. The sun was also darkened and the moon did not give its light (verse 29) By reading the whole prophacy, what makes us think that in fact, it didn't occur when he said it did? For all we know (and I could be stretching it) there was a new earth created after Jesus died but not as noticable as we thought it might be!

I also don't know why you assume that Jesus would define generation differently than it is defined in the language. If Jesus didn't mean generation, he wouldn't have said generation. This is the type of subjective interpretation that Christians use to avoid the meaning of the actual verse.

What we want to do is try to use exegesis - interpretation used to gain the author's intent from the writings. Proper exegesis includes historical, cultural, and grammatical context. Proper exegesis tells us that because early Christians interpreted generation to mean within their lifetimes, then it is what it means in a Christian text from that time period. Proper exegesis also tells us that because generation means something in a certain language, and there are no modifiers to tell us that it is allegory or figurative, then we should read what it says grammatically.

Now, the prophecy states that Jesus would return, that the moon would no longer give light, the stars would fall from the sky, etc. all within the present generation. If you believe that the sun darkened at his crucifixion, it still doesn't meet the criteria outlined here.

Interpretations like the ones you're giving did not exist among early Christendom. It wasn't until that first generation of Christians started to die out, and after the crisis in 70CE, that they began to interpret these verses in a different light. In essence what happened is devout Christians realized that Jesus' prophecies were not coming true, and so they began to interpret them in a different way so that they didn't have to admit that Jesus' prophecies weren't coming true.

Now, if you leave open the possibility that any word can mean virtually anything, such as 'generation' not meaning generation anymore, then the prophecies become unfalsifiable (and thus invalid) and really nonsensical.

There are only four methods of execution permissable under Jewish law, crucifixion isn't one of them.


As a heretic of pretty much any religion I encounter... I even have a thought about why that might be... and it would be to do with 'abomination' and avoiding becoming 'unclean'....

I'm going to interject here, and its normally not my way, but I was reading the Book of Daniel. In the Book of Daniel, its spells out the end of 4 empires. The Babylonian Empire fell first. It was taken over by the Persian/Mede army. Then the Persians fell to the Greeks who then fell to the Romans. We all know what happened to that empire.

The reason I brought this up, is to show that We had the prophecy of these empires falling or collapsing and it happened just as Daniel told King Neb (yea I abbreviated it to the first three letters. I hope you get my meaning).

He constently dreamt of this happening.

Jesus himself was a prophet. He forsaw the future and what he said came true. He said that someone was going to betray him and Judas did just that. He told Peter he would deny Him 3 times and that occured. He worked miracles that no one could've done like turning water to wine or raise people from the dead. He even healed the infirmed. God sent Jesus for us all so that through him, we can all see the Kingdom of God.

The Book of Daniel suggests the brutality of the Greeks against Israel and it happened just as predicted.
There are two problems with relying on prophecy:

1) There is a statisticaly likelihood for most occurences which allows them to be predicted as long as the prophecy doesn't get too specific. For instance, empires rise and fall all the time. It's no great leap to predict that any given empire will fall, and if you know something about your own period's politics, you can even predict how or why they will fall. As long as you don't name dates and people, you're on safe ground. Prophecies that don't come with a specific date or specific players are almost guaranteed to come true -- some day. Other "prophecies" can also be understood as simple insights into events or human nature. Jesus's prediction that he was going to be betrayed and would be denied by his own followers after his arrest would have been easily predictable for anyone who knew his followers' personalities, knew anything about Judas in particular, and knew anything about how politically inconvenient prophets generally got treated in those days. As for his prophecies about his own resurrection -- that is an article of faith; there is no proof that it actually happened.

2) This second problem is specific to Bible prophecies: The Bible was written in parts in different periods of history, and then it was edited, rewritten, and translated by yet more people at even later periods of history. How do we know the prophecies of Daniel (and others) have not been "enhanced" since Daniel's day? It's easy to accurately predict the winner of yesterday's race.

There are two problems with relying on prophecy:
2) This second problem is specific to Bible prophecies: The Bible was written in parts in different periods of history, and then it was edited, rewritten, and translated by yet more people at even later periods of history. How do we know the prophecies of Daniel (and others) have not been "enhanced" since Daniel's day? It's easy to accurately predict the winner of yesterday's race.

Are you familiar with the anomalies in the Book of Daniel? I'm pretty certain a good half of it was written in the AD or close up on it.

Are you familiar with the anomalies in the Book of Daniel? I'm pretty certain a good half of it was written in the AD or close up on it.
I read about it years ago. Too lazy to look it up afresh. Why bother? Is there a single word in the Bible as we know it today that has not been translated, retranslated, theologically reinterpreted, polished, modernized, de-modernized, re-modernized, and even had its spelling altered? Is there another religious text that has been used as a political volleyball and had its content worked over as much as the Christian Bible? On this basis alone, I consider obsessions with prophecies to be one of the greatest wastes of time.

Also, for a brief time, when I was really broke, I worked as a fortuneteller. I can assure you that you can tell a person anything -- anything at all -- and eventually your customer will come back to you and tell you how it all came true down to the last detail. The thing they claim as fulfillment of your prediction will have nothing whatsoever to do with the things you said, but they have convinced themselves otherwise, and nothing you say will make them stop believing in it -- if they are satisfied with the outcome, that is. No quicker way to be denounced as a fraud/charlatan/false prophet than to tell people obvious things they don't want to hear.

Its ironic that you would refer to what I cited from Jewish sources about Jewish history earlier as "historical revisionism" while posting something like this.

When you claim there are prophecies about Jesus in Jewish scriptures, this is historical revisionism by definition. Why? Because Jews, historically, did not view many of the modern Christian proof-texts to be prophecy at all, and they certainly did not view them to be about Jesus. To claim they are prophecy, or about Jesus, is a revision from their historical contexts.

Isaiah is a good example. Christians revised chapters away from their historical contexts, like Isaiah 7, 9, 53, etc. Nowhere in Isaiah does it state that the messiah, or Jesus, would come to be a light for the Goyim. It states that Israel as a people would be a light unto the Goyim. Christians interpreted these verses later on down the line in a different way, thus revising them historically, as being about a messiah and Jesus.

Actually I spent a lot of time refuting these types of proof-texts on my website. You should be able to view it from the link in my signature.
You appear to be arguing in favor of Judaism. If you are, I must bow before the expert.

I denounce religion, but I still accept people in those denominations are authorities on scripture who know more than I. That is why I refer you to them.
There is no contradiction in my words, except to the blind who seek to lead the blind.
We are not all authorities. That is where you are wrong.

I missed a not there. We are not all authorities. I said none of us are. Our relationship with God and Jesus Christ is personal. I will let no man amend the words of Jesus Christ. I pointed out that all of us are wrong. Do not be confused by my typo. There are no authorities on the word of God on earth and Jesus, himself, suggested we create a personal relationship with God and a personal knowledge of the Word.


You seek to make yourself equal in authority to the priests, evangelists, missionaries, prophets, and others who God spoke to, and told to spread their word.

Hmmmm... I do or Jesus does? I seem to remember he specifically talking about such authority and saying we are all brethren. I know that's not as good as the words of Paul to you, but, hey, the words of Jesus work for me.

Matthew 23:8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

I'm certain you are unaware of this, but Rabbi means "Great one" with great referring to their knowledge. It's a name given to those very knowledgeable of the Law. Jesus said to not call anyone by this name and that we are all brothers. In the context of the passage and with understanding of the meaning of the word his message is clear. He goes own to reference the names 'father' and 'teacher' also referring to claiming a spiritual understanding unavailable to us. He wasn't denouncing knowledge, he was simply saying to seek understanding ourselves and to not defer to rabbis, fathers, teachers and other authorities to define our relationship with the Lord.

They do what God has told them to, yet you say "Because you are human like me, I will not accept anything you say as coming from God".

Um, you declared that these religious leaders were supporting religion against the will of God and you recommended that I go to their churches. I think you don't even know what you're saying anymore.

Who are you to say who God can and cannot talk to? Who are you to say who is and who is not the voice of God? Is that not for God himself to decide?

I don't say who is and who isn't the voice of God. I am simply led by the teachings and my personal relationship with our Lord. If they teach as I am led by the Lord, then their fruit is good. If not, not. I do not accept them as prophets based on their declaration of being so. Particularly if that person sits themselves in the place of honor and claims they are superior to other men, as you have tried to do here.

Who are you to say that you know more about God's teachings than God himself.

I say no such thing. In fact, the only one who has done so is you. I refer people to the Book and to the Lord and you try to tell them what to think before they read it. I think it's clear who is and who is not claiming authority here.

This is not the first incident that you've claimed greater authority on a book or a writing than the original author himself had.

I've done no such thing. Quote me or quit lying.

You are not in a position to claim such authority. Neither am I.

Yet you did. You claimed to speak the words of God and to be the voice of God. You claimed you are a prophet and saying exactly as God commands and thus infallible.

That which I teach, I teach not on my own authority but on God's authority. It was God who directed me to teach these things.

Seriously? Seriously? You just said you claim no authority and now you claim the authority of God. I reject your authority. Your fruit is rotten and everyone here can smell it.

I have neither authority to teach such things on my own, nor do I have any authority to refuse to teach them. On our own, none of us has any authority to teach about the Bible or the teachings of Christ. Even the pastors and evangelists have no authority except what they get from God.
You proclaim all mankind an authority.

I follow the words of Jesus that said that none is to be called Rabbi and that we are all brothers. I give all authority to God and Jesus and them only. I do not proclaim all have authority but that none does.

I preach that only God has authority and that any authority that I or anyone else has, comes not from ourselves or our accomplishments, rather it comes only from God.

You claim that authority when you claim to speak God's words when they are your own. God did not make you prideful. Satan didn't make you sin. You are your own person and YOU are the one that delivers poison fruit. It is not the fruit of a prophet. It is not the fruit of God. I look at your fruit as scripture dictates and YOU are found wanting.

God has sent us pastors, missionaries, evangelists, prophets, and witnesses to tell us about him and his word.

Does he? I thought you denounce religion. Your fruit increases its odor. When these pastors declare their religion to be the correct religion is this also the word of God? Or do you pick and choose their words?

Yet you have consistently said throughout this thread, "If you are human, then I don't accept anything you say as coming from God". You even reject the apostles.

I do no such thing. The apostles that teach the words of Jesus I follow. They teach the teachings of Christ with the authority he gave them. Those that seek to amend those teachings with teachings of their own, I do not find to have the same authority. I do not judge the words of our Savior to be equal with the words of men even if you do.

The words of men are weighed against the Word of God and if they contradict the Word of God wins every time. I do not accept authority claimed by men for themselves. As I've shown, many who claim such authority do not have it and are simply placing themselves on a false pedestal. I'll tell you what, false prophet, if you are so certain that you've done nothing wrong here, I request that you print this thread and show it to everyone who you teach and work with. Show it to those you consider to have also been called by God. If it is truly the work of God as you claim, you should have every desire to do so. I suspect you'll do no such thing, because you do fear men and you do not wish for them to see your behavior here, while you do not actually appropriately worry about the judgement of God who has seen all you've done here.

You are right when you say I have no right, on my own, to say who is and who is not a true christian.

Everything you do is your own. You attempt to deceive but your fruit betrays you.

However, it is also incorrect to claim that anyone who says they believe in Jesus is automatically a christian. If a person claims to be a christian and behaves immorally, and God puts us in a situation to witness to them, or reprove them that they might be edified, then if we say nothing (for example: a christian is living a life of sin and we know about it yet we say nothing because we might come off as sanctimonious) then we are held accountable for our failure to try to bring the wayward sheep back into the fold after God told us to do so.

Bring them to the fold of God and let God and Jesus reprove them. The Gospels summarize the teachings for us in the words of Jesus. Bring them to these Christians and let the Christ, himself, guide them for he will do so absent of all of the faults you have displayed.

This is usually very effective. In your case, unfortunately it has only made you more prideful and more secure in your superiority. It has been a boon for the rest of us, however, If your claimed prophesies were in question before, they are certainly discarded now.

I fear not your judgment, nor your opinions, or any actions you might take. I fear and respect only God. For it is written, "do not fear them who are able to destroy the body, but rather fear him who is able to destroy the soul."
When the will of man contradicts the will of God, we ought to obey God rather than man. That is the choice I will always make.

I do not ask you to fear me. I don't ask you to fear anything. I do, however, reject your claims that you have made that your actions are excused because everything you say is the word of God. Again, God would be consistent because he does not have to figure out his position. You are clearly attempting to figure out your position and have continually contradicted yourself throughout the thread.

It was he gave me my mission in life and it is to him alone that I am accountable to.

Though I should thank you for challenging my beliefs and making my faith stronger.

And yet you still cannot be consistent. I believe he did give you your purpose. Judas had a purpose as well.

That Jesus said he came only for Israel and called Goyim dogs? Sure, although you should know this from a cursory reading of the gospels. It isn't something you have to research to find out, like the authorship of the gospels above.

Matthew 15:24, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

Matthew 15:26 "He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

Now, keep in mind that "dog" is a Semitic racial slur. The fact that it occurs in the same narrative as Jesus saying he came only for Israel makes this even more clear. He draws a clear racist dichotomy between Jews and Goyim, using a racial slur for the latter while saying he was sent only for the former. Also keep in mind that Jesus never taught what Paul did - that Goyim were "grafted on" or any such thing that made them part of Israel as well. That teaching came much later, when the Jesus movement took off among Goyim.

Interesting choice of parts of the Bible to illustrate your point. BY the way, since to you this story is very telling, did Jesus help the woman he said he would not give the children's bread to?

Mathew 15:23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

27"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

28Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

Christians still consider the Jews the chosen people. Those that are not Jewish still consider Jesus to be here to save them, because as illustrated if enough faith is shown, non-Jews are permitted to collect the 'crumbs'. The story you took out of context betrays you.

Interesting choice of parts of the Bible to illustrate your point. BY the way, since to you this story is very telling, did Jesus help the woman he said he would not give the children's bread to?

Mathew 15:23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

27"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

28Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

Christians still consider the Jews the chosen people. Those that are not Jewish still consider Jesus to be here to save them, because as illustrated if enough faith is shown, non-Jews are permitted to collect the 'crumbs'. The story you took out of context betrays you.

Well said Jacobia :)

ya he did say that but isnt there a story in at least one of the gospels where a samaritan woman come to jesus to be healed and he relents and helps her because her faith moved him?


A Canaanite woman and our friend quoted it. He didn't give you the context because it pretty much destroys his point. Can't let little things like truth get in the way of a good attack on the religion of others, now can he?

I missed a not there. We are not all authorities. I said none of us are. Our relationship with God and Jesus Christ is personal. I will let no man amend the words of Jesus Christ. I pointed out that all of us are wrong. Do not be confused by my typo. There are no authorities on the word of God on earth and Jesus, himself, suggested we create a personal relationship with God and a personal knowledge of the Word.




Hmmmm... I do or Jesus does? I seem to remember he specifically talking about such authority and saying we are all brethren. I know that's not as good as the words of Paul to you, but, hey, the words of Jesus work for me.

Matthew 23:8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

I'm certain you are unaware of this, but Rabbi means "Great one" with great referring to their knowledge. It's a name given to those very knowledgeable of the Law. Jesus said to not call anyone by this name and that we are all brothers. In the context of the passage and with understanding of the meaning of the word his message is clear. He goes own to reference the names 'father' and 'teacher' also referring to claiming a spiritual understanding unavailable to us. He wasn't denouncing knowledge, he was simply saying to seek understanding ourselves and to not defer to rabbis, fathers, teachers and other authorities to define our relationship with the Lord.



Um, you declared that these religious leaders were supporting religion against the will of God and you recommended that I go to their churches. I think you don't even know what you're saying anymore.



I don't say who is and who isn't the voice of God. I am simply led by the teachings and my personal relationship with our Lord. If they teach as I am led by the Lord, then their fruit is good. If not, not. I do not accept them as prophets based on their declaration of being so. Particularly if that person sits themselves in the place of honor and claims they are superior to other men, as you have tried to do here.



I say no such thing. In fact, the only one who has done so is you. I refer people to the Book and to the Lord and you try to tell them what to think before they read it. I think it's clear who is and who is not claiming authority here.



I've done no such thing. Quote me or quit lying.



Yet you did. You claimed to speak the words of God and to be the voice of God. You claimed you are a prophet and saying exactly as God commands and thus infallible.



Seriously? Seriously? You just said you claim no authority and now you claim the authority of God. I reject your authority. Your fruit is rotten and everyone here can smell it.



I follow the words of Jesus that said that none is to be called Rabbi and that we are all brothers. I give all authority to God and Jesus and them only. I do not proclaim all have authority but that none does.



You claim that authority when you claim to speak God's words when they are your own. God did not make you prideful. Satan didn't make you sin. You are your own person and YOU are the one that delivers poison fruit. It is not the fruit of a prophet. It is not the fruit of God. I look at your fruit as scripture dictates and YOU are found wanting.



Does he? I thought you denounce religion. Your fruit increases its odor. When these pastors declare their religion to be the correct religion is this also the word of God? Or do you pick and choose their words?



I do no such thing. The apostles that teach the words of Jesus I follow. They teach the teachings of Christ with the authority he gave them. Those that seek to amend those teachings with teachings of their own, I do not find to have the same authority. I do not judge the words of our Savior to be equal with the words of men even if you do.

The words of men are weighed against the Word of God and if they contradict the Word of God wins every time. I do not accept authority claimed by men for themselves. As I've shown, many who claim such authority do not have it and are simply placing themselves on a false pedestal. I'll tell you what, false prophet, if you are so certain that you've done nothing wrong here, I request that you print this thread and show it to everyone who you teach and work with. Show it to those you consider to have also been called by God. If it is truly the work of God as you claim, you should have every desire to do so. I suspect you'll do no such thing, because you do fear men and you do not wish for them to see your behavior here, while you do not actually appropriately worry about the judgement of God who has seen all you've done here.



Everything you do is your own. You attempt to deceive but your fruit betrays you.



Bring them to the fold of God and let God and Jesus reprove them. The Gospels summarize the teachings for us in the words of Jesus. Bring them to these Christians and let the Christ, himself, guide them for he will do so absent of all of the faults you have displayed.

This is usually very effective. In your case, unfortunately it has only made you more prideful and more secure in your superiority. It has been a boon for the rest of us, however, If your claimed prophesies were in question before, they are certainly discarded now.



I do not ask you to fear me. I don't ask you to fear anything. I do, however, reject your claims that you have made that your actions are excused because everything you say is the word of God. Again, God would be consistent because he does not have to figure out his position. You are clearly attempting to figure out your position and have continually contradicted yourself throughout the thread.



And yet you still cannot be consistent. I believe he did give you your purpose. Judas had a purpose as well.
Your teachings are false. Its as simple as that.

Your teachings are false. Its as simple as that.

Prove it.

Your teachings are false. Its as simple as that.

What teachings? All I've seen Jocabia say is essentially, "Go to the words of Christ for guidance. Follow God with all your heart."

Is that a false teaching? I suppose so, if you don't believe in Christ as Messiah or don't believe in God, or think God is evil.

Your teachings are false. Its as simple as that.

I don't teach. I don't hold myself up as an authority. I think that no one should. I point to the Bible and suggest that people read for themselves. If they bring up certain things they say are from the Bible I show where I got my answers from.

Whit, your pride got you into this mess and humility will get you out. Again, if you find nothing wrong with what you've said here and you simply expressed the word of God as you were willed to do, then please, show this to everyone you know. Clearly, if God would have you express this here He would want you to spread the good Word. Please do so. I'd be interested to hear the responses of the others in your sect.

Interesting choice of parts of the Bible to illustrate your point. BY the way, since to you this story is very telling, did Jesus help the woman he said he would not give the children's bread to?

Mathew 15:23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

27"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

28Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

Christians still consider the Jews the chosen people. Those that are not Jewish still consider Jesus to be here to save them, because as illustrated if enough faith is shown, non-Jews are permitted to collect the 'crumbs'. The story you took out of context betrays you.

Except, of course... that maybe the woman was ONLY helped as an EXAMPLE... not as a precedent?

Except, of course... that maybe the woman was ONLY helped as an EXAMPLE... not as a precedent?

If it was an EXAMPLE, then why would he deny those of equal faith? The EXAMPLES of Jesus show that he has a profound respect for a complete faith in him and God. You know that you and I agree that Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of Isreal, but I believe it's clear that he does not deny one of true faith in God and the power given Jesus.

If it was an EXAMPLE, then why would he deny those of equal faith? The EXAMPLES of Jesus show that he has a profound respect for a complete faith in him and God. You know that you and I agree that Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of Isreal, but I believe it's clear that he does not deny one of true faith in God and the power given Jesus.

Maybe I'm digging too deep, but all throughout Matthew, I am seeing evidence that maybe... well, maybe it just ain't so.

The special place of 'children', the references to the Jews as the 'Children of the Kingdom'... the references to the sheep, versus the dogs.

Someone who WILL not mend their ways, even after you point it out to them, even after their church pressures them... someone like that is no better than the 'heathen'... but he's talking to Jews... so the heathen is us.

His instructions to the disciples EXPRESSLY, not to go to any city that is NOT Jewish, to minister the word...

If you look for it, expecting Jesus to be Messiah, you can find 'evidence'. But, if you go looking for a Rabbi, you see a different image of the earthly ministry...

Jocabia, I am going to sound horrible for saying this, but I must.

You are the most prideful "Christian" that I have yet met. You talk condesendingly to everyone who disagrees with you (at least on religion) and when they do not understand or accept your arguments you attack them for their pride. I think it is the person who accuses everyone of pride who has the most, because he is to arrogant to admit that everyone suffers from some amount of it.

I say "Christian" because while you claim to have Christ as your Lord and Savior, you reject infallibility of the Bible. Another thread, perhaps?

Maybe I'm digging too deep, but all throughout Matthew, I am seeing evidence that maybe... well, maybe it just ain't so.

The special place of 'children', the references to the Jews as the 'Children of the Kingdom'... the references to the sheep, versus the dogs.

Someone who WILL not mend their ways, even after you point it out to them, even after their church pressures them... someone like that is no better than the 'heathen'... but he's talking to Jews... so the heathen is us.

His instructions to the disciples EXPRESSLY, not to go to any city that is NOT Jewish, to minister the word...

If you look for it, expecting Jesus to be Messiah, you can find 'evidence'. But, if you go looking for a Rabbi, you see a different image of the earthly ministry...

But I'm not denying this. I would say he didn't set out to save the 'heathens'. I think this says more about what problem He was sent to fix (ahem, Whittier, ahem). I believe that Jesus was sent to those that already believed in God, to correct their methods. He, however, did not deny those who sought him in real faith regardless of their origin. I think that's the more important part. Their is a strong difference to who he set out to reach and who he did reach. It appears to me that he does not deny anyone who has real faith.

It's pretty clear that, though so many deny it, Jesus had a problem with the actual practice of the Jewish faith at the time he lived. He clearly didn't like the power structure it had created, the hierarchy of people and the evils committed in the name of the Lord. He sought to correct this.

Take me, for example. You know that I focus on correcting the evils done in the name of Christianity, but would you say that I don't equally wish for everyone to learn what I find in the scriptures? I hope to bring self-describing Christians back to a personal relationship with Jesus so that they might be brought back to the path that is laid out for them, but do you think I would deny some who does not yet describe themselves as Christian the same opportunity? It's simply a question of focus and what I view to be the problem I am here to solve. It doesn't mean there aren't other problems to solve, nor does it mean I would deny the opportunity to solve other problems that happen to offer themselves as I walk my path.

Jocabia, I am going to sound horrible for saying this, but I must.

You are the most prideful "Christian" that I have yet met. You talk condesendingly to everyone who disagrees with you (at least on religion) and when they do not understand or accept your arguments you attack them for their pride. I think it is the person who accuses everyone of pride who has the most, because he is to arrogant to admit that everyone suffers from some amount of it.

I say "Christian" because while you claim to have Christ as your Lord and Savior, you reject infallibility of the Bible. Another thread, perhaps?

It's prideful to claim that people should seek their own TRUTH in the Bible and not the 'truths' subject to the agendas of men? It's prideful to claim that I am not an authority? It's prideful to claim that I am equal to all others and to simply reject the claims of ANYONE who claims they are superior? It's prideful to reject the authority of a Church that has murdered and destroyed in the name of Christ?

I don't claim people are arrogant or prideful for disagreeing with me. I claim people are arrogant or prideful for claiming they are superior to others (we're talking about in terms of sin here). I claim people are arrogant or prideful for claiming to have the unique ability to determine what a 'true' Christian is.

Now, if you can show me where Jesus Christ ordained the Bible as infallible I will bow to you right now. I suspect you can't, because the Bible didn't exist. Your agenda here is clear and I suspect no one is fooled by it. I'm sorry that your faith is not strong enough to actually analyze the origin of the scriptures and understand them as more than a modern-day text but in the context in which they were written and by whom.

I'm sorry that followiing the teachings of Christ is not good enough for you to consider one a Christian. If being a 'true' Christian means denying the rights of individuals and denying the Word of Christ, himself, then I guess I'll never be a true Christian. I will never treat the words of Men as equal to the words of Christ. I'll also not claim to have unique access to what a 'true' Christian is.

If only the poster I'm replying to could say the same. However, your sole contribution to the thread is to tell me how I must not be Christian because I don't accept the teachings of Paul as equal to the direct quotation of our Savior.

Paul was not Christ. I do not understand how one can claim that they are equal in authority and in the same breath question my faith in our Savior. I do not regard our Savior or his words as equal to any man or the the words of any man. I'm sorry that presents a difficulty for you. Fortunately, your judgement of my faith is meaningless to me.

It's prideful to claim that people should seek their own TRUTH in the Bible and not the 'truths' subject to the agendas of men? It's prideful to claim that I am not an authority? It's prideful to claim that I am equal to all others and to simply reject the claims of ANYONE who claims they are superior? It's prideful to reject the authority of a Church that has murdered and destroyed in the name of Christ?

I don't claim people are arrogant or prideful for disagreeing with me. I claim people are arrogant or prideful for claiming they are superior to others (we're talking about in terms of sin here). I claim people are arrogant or prideful for claiming to have the unique ability to determine what a 'true' Christian is.

Now, if you can show me where Jesus Christ ordained the Bible as infallible I will bow to you right now. I suspect you can't, because the Bible didn't exist. Your agenda here is clear and I suspect no one is fooled by it. I'm sorry that your faith is not strong enough to actually analyze the origin of the scriptures and understand them as more than a modern-day text but in the context in which they were written and by whom.

I'm sorry that followiing the teachings of Christ is not good enough for you to consider one a Christian. If being a 'true' Christian means denying the rights of individuals and denying the Word of Christ, himself, then I guess I'll never be a true Christian. I will never treat the words of Men as equal to the words of Christ. I'll also not claim to have unique access to what a 'true' Christian is.

If only the poster I'm replying to could say the same. However, your sole contribution to the thread is to tell me how I must not be Christian because I don't accept the teachings of Paul as equal to the direct quotation of our Savior.

Paul was not Christ. I do not understand how one can claim that they are equal in authority and in the same breath question my faith in our Savior. I do not regard our Savior or his words as equal to any man or the the words of any man. I'm sorry that presents a difficulty for you. Fortunately, your judgement of my faith is meaningless to me.

What agenda do I have? I am not even speaking to my debates with you only. Reread your posts above. You have an extremely arrogant tone. I do too, but I know it and am trying to change it. I hope you do too.

As for my judging your faith, I guess I am. Ought I not? If I think that you are in danger of eternal suffering because your faith is not what I believe to be correct, do I not have the responsibility to try to protect myself, others, and you from the consequences of such beliefs? I think I do. I am sorry that you disagree, but I can do nothing else.

Finally, as for labels. It has been the teaching of the Church, as far as I am aware that the Bible is infallible, until this present century when popular science began to destroy everything. Call your self a Christite, a Jesusian, or what ever you prefer. But for the sake of not speaking for others or having others speak for you, do not call yourself a Christian. Now that I think about it, I am not aware that you have, in which case, my apologies and ignore this entire last paragraph.

What agenda do I have? I am not even speaking to my debates with you only. Reread your posts above. You have an extremely arrogant tone. I do too, but I know it and am trying to change it. I hope you do too.

I am arrogant at times and I don't deny it. I do claim superiority to others in certain ways, but none of those ways are spiritual. I am not in a position to judge you and your beliefs. I am in a position to address those beliefs you choose to make public as all are welcome to do with mine. I, however, have condemned no one to hell, nor have I claimed to be in a position to judge such a thing. The pride and arrogance we discuss here is the PRIDE of claim that one is superior spiritually than another and I hold this not to be true. I believe we will all stand to be judged and we will all be equal before the Lord. Will some be left wanting? I'm certain, yes. However, did God appoint me to decide who that will be? Nope. Nor you. The message of Jesus seems to support my claim here.

As for my judging your faith, I guess I am. Ought I not? If I think that you are in danger of eternal suffering because your faith is not what I believe to be correct, do I not have the responsibility to try to protect myself, others, and you from the consequences of such beliefs? I think I do. I am sorry that you disagree, but I can do nothing else.

You are not in a position to know. God in the form of Jesus suggested that you concern yourself with your own sins and let my sins be my own. I don't tell people to follow me. I tell them to analyze the Bible and find the TRUTH it holds. I tell them not to let YOU or ME tell them what they should and should not find. I tell them to learn the context of the Bible. The History. Why certain passages were chosen to be in it. Where they came from. I tell them to actually learn the Bible and no simply read it. Many Christians fear such suggestions because when one learns for themselves why defer to the false authority of men.

Jesus is handing you a stone and telling you to throw it if you are without sin. You chucked it right at me and then have the nerve to claim your faith requires it.

Finally, as for labels. It has been the teaching of the Church, as far as I am aware that the Bible is infallible, until this present century when popular science began to destroy everything. Call your self a Christite, a Jesusian, or what ever you prefer. But for the sake of not speaking for others or having others speak for you, do not call yourself a Christian. Now that I think about it, I am not aware that you have, in which case, my apologies and ignore this entire last paragraph.
I do call myself a Christian because I worship Jesus Christ. I put Him above all other people that have walked the planet. If, in your view, this makes me less of Christian than those that treat the words of Christ as equal to the words of men, well, that's your problem not mine. I find it offensive that people like Phelps and Robertson claim their words of from Christianity, but I can do nothing about it.

I am arrogant at times and I don't deny it. I do claim superiority to others in certain ways, but none of those ways are spiritual. I am not in a position to judge you and your beliefs. I am in a position to address those beliefs you choose to make public as all are welcome to do with mine. I, however, have condemned no one to hell, nor have I claimed to be in a position to judge such a thing. The pride and arrogance we discuss here is the PRIDE of claim that one is superior spiritually than another and I hold this not to be true. I believe we will all stand to be judged and we will all be equal before the Lord. Will some be left wanting? I'm certain, yes. However, did God appoint me to decide who that will be? Nope. Nor you. The message of Jesus seems to support my claim here.



You are not in a position to know. God in the form of Jesus suggested that you concern yourself with your own sins and let my sins be my own. I don't tell people to follow me. I tell them to analyze the Bible and find the TRUTH it holds. I tell them not to let YOU or ME tell them what they should and should not find. I tell them to learn the context of the Bible. The History. Why certain passages were chosen to be in it. Where they came from. I tell them to actually learn the Bible and no simply read it. Many Christians fear such suggestions because when one learns for themselves why defer to the false authority of men.

Jesus is handing you a stone and telling you to throw it if you are without sin. You chucked it right at me and then have the nerve to claim your faith requires it.


I do call myself a Christian because I worship Jesus Christ. I put Him above all other people that have walked the planet. If, in your view, this makes me less of Christian than those that treat the words of Christ as equal to the words of men, well, that's your problem not mine. I find it offensive that people like Phelps and Robertson claim their words of from Christianity, but I can do nothing about it.

Jesus has handed me a stone. I have thrown it, many times. Though I do not believe that I have done it this time. I have not condemned you. I do not know if you will repent. I may not even truly understand your beliefs. So why should I dare to take the role of God and judge your sin. I cannot judge the full extent and give the full penalty of your sin. But I can, in fact am commanded to, judge your sin, your individual sin. I know you don not like to hear me talk about Paul, but he says to expel the wicked from among you. I am doing just that. I am not others to equate my beliefs to you so that they may not travel a road that may lead them to eternal fire. Sorry if that upsets you.

Jesus has handed me a stone. I have thrown it, many times. Though I do not believe that I have done it this time. I have not condemned you. I do not know if you will repent. I may not even truly understand your beliefs. So why should I dare to take the role of God and judge your sin. I cannot judge the full extent and give the full penalty of your sin. But I can, in fact am commanded to, judge your sin, your individual sin. I know you don not like to hear me talk about Paul, but he says to expel the wicked from among you. I am doing just that. I am not others to equate my beliefs to you so that they may not travel a road that may lead them to eternal fire. Sorry if that upsets you.
I second that.

Jesus has handed me a stone. I have thrown it, many times.

Then you've obviously ignored his instructions upon handing you that stone. I'll help you read them again.

John 8: 1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Everyone else walks away. Vellia walks up and whips, wipes his hands and laughs as the blood trickles.

Though I do not believe that I have done it this time. I have not condemned you. I do not know if you will repent. I may not even truly understand your beliefs. So why should I dare to take the role of God and judge your sin. I cannot judge the full extent and give the full penalty of your sin. But I can, in fact am commanded to, judge your sin, your individual sin.

As you are commanded to? Hypocrite, take the plank from your own eye before you begin to judge the speck in my own. You are not in any position to judge my sin, at all.

Let me guess, next you'll come back with a quote from Paul to dispute the words of Jesus I am referencing, no?

I know you don not like to hear me talk about Paul, but he says to expel the wicked from among you. I am doing just that. I am not others to equate my beliefs to you so that they may not travel a road that may lead them to eternal fire. Sorry if that upsets you.
You are not in a position to judge where my road leads. I am not in a position to judge where your road leads. There is only one who may judge and it's not YOU or Paul. You admit you don't know what my beliefs are, but you tell me I am not a Christian. How very admirable of you. I think you put yourself in a position of judgement counter to the teachings of our Savior. Discuss my beliefs with me. Encourage others not to follow my beliefs. But to judge me? You're not in that position, buddy boy. Follow the words of Christ.

I second that.

We noticed, Whittier. Had you been there you would have pushed Jesus aside and been whipping stones? I would not be so proud of this admission, Bob.

What agenda do I have? I am not even speaking to my debates with you only. Reread your posts above. You have an extremely arrogant tone. I do too, but I know it and am trying to change it. I hope you do too.

As for my judging your faith, I guess I am. Ought I not? If I think that you are in danger of eternal suffering because your faith is not what I believe to be correct, do I not have the responsibility to try to protect myself, others, and you from the consequences of such beliefs? I think I do. I am sorry that you disagree, but I can do nothing else.

Finally, as for labels. It has been the teaching of the Church, as far as I am aware that the Bible is infallible, until this present century when popular science began to destroy everything. Call your self a Christite, a Jesusian, or what ever you prefer. But for the sake of not speaking for others or having others speak for you, do not call yourself a Christian. Now that I think about it, I am not aware that you have, in which case, my apologies and ignore this entire last paragraph.
The bolded sentence sounds like a common talking point of a very specific religious agenda that's been giving everyone in the USA a headache for several years now.

You must have been very frustrated when the Vatican recently declared that the Bible is fallible. You must also simply gnash your teeth over the existence of Protestant denominations that declare the Bible to be fallibe -- not to mention those that go so far as to reject the divinity of Christ -- and that have been declaring thus nearly since Luther first issued his challenge to Catholic authority.

But I fail to see how you can claim that this is due to "popular science" "destroying everything." :rolleyes: The debate over the historicity, sources, correctness, and fallibility/infallibility of the holy texts has been going on at least since the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire, i.e., since the texts were first codified.

We noticed, Whittier. Had you been there you would have pushed Jesus aside and been whipping stones? I would not be so proud of this admission, Bob.
Stop trying to pick fights with me.

Then you've obviously ignored his instructions upon handing you that stone. I'll help you read them again.

John 8: 1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Everyone else walks away. Vellia walks up and whips, wipes his hands and laughs as the blood trickles.



As you are commanded to? Hypocrite, take the plank from your own eye before you begin to judge the speck in my own. You are not in any position to judge my sin, at all.

Let me guess, next you'll come back with a quote from Paul to dispute the words of Jesus I am referencing, no?


You are not in a position to judge where my road leads. I am not in a position to judge where your road leads. There is only one who may judge and it's not YOU or Paul. You admit you don't know what my beliefs are, but you tell me I am not a Christian. How very admirable of you. I think you put yourself in a position of judgement counter to the teachings of our Savior. Discuss my beliefs with me. Encourage others not to follow my beliefs. But to judge me? You're not in that position, buddy boy. Follow the words of Christ.


He's very right on this issue. You are not a true christian. I've showed your posts to several other christians and they've reached the same conclusion. Yet you simply do not listen to those who are trying to help you.

The bolded sentence sounds like a common talking point of a very specific religious agenda that's been giving everyone in the USA a headache for several years now.

You must have been very frustrated when the Vatican recently declared that the Bible is fallible. You must also simply gnash your teeth over the existence of Protestant denominations that declare the Bible to be fallibe -- not to mention those that go so far as to reject the divinity of Christ -- and that have been declaring thus nearly since Luther first issued his challenge to Catholic authority.

But I fail to see how you can claim that this is due to "popular science" "destroying everything." :rolleyes: The debate over the historicity, sources, correctness, and fallibility/infallibility of the holy texts has been going on at least since the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire, i.e., since the texts were first codified.
This time it's your turn to prove the assertion you just made.
It is written that anyone who rejects Christ's divinity are not christians. They are not saved.
Any denomination that rejects Christ is a false a church.

He's very right on this issue. You are not a true christian. I've showed your posts to several other christians and they've reached the same conclusion. Yet you simply do not listen to those who are trying to help you.

Be gone Satan. Leave this man alone!

Most christians do not hold the Koran to be scripture. We hold it to be heresy. Further, despite the claims, the two religions are not inspired by the same God. Islam is one of those religions that evolved from paganism. In the beginning, Islam was actually a polytheistic religion in which many pagan rites and rituals were and continue to be practiced.
The Christian God is not the same as the Islamic god.
.

Right, I've been reading this on and off, wading through the morass of moral confusion here, but this is enough. I'm not stopping to see who else commented on this comment, or indeed to see if anybody did, so apologies if I end up rehashing what someone else has said.

Socialist Whittier, what do you know of Islam? what, indeed, do you know about the origins, inspirations and eventual evolution of the Christianity you cherish and hold so dear today? It is ironic that some of this debate was sparked from the word 'fornication' - fornix is the original latin word for an arch, and yes, it is correct that in there were ladies of the night to be found under these arches - in Ancient Rome! The Romans changed the word to 'arcus' from where we get arch, which literally means a bow, as in rainbow to distance the public monuments they built from their former seedy reputation. Hence the Arch of Titus. Fornication already had its current meaning at the time that the King James Bible was published...why do I even mention this? Because it is to Rome that we must turn.

"Islam is one of those religions that evolved from paganism. In the beginning, Islam was actually a polytheistic religion in which many pagan rites and rituals were and continue to be practiced."

Every time you mention 'Islam' here, you would do better to substitute the word 'Christianity'. The teachings of Jesus were closer to Judaism than any Christian church today, and to my mind the truest proponent of his type of faith is Quakerism. Paul was the one who established the religion as a more widespread relifious doctrine, and he and his teachings are really the secondary seeding of the modern faith. He is still a man, though. HOWEVER, after this, Christianity gets taken up by the Roman Empire. There are numerous Roman practises incorported in to Christian practice. The Saturnaelia festival was transformed into Christmas (recognised by many leading theologians to be a later addition, and 'prequel' if you like...or you could just ask any Jehovas witness, in fact, who's that ringing your doorbell now?), the Vestal Virgins of Rome became the nuns, and strange aspects from other cultish religions got incorporated in, particularly by the Roman soldiers who were the main ones who spread the new religion. (SEE 'Cult of Mithras', concerning Greek mystery religions and the contemporary ideas of sacrifice and rebirth of gods). As more pagan tribes became christian, they incorporated their own practices into their new Christian faith, bits of tree worship and shamanism in Europe and Asia (Christmas trees, anyone?), and in South America chirtain worship and Christ got tied to their cults of death and spirits of the dead.

ISLAM was NEVER a pagan religion. It was founded by Mohammed who is considered Allah's true prophet (personally, I consider him a great philosopher, but then I am not a Muslim) and was spread by him. Islam is based closely on Judaism, and is truer to its monotheistic roots than Christianity (they don't hold with the shamrock-style God stuff in the least, although they consider Jesus to be a great prophet too). All the different aspects of Islam are more of a 'refinement' and a 'true reading' of Judaism, where Muhammad thought his Jewish teachers were wrong. He took their higher spiritual rituals in incoporated them into everyday practice (praying five times a day as on the day of atonement, not three times a day), and he kept all dietary laws that ensure spiritual purity.

I am, according to my religion, not allowed to even enter a Church as it is considered a place of Idolatry. I am however, allowed to enter a Mosque as they are considered true monotheists.

I apologise if I have upset anyone, I probably have, sorry, it's far easier than you'd think....*sigh*, I think I'll wander off into the Old City of Jerusalem and soak up some of the rain, it's a blessing you know

Be gone Satan. Leave this man alone!
We only seek to HELP him see the light.

Right, I've been reading this on and off, wading through the morass of moral confusion here, but this is enough. I'm not stopping to see who else commented on this comment, or indeed to see if anybody did, so apologies if I end up rehashing what someone else has said.

Socialist Whittier, what do you know of Islam? what, indeed, do you know about the origins, inspirations and eventual evolution of the Christianity you cherish and hold so dear today? It is ironic that some of this debate was sparked from the word 'fornication' - fornix is the original latin word for an arch, and yes, it is correct that in there were ladies of the night to be found under these arches - in Ancient Rome! The Romans changed the word to 'arcus' from where we get arch, which literally means a bow, as in rainbow to distance the public monuments they built from their former seedy reputation. Hence the Arch of Titus. Fornication already had its current meaning at the time that the King James Bible was published...why do I even mention this? Because it is to Rome that we must turn.

"Islam is one of those religions that evolved from paganism. In the beginning, Islam was actually a polytheistic religion in which many pagan rites and rituals were and continue to be practiced."

Every time you mention 'Islam' here, you would do better to substitute the word 'Christianity'. The teachings of Jesus were closer to Judaism than any Christian church today, and to my mind the truest proponent of his type of faith is Quakerism. Paul was the one who established the religion as a more widespread relifious doctrine, and he and his teachings are really the secondary seeding of the modern faith. He is still a man, though. HOWEVER, after this, Christianity gets taken up by the Roman Empire. There are numerous Roman practises incorported in to Christian practice. The Saturnaelia festival was transformed into Christmas (recognised by many leading theologians to be a later addition, and 'prequel' if you like...or you could just ask any Jehovas witness, in fact, who's that ringing your doorbell now?), the Vestal Virgins of Rome became the nuns, and strange aspects from other cultish religions got incorporated in, particularly by the Roman soldiers who were the main ones who spread the new religion. (SEE 'Cult of Mithras', concerning Greek mystery religions and the contemporary ideas of sacrifice and rebirth of gods). As more pagan tribes became christian, they incorporated their own practices into their new Christian faith, bits of tree worship and shamanism in Europe and Asia (Christmas trees, anyone?), and in South America chirtain worship and Christ got tied to their cults of death and spirits of the dead.

ISLAM was NEVER a pagan religion. It was founded by Mohammed who is considered Allah's true prophet (personally, I consider him a great philosopher, but then I am not a Muslim) and was spread by him. Islam is based closely on Judaism, and is truer to its monotheistic roots than Christianity (they don't hold with the shamrock-style God stuff in the least, although they consider Jesus to be a great prophet too). All the different aspects of Islam are more of a 'refinement' and a 'true reading' of Judaism, where Muhammad thought his Jewish teachers were wrong. He took their higher spiritual rituals in incoporated them into everyday practice (praying five times a day as on the day of atonement, not three times a day), and he kept all dietary laws that ensure spiritual purity.

I am, according to my religion, not allowed to even enter a Church as it is considered a place of Idolatry. I am however, allowed to enter a Mosque as they are considered true monotheists.

I apologise if I have upset anyone, I probably have, sorry, it's far easier than you'd think....*sigh*, I think I'll wander off into the Old City of Jerusalem and soak up some of the rain, it's a blessing you know


Not all christian denominations hold to those practices, which as you pointed out were added to christianity by pagan converts bringing their stuff with them. While it is true that a majority of denomination do observe saturnalia as christmas and what not, it is also true, as I have contended here, that not all self proclaimed christian groups are true christians.

Thank you, please leave off bashing other peoples' religions while you're trying to define what your own one means on certain points, it's not common (or even uncommon) decency :P

Oh, and just to as a side point, I'm a virgin! Woot! However, seeing as I'm a strictly religious Jew(ess) and therefore consider the bible to come in two halves - fiction and non-fiction, I don't think that's a particularly valuable contribution as regards the teachings of Paul.

What denomination (if any, you may have started your own church, I do not mock, it has happened) do you belong to? And PLEASE try and find a nice girl to be your wife. I do not agree with sex before marriage, or even during engagement, but as much as it may do wonders for your self-control it's not that healthy medically speaking to abstain for that long. Unless you masturbate, which is also strictly forbidden (is it in the Church of Whittier, as I have just named it,?). I'm not allowed to touch anyone of the opposite sex at all until I get married (not even handshakes etc), but I'm getting married next year, after a certain point it just gets silly.

Ok, going to go and rid our apartment of any bread-related products

Ok, going to go and rid our apartment of any bread-related products

Shalom and have fun with the Sedar (did I spell that right?) dinner. Tell Elijah (if he shows up) that I said hi :)

The bolded sentence sounds like a common talking point of a very specific religious agenda that's been giving everyone in the USA a headache for several years now.

You must have been very frustrated when the Vatican recently declared that the Bible is fallible. You must also simply gnash your teeth over the existence of Protestant denominations that declare the Bible to be fallibe -- not to mention those that go so far as to reject the divinity of Christ -- and that have been declaring thus nearly since Luther first issued his challenge to Catholic authority.

But I fail to see how you can claim that this is due to "popular science" "destroying everything." :rolleyes: The debate over the historicity, sources, correctness, and fallibility/infallibility of the holy texts has been going on at least since the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire, i.e., since the texts were first codified.

And, in fact, the codification of the texts came as a response to "heretical" teachings in the early church - well before Rome adopted Christianity as its own. There were all sorts of teachings, the most interesting (and farthest I have heard from any church today) was that the God of the OT was an evil underling of the true God, and had created the world against the will of the true God. But the true God had taken pity on the creations of the evil OT God and come to save us. Can't remember what that was called at the moment, but the guy who taught it actually put together the first codified text. Started with an 'm', IIRC.

And the church as a whole spent several hundred years coming to the eventual Trinity theology, arguing over everything from whether or not Christ was divine or man to exactly how Christ was divine and man, not to mention how Christ related to the Father and the Spirit.

Those who think the church was ever a unified belief system have never studied much of its history.

He's very right on this issue. You are not a true christian. I've showed your posts to several other christians and they've reached the same conclusion. Yet you simply do not listen to those who are trying to help you.

I don't accept your authority on the matter. I don't accept the authority of anyone who would claim that Christ's words, the words out of the actual mouth of the Son of God, do not carry more weight than the words of men. I'm sorry that this upsets you and those of your sect. I'm unimpressed. There is only one whose authority I subscribe to, and I'll give you a hint, it ain't you.

We only seek to HELP him see the light.

I've seen the light. It's not you. The light is the Savior, and him alone. I do not put other men on the same level as God. You do. This may be your definition of Christianity, but it is not mine. I do not fear for my soul. I spend much time focused on my plank. Focus on yours, false prophet.

The 4 gospels are just that. They are also editorials. They are not direct recordings of the words and actions of Jesus. Remember that they were written decades after Jesus had died and rose up to heaven.

What you are doing is going through the Bible like a smorgasborg. Picking and choosing only the parts that feel good to you. The Bible says you must accept all scripture for all scripture is from God himself.

No, what I am doing is treating the words of Jesus like the words of the Savior and the words of many like the words of a man. I didn't say Paul was lying only that he is not infallible. I quoted you the words from the mouth of Jesus as confirmed by four eye witnesses and you temper the words of Jesus with the words of a man. Yes, it's me that's the problem here.

The Gospels are editorials? Perhaps you should figure out what an editorial is. They aren't commenting on the acts of Jesus, they are telling his story. That is vastly different. To claim otherwise is to be wildly deceptive.

You fool no one. Your pride and arrogance can be smelled from miles away. Your claims to be able to pass on the lessons of the Bible but your refusal to direct people to examine for themselves. Your dishonest claims about what people have said and your dishonest claims about what are the words of Paul and what are the words of the Savior. These are all apparent.

Again, to anyone reading this, I recommend you not take my word for it. Do not accept false prophets. If you wish to learn more about what the Bible says and what it means, READ THE BIBLE. Do not accept the authority of ANY MAN on the subject. Only a wolf would ask you to do otherwise. Notice the bad fruit he preaches calling people losers, weak-minded, while hold himself up as superior and strong and speaking from the high ground. His "good works" are only claims, but you can examine the PRIDE and ARROGANCE. The bad fruit is abundant and available for all to examine.

He quoted you Matthew 7, well, read the remainder of the passage.
Matthew 7:15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

His fruit gives me heartburn. Let me show it again.

Claims of superiority -
It takes a strong man to abstain from sex. Most men cannot cannot do this. To put it point blank, they are too weak minded.
Sexually speaking, I stand on the moral high ground watching the rest of the world wallow in sin and evil.
I can justifiably claim the higher ground and hence any sense of superiority over my peers.
If you don't practice abstinence, you're perspective on the matter is worse than mine.
It is very difficult and it is a painful proposition to do. To pass up an opportunity when it presents itself. I have passed up at least 200 opportunities in keeping with my convictions on the matter. The problem is I am often tormented with regret later on.
Most guys wouldn't be able to withstand that kind of pressure. It does take a gifted person.

False claims -
John 10 25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[d]; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one."
114. oh, but it can. If you back slide your name is removed until you repent and make it right with God again.
You've also seen him claim I made statements I did not make and when asked to quote me, he simply ignored the comment or lied further.

Insults-
It just says they're a bunch of losers who have no place to talk.
It takes a strong man to abstain from sex. Most men cannot cannot do this. To put it point blank, they are too weak minded.
You are like Satan, who stands before the throne of God, announcing "He committed this sin, he is guilty he must go to hell."
That last one is also a lie. I have never once condemned anyone spiritually and am actually arguing with him because he did so. He doesn't mind attempting to deceive.

Suggesting that the scripture is not the best way to examine the actual lessons of the Bible -
Jacobia wrote: "He means to be an example by doing not to be an example by telling everyone about what you did. He is very clear about this.

Matthew6:1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
He is not suggesting you lie or that you actively prevent people from knowing about it, but simply that you do not actually hold your good deeds up to be viewed by the world. Let your actions speak on their own, but DO NOT attempt to make them seen or you have received your reward in full, clearly according to God. And he clearly says that those that do otherwise are hypocrites. He does not use the term the way you do."

We are not talking about what Jesus means. We are talking about YOU mean.
See how he denounces the ACTUAL QUOTE of the scripture in a conversation about the Bible and Pride. I quoted the scripture that all might read it and he tells me that I am somehow misleading you when I give my opinion on the scripture that I actually quoted that explicitly says what I was using it for evidence of. It's hard for him to be deceptive when I post the scripture that evidences his deceptions.

He defends his arrogance by claiming that Jesus' real beef with the Pharisees was hypocrisy (and please note that in reality Jesus defines hypocrisy in the scriptures in a much different way than Whittier. I posted those scriptures here for you to read) and not their arrogance as an excuse for his own arrogance -
Jacobia wrote: "No, it isn't. Look at an Christian-bashing thread and it's not your description of hypocrisy they protest, it's Christ's. They don't like that Christians speak from a holier-than-thou platform.
It is hypocrisy. It is Jesus definition of hypocrisy as presented not by me, but the gospels. "
The pharisees often took a holier than thou platform. And Jesus criticized them, not just because they were proud, but because they hypocrites. He specifically referred to them, not as arrogant, but as hypocrites.
Jesus chided the pharisees not just for their arrogance but for their hypocrisy.

He does not take responsibility for his actions and instead blames you and me and Satan, rather being personally responsible for his shortcomings -
Jacobia: "Satan? You are responsible for your thoughts and feelings and take responsibility for them"
Your views on the matter conflict with scripture which warns that Satan will come and tempt us much as he tempted Jesus.

The actual scripture (which he doesn't like to actual bring to you, but instead just editorializes it for you, the mark of someone who is deceiving you)
Matthew 5:27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Again, do not take my word, but read the passage in context. Jesus says that we sin when we do these things, not that Satan is doing it.

yes, I agree, that I overstated my case. It was a response to being backed against a wall.
Blames me for backing him against the wall, instead of apologizing and admitting his responsiblity.

I daydream about sex with different women about 60% of the time. Many times, when I am alone with a girl, I feel magnetically attracted to her lips. These are called temptations both the feeling of attraction and the daydream. Women are my achilles heel. See, I am willing to do almost anything for women, cause I cannot have sex with them without marrying them first or breaking my vow of abstinence which I made, ironically, in a closet. Satan knows I am having a very hard time at this. Yet I push forward and he thus sends thoughts and feelings and scents to torment me.
This one is Satan's fault. Let's see who else we can find to fault with the shortcomings of Whittier.

As for pride, I am very suspceptible to it. All people who have the primary gift of prophecy are susceptible to pride.
http://www.tagnet.org/cyberspace/Ser.../eng-prop.html
Every gift test I take, prophecy comes out on top. It has been this way since I was a child. Prophets tend to come off as judgmental of others.
Now, it's his gift's fault. Oh, no wait, it's the "comes off" that way so it is just our perception, it's not, you know, actual pride.

Do not take my word for it. Look at the actual fruit of our self-proclaimed prophet. He told you to examine the fruit.

And before he suggests I am doing the same. I am no prophet. I am not in a position to judge others spiritually, but I will attempt to prevent them from forcing their will upon you or deceiving you. I cannot teach you of the Bible, and if you wish to examine my claims I recommend you actuall read the cited passages. If you have questions I will be glad to tell anyone about places to find more information or to explain my own experiences. Again, Christianity should be a torch with which to lead, not a whip with which to drive people where they do not wish to go.



Meanwhile, Whittier, how many types of fabric are you wearing? When's the last time you stoned someone? Do you have a copy of the Gospel of Thomas with your Bible? The other gnostic Gospels? They are all scripture.

If this what your type of faith breeds, I'll take mine any day. I don't claim the authority of God, but you do, prideful one. I don't claim the authority of Jesus, but you do. I don't set Jesus to men or his words to those of men, but you do. I don't claim the moral high ground, but you do. I don't claim moral superiority, but you do. I don't lie about what you've said, but you've been caught time and again lying about what I've said. I don't lie about what's in the Bible, I quote it, but you've been caught time and again summarizing the Bible dishonestly and even amending it at one point. You suggest scripture is the authority but you defer those that would follow you to listen to men instead of the scripture. You claim that God rejects all religions and then claim that God leads people to create and lead those religions and that those people should be considered authorities above and beyond the Bible. You claim to have the authority to determine what is and what is not a true Christian.

I reject you. I reject all you say and all you stand for. The Bible tells me to recognize the validity of your words by examining the fruit of them. Your actions speak louder than your words ever could and they show me that you are selling poisoned, rotten fruit. Don't try to pretend like your goal here is to show me light. Your goal is to use Christianity as a whip to make people listen to you.

Your dishonesty never stops. Now you try to pretend some admirable goal to save me when I already worship the Savior and the Savior alone. You reject me as a 'true' Christian because I refuse to revere men and set them equal to the Savior. That stopped being amusing about 20 pages ago.

Wow, this is getting out of hand. Jocobia, your post lengths are getting absurd. I know I sound like an annoying brat, but frankly man, when your reply posts are almost a forum page on their own, perhaps you can quote a little less eh?

Now then, as much as I have disagreed with Jocobia in the past, I tend to side with him here. Though you may have your morality, you can never truly claim to have the moral high ground, for to do so degrades your morality. It is a self-defeating statement to say "I am the humblest", for you both claim to be humble while obviously not being so; likewise it is self-defeating to claim "I have moral superiority through my way of living" while also living in a way contrary to your moral doctrines of humility. As such, I really do not see your argument here, Socialist Whittier.
- Veritas

Wow, this is getting out of hand. Jocobia, your post lengths are getting absurd. I know I sound like an annoying brat, but frankly man, when your reply posts are almost a forum page on their own, perhaps you can quote a little less eh?

Now then, as much as I have disagreed with Jocobia in the past, I tend to side with him here. Though you may have your morality, you can never truly claim to have the moral high ground, for to do so degrades your morality. It is a self-defeating statement to say "I am the humblest", for you both claim to be humble while obviously not being so; likewise it is self-defeating to claim "I have moral superiority through my way of living" while also living in a way contrary to your moral doctrines of humility. As such, I really do not see your argument here, Socialist Whittier.
- Veritas

I was trying to avoid it. The problem is that he goldfishes and tries to pretend his purpose here is different than it is. He pretends to have been doing something else and it makes it practically a requirement to bring back up all the stuff he was actually saying. If he would simply admit that he claims to be the mouth of God and that he believes what he himself says is infallible then I wouldn't have to keep showing the hypocrisy of his statements.

I apologize for the post length. My original post did not quote the old post, but his deception is annoying and I know that people are not going to search through 33 pages to find evidence. I suspect he knows this as well which is why he did it.

By the way, I'm not claiming to be the 'humblest'. I simply have a degree of humility in the way I view my beliefs. I believe them with all conviction, but I know they are the beliefs of a fallible human being. As such, I do not thrust them on others, but simply inform people how I reached my conclusions and offer them the opportunity to examine the evidence for themselves.

He's very right on this issue. You are not a true christian. I've showed your posts to several other christians and they've reached the same conclusion. Yet you simply do not listen to those who are trying to help you.

You know, of course, that 'being Christian' isn't a popularity contest, and the opinions of 'several other Christians' pales in significance, to a true believer, beside the words of Christ?

You know, of course, that 'being Christian' isn't a popularity contest, and the opinions of 'several other Christians' pales in significance, to a true believer, beside the words of Christ?

For some, unfortunately, I think it is. "Being Christian" is more about how often you go to church, how much money you give it, and how many times you talk to the reverend/preacher/priest/etc. than what's in your heart for many. I'd like to think that this is simply because we cannot read the hearts of others and so we look to their actions, and thus those who seek such attention simply want to be sure that they really are doing the right thing, because that's what they think they would see in a good Christian. But, all too often, I think it is because the faith of such Christians is weak, and thus they need validation from other people, rather than simply the guidance of God. =(

This time it's your turn to prove the assertion you just made.
It is written that anyone who rejects Christ's divinity are not christians. They are not saved.
Any denomination that rejects Christ is a false a church.
It's written by churches that believe Christ is divine.

It's not written by the Unitarian church or by the Congregationalist church, and a few other anti-trinitarian churches. You may declare them not to be Christians, but the majority of Christians apparently disagree with you as neither the Unitarians nor the Congregationalists have ever been kicked out of the Christian family of churches.

I don't care one way or another whether any given Christian denomination is a "true" church or not. I'm just naming two that I know of that declare that Christ was a human prophet inspired by god but that he was not himself divine. Both call themselves Christian, and so far as I know, no other Christians have said otherwise. Unless you'd like to be the first...

For some, unfortunately, I think it is. "Being Christian" is more about how often you go to church, how much money you give it, and how many times you talk to the reverend/preacher/priest/etc. than what's in your heart for many. I'd like to think that this is simply because we cannot read the hearts of others and so we look to their actions, and thus those who seek such attention simply want to be sure that they really are doing the right thing, because that's what they think they would see in a good Christian. But, all too often, I think it is because the faith of such Christians is weak, and thus they need validation from other people, rather than simply the guidance of God. =(
You know I enjoy debating with you, but sometimes it's so nice to agree with you. You forgot that for many of them it's very important that they get the opportunity to attack other people for not being 'true' Christians or for being sinful (of course, we're all sinful, but they have to pretend that's not true).

I find it interesting that people in this thread state proudly that Jesus gave them a stone and gave his instructions and they've thrown that stone repeatedly.

Clarification: My final point about humbleness was actually directed toward Social Whittier, not you Jacobia. I was attempting to defend your side.
- Veritas

Clarification: My final point about humbleness was actually directed toward Social Whittier, not you Jacobia. I was attempting to defend your side.
- Veritas

You said "you both claim" so I thought that particular part was aimed at both of us. I know that in many areas I'm not particularly humble and sometimes people think that spills into my faith. I try very hard to avoid that. That's all I was saying.

The rest of your point was very clear.