NationStates Jolt Archive

But at the time Jesus was fulfilling Jewish prophesy, not anybody elses. He never said that it always had to be just Jews who become Christians.Of course not. He knew nothing about Christians, which simply didn't exist in his time. And according to the Gospels he stated that he had only come for the Jews. His goal was not to create a division, a sect, but to "re-adjust" Judaism.
The thing with fulfilling any prophecies at the time is highly dubious. The whole circumstances of Yeshua's youth and his time as an itinerant preacher as well as the details of his death may have been fabricated for the Gospels in order to have him fulfill certain prophecies. There is just no reliable source for that.

Source.

Wow. You need him to source the Bible? Really? This is just sad.

He was still alive when Paul corrected him. He rebuked Peter, in fact. How could Paul possibly rebuke someone who is infallible? And, again, please expand on your answer, support and explain it.

I already answered this above. You have got it all wrong.

Source.

Seriously, dude... have you even read the Bible?

Ha. You are squirming so hard, it's hard to not laugh. He said He was sent ONLY to the Jews. That can't change because it would defy the meanings of the word SENT (in past tense, thus it already happened and cannot rehappen) and ONLY. Unless resent he cannot be sent for anyone BUT the Jews. The Catholic Church claims that his teachings were not meant for Jews and that suggesting otherwise is heresy. Okay, now, dance, my friend, dance.

You are reading and overanalyzing way to much into your out of context quotes. I would recommend you calm down a little.

Is there a reason why that shouldn't be so? My name contains the word "grave", but I'm not dead.

I was merely pointing out that there are some 'christian' groups that believe Jesus has already returned. Most - however, maintain that he hasn't.

Which means that the message of what the faithful should do UNTIL he returns... still stands, no?

Of course it stands until he returns. Those groups like the Jehova's witness are very confused indeed. And Mormons too (dum dum dum dum dum)

You are reading and overanalyzing way to much into your out of context quotes. I would recommend you calm down a little.

How would you interpret "I was sent only for the Jews"?

Is it overanalysing to assume that Jesus meant "only", when he said "only"?

Is it reading too much into the word "sent" to assume he might have meant "sent"?

"God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become Christians without circumcision. The same teaching was vigorously defended by Paul in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians"

it says very clearly that they AGREED. You have it backwards. Didnt you READ it?

did YOU read it? it says that god convinced peter that paul was right. that means that peter started out WRONG.

I already answered this above. You have got it all wrong.

No, you didn't. You made claims. You didn't support them. You didn't explain them. You've done none of the work. And now you're even asking for quotes from the Bible as if you've never read the Bible yourself.

You said my earlier source, the Catholic Church, says the opposite of my new source the Bible. That pretty much evidences my argument perfectly. You claimed quoting the Bible to show that Jesus said he came ONLY for the Jews is a change of subject from Catholic doctrine that claims that Christians must first be Jews is heresy. You're sinking. Need a lifejacket?

Of course it stands until he returns. Those groups like the Jehova's witness are very confused indeed. And Mormons too (dum dum dum dum dum)

So - when he said that his folowers should only preach to Israel until he returns...

Who should the Great Commission include now?

Of course not. He knew nothing about Christians, which simply didn't exist in his time. And according to the Gospels he stated that he had only come for the Jews. His goal was not to create a division, a sect, but to "re-adjust" Judaism.
The thing with fulfilling any prophecies at the time is highly dubious. The whole circumstances of Yeshua's youth and his time as an itinerant preacher as well as the details of his death may have been fabricated for the Gospels in order to have him fulfill certain prophecies. There is just no reliable source for that.

Anything "may have" happened, I just rely on facts and reason. I was once an atheist too until I did a little bit of research. Try going to a Mass, it can do wonders for you.

Wow. You need him to source the Bible? Really? This is just sad.

Yes.
Yes.
according to you.

Seriously, dude... have you even read the Bible?

Yes.

Apparently so - I was discussing it with the Witnesses who arrived on my doorstep yesterday. Apart from fudging the numbers in Daniel, I see little reason to place much faith in their numbers. :)

what did jesus do while he was here? how long did he stay? why didnt he take all the faithful jws to heaven with him? or establish his kingdom here on earth or whatever it is that jws believe happens when jesus returns?

How would you interpret "I was sent only for the Jews"?

Is it overanalysing to assume that Jesus meant "only", when he said "only"?

Is it reading too much into the word "sent" to assume he might have meant "sent"?

Well what do you think he was sent for, the Hindus? Come on.

Yes.
Yes.
according to you.

Fine - many may have assumed you had actually read the scripture before you started to debate it - that is considered the usual method.

Revelation 22:18 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Anything "may have" happened, I just rely on facts and reason. I was once an atheist too until I did a little bit of research. Try going to a Mass, it can do wonders for you.What facts? And Mass is just a fancy show for those who need rituals, as if any god needed such pompous vanity.

did YOU read it? it says that god convinced peter that paul was right. that means that peter started out WRONG.

It also proved that God intervened to maintain infallibility of the Pope. :p

Yes.

I'm seeing precious little evidence.

Yes.
Yes.
according to you.

So you aren't aware of these things in the Bible according to your own answers and you don't consider that sad. It's a book. Read it. It will help you. It's good for your faith. It will prevent you from embarrassing yourself in debates about it.

No, you didn't. You made claims. You didn't support them. You didn't explain them. You've done none of the work. And now you're even asking for quotes from the Bible as if you've never read the Bible yourself.

You said my earlier source, the Catholic Church, says the opposite of my new source the Bible. That pretty much evidences my argument perfectly. You claimed quoting the Bible to show that Jesus said he came ONLY for the Jews is a change of subject from Catholic doctrine that claims that Christians must first be Jews is heresy. You're sinking. Need a lifejacket?

Your own source disproved your argument. I don't know why are are even still here.

what did jesus do while he was here? how long did he stay? why didnt he take all the faithful jws to heaven with him? or establish his kingdom here on earth or whatever it is that jws believe happens when jesus returns?

He's still here, apparently. He is now acting against the agencies of Satan on Earth. Expect a more 'hellfire and brimstone' approach from your friendly neighbourhood Witness sometime soon... because they are gearing up for their preached version of damnation.

It also proved that God intervened to maintain infallibility of the Pope. :p

You don't get it. Infallible means that he can't have made a mistake. Thus, if God had to intervene and correct Peter as here "But God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become Christians without circumcision." then Peter was WRONG before God intervened. You can't have it both ways. Are you also not aware of the meaning of infallible?

And with that I'll leave you guys with the scraps. It's clear that he's not what he claims to be.

Well what do you think he was sent for, the Hindus? Come on.

Don't want to answer the question?

I shall ask it again - if he said the commission was for Israel until he returned, who should the Christian be ministering to now?

So - when he said that his folowers should only preach to Israel until he returns...

Who should the Great Commission include now?

Your claim is false. He never directed his followers until to preach to Israel until he returns.

Your own source disproved your argument. I don't know why are are even still here.

Montoya.

Fine - many may have assumed you had actually read the scripture before you started to debate it - that is considered the usual method.

Revelation 22:18 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

That quote specifies that it is talking about adding or taking away from the Book of Revelations. No new teachings of Jesus were introduced in that book.

Your own source disproved your argument. I don't know why are are even still here.

My earlier source disproved my argument that the Catholic Church considers the idea that you must first become a Jew before becoming Christian as heresy? Really? That's interesting since it's listed as one of the great heresies on Catholic.com.

Meanwhile, I showed that Jesus said that he came ONLY for the Jews. Only means NO ONE ELSE. It's clear in the claim. Peter supported this claim until 'God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become Christians without circumcision,' which of course would make both Peter and Jesus wrong. But, hey, there's nothing wrong with someone who is infallible being wrong is there? Only if you know the definition of the word infallible.

What facts? And Mass is just a fancy show for those who need rituals, as if any god needed such pompous vanity.

That demonstrates a basic lack of knowledge of the catholic faith.

So you aren't aware of these things in the Bible according to your own answers and you don't consider that sad. It's a book. Read it. It will help you. It's good for your faith. It will prevent you from embarrassing yourself in debates about it.

What like sourcing a website that disproves my argument Jacobia?:D

He's still here, apparently. He is now acting against the agencies of Satan on Earth. Expect a more 'hellfire and brimstone' approach from your friendly neighbourhood Witness sometime soon... because they are gearing up for their preached version of damnation.

I reall find them irritating. They keep coming around and jabbering on about their heretic faith. I am pretty tired of it.

Well what do you think he was sent for, the Hindus? Come on.

Unfortunately for you, he said he was sent ONLY to the Jews. That means no one else. It's what ONLY means. Or do I also need to source the dictionary?

Don't want to answer the question?

I shall ask it again - if he said the commission was for Israel until he returned, who should the Christian be ministering to now?

Israel. But he never said "Israel only".

He's still here, apparently. He is now acting against the agencies of Satan on Earth. Expect a more 'hellfire and brimstone' approach from your friendly neighbourhood Witness sometime soon... because they are gearing up for their preached version of damnation.

wow

when did they decide this? ive talked to a jw sometime in the past 20 years and i never heard it?

is he living in the jw headquarters?

wow.

so they are so entirely correct that jesus is only revealing himself to them and the rest of us be damned?

Very interesting...I was always under the impression that the magical Blue Fairy would descend to Earth and save all those who had ever wished upon a star...

Well what do you think he was sent for, the Hindus? Come on.He was sent?
And what really was a Jew at the time of Yeshua? The handful of folks who adhered to the Temple authorities' teachings? The various other folks who believed in some version of Yahweh but couldn't care less about the Temple or knew nothing of "scripture" (whatever that really is) ? There was no homogeneous Judaism at the time, it was rather as it is in Christianity today, where everybody has his own personal highly arbitrary version of belief and everyone just uses some bits and pieces as seems comfortable.
There is no way of knowing what this Yeshua guy was really up to.

That demonstrates a basic lack of knowledge of the catholic faith.I surely know Catholicism better than you do. It's an entertainment. You can count on one hand the real theologians in that church.

What like sourcing a website that disproves my argument Jacobia?:D

It did establish exactly what I claimed that Catholic doctrine considers the idea that Jesus was sent only to the Jews to be heresy and that it claims that Peter was mistaken when he made the claim which of course invalidates your claim of infallibility as well. My source, a very well-known website of the Catholic Church, pretty much calls every one of your claims into question by demonstrating that they said Peter was wrong and that Jesus was not sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.

Your claim is false. He never directed his followers until to preach to Israel until he returns.

And again, I ask if you have read the scripture. Jesus specifically tells his followers that their commissuion is with Israel, and NOT with Gentiles.

Matthew 10:5-7 "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand."

He makes other comments - less flattering - about not preaching to the Gentile, elsewhere... he refers to them as 'swine' and 'dogs', and says his followers should not waste the 'pearls' of his teaching on them, or allow them the 'scraps' of his lessons.

My earlier source disproved my argument that the Catholic Church considers the idea that you must first become a Jew before becoming Christian as heresy? Really? That's interesting since it's listed as one of the great heresies on Catholic.com.

Meanwhile, I showed that Jesus said that he came ONLY for the Jews. Only means NO ONE ELSE. It's clear in the claim. Peter supported this claim until 'God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become Christians without circumcision,' which of course would make both Peter and Jesus wrong. But, hey, there's nothing wrong with someone who is infallible being wrong is there? Only if you know the definition of the word infallible.

What is infallible is infallible at that time period. Events and the will of God change over time. That is why the commands of Leviticus do not prevent all Christians from eating pork and letting their wives out of tents while menstruation is going on......(chuckle)

He was sent?
And what really was a Jew at the time of Yeshua? The handful of folks who adhered to the Temple authorities' teachings? The various other folks who believed in some version of Yahweh but couldn't care less about the Temple or knew nothing of "scripture" (whatever that really is) ? There was no homogeneous Judaism at the time, it was rather as it is in Christianity today, where everybody has his own personal highly arbitrary version of belief and everyone just uses some bits and pieces as seems comfortable.

Actually, it should be noted that Jesus' reference to Jews was likely one of hereitege not faith, since he refers to the lost sheep.

That quote specifies that it is talking about adding or taking away from the Book of Revelations. No new teachings of Jesus were introduced in that book.

The Bible is also 'the book' that Revelation is housed within.

Or, perhaps, you are arguing that it is okay with God for mortal man to edit the Biblical text to better suit himself?

Unfortunately for you, he said he was sent ONLY to the Jews. That means no one else. It's what ONLY means. Or do I also need to source the dictionary?

Of course he was sent only for the Jews. I never disagreed with that. That does not mean that one must be a Jew to be a Christian now though. He was speaking for the time period that he lived in on that one.

this thread is boring/

*throws poo at Pious*


hey...that rhymed!:D

I reall find them irritating. They keep coming around and jabbering on about their heretic faith. I am pretty tired of it.

How ironic.

Personally - I don't mind them. I welcome them, and happily discuss scripture with them.

The simple reason is, they are the only group of christians I have encountered that collectively engage in intensive Bible study. I may disagree with what they find - but at least they've looked.

Israel. But he never said "Israel only".

Addressed in a separate post.

You are wrong.

(I can't pretend to be surprised).

What is infallible is infallible at that time period. Events and the will of God change over time. That is why the commands of Leviticus do not prevent all Christians from eating pork and letting their wives out of tents while menstruation is going on......(chuckle)

If you correct someone, they were wrong. The site clearly claims that Peter was corrected by God because what he was teaching was wrong. Infallible means infallible. It means it cannot be wrong. EVER.

3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

Incapable of error is not a temporary thing. If one is incapable of error then they cannot be wrong. Period. You're claiming that Peter being wrong doesn't invalidate your claim but that shows a shameful ignorance of the English language and scripture.

wow

when did they decide this? ive talked to a jw sometime in the past 20 years and i never heard it?

is he living in the jw headquarters?

wow.

so they are so entirely correct that jesus is only revealing himself to them and the rest of us be damned?

This new teaching is very recent... this last calender year. I have a Witness friend through whom I have actually seen some of the flyers they intend to be handing out.

They may not call it hellfire or damnation - but the content and style of the flyers is very much what you'd expect of one of the apocalypse cult versions of Christianity.

Of course he was sent only for the Jews. I never disagreed with that. That does not mean that one must be a Jew to be a Christian now though. He was speaking for the time period that he lived in on that one.

So was Jesus sent to save you or not? Do his teachings apply to you or not? According to Jesus they were ONLY for the Jews. Do you disagree with Jesus?

Israel. But he never said "Israel only".

Hmmm... again are you forgetting scripture? You, yourself, have admitted that he said ONLY. He was sent to the Jews ONLY. The lost sheep of Israel. It was a clear statement. You're tryinig to claim it changed which means Jesus didn't REALLY mean ONLY. Are you really comfortable amending the teachings of Jesus so freely?

Of course he was sent only for the Jews. I never disagreed with that. That does not mean that one must be a Jew to be a Christian now though. He was speaking for the time period that he lived in on that one.

If the message is only for the Jew...

Then one cannot legitimately call oneself a Christian, unless one can receive the message - which would mean being a Jew.

At best, a non-Jewish 'christian' would be a groupie, a hanger-on, hoping for some reflected glory - like the Samaritan woman that Jesus calls a dog.

And again, I ask if you have read the scripture. Jesus specifically tells his followers that their commissuion is with Israel, and NOT with Gentiles.

Matthew 10:5-7 "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand."

He makes other comments - less flattering - about not preaching to the Gentile, elsewhere... he refers to them as 'swine' and 'dogs', and says his followers should not waste the 'pearls' of his teaching on them, or allow them the 'scraps' of his lessons.

Looks like you've got this well in hand. I didn't leave much for you. Sorry, I'll dig the hole slower next time. Night.

Looks like you've got this well in hand. I didn't leave much for you. Sorry, I'll dig the hole slower next time. Night.

Goodnight, my friend.

I am a little saddened that I turned up so late... there is little to be done here except to nail the corpses into their coffins.

Actually, it should be noted that Jesus' reference to Jews was likely one of hereitege not faith, since he refers to the lost sheep.So Yeshua was a racist?
Well, in Mark 7:24-30 he denunciates non-Jews as dogs.

So he was a racist?
Well, in Mark 7:24-30 he denunciate non-Jews as dogs.

The common Christian conception is that Jesus and God are intimately and inseperably related.

The Old Testament makes it very clear that 'God' considers the Jew to be a superior example. It follows that Jesus would also consider the Jews 'his Chosen people'.

The common Christian conception is that Jesus and God are intimately and inseperably related.

The Old Testament makes it very clear that 'God' considers the Jew to be a superior example. It follows that Jesus would also consider the Jews 'his Chosen people'.

there is just SO much odd stuff in the bible that you have to completely overlook in order to have the rest make sense.

The common Christian conception is that Jesus and God are intimately and inseperably related.

The Old Testament makes it very clear that 'God' considers the Jew to be a superior example. It follows that Jesus would also consider the Jews 'his Chosen people'.As I said: racism. I have always considered the Old Testament racist propaganda, an expression of a minority's inferiority complex, and the attempt to explain the replacement of Israel by Yehuda.

there is just SO much odd stuff in the bible that you have to completely overlook in order to have the rest make sense.

Agreed. I find it amusing that the book is filled with parables and metaphors, and yet the book itself is considered to be some kind of historical account.

As I said: racism. I have always considered the Old Testament racist propaganda, an expression of a minority's inferiority complex, and the attempt to explain the replacement of Israel by Yehuda.

You'll get no argument from me. I was a little surprised the first time I happened accross the outright racism of the Greek Scripture - it didn't seem to 'fit'. But then - when one really reads the Hebrew scripture, it really isn't so incongruous after all.

But I still don't understand how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

But I still don't understand how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

i never understood the question. angels dont dance.

my post was in response to pootwaddles assertion that there wwas no dispute in doctrine in the early church and that jocabia hadnt provided any proof of it.

That wasn't my assertion. My assertion is that Jocabia misrepresents what those disputes were...

Yes, PootWaddle is playing ignorant. He does that. Apparently, I have to re-establish known fact in every thread. He knows that the council was convened to end the diversity of the early church because there were several major rifts. The council would not have been necessary if there was homogeny. They could have simply codified what everyone was already teaching.

No, you have to establish the facts between "what you claim they believed", and then simply pointing at the fact that they had disputes to settle as proof that you are right. But that's a false dichotomy, something you try to use too much... The disputes they settled may have been unrelated to your topics. You need to establish that you know what they believed, not prove that that they had disputes.

No, you have to establish the facts between "what you claim they believed", and then simply pointing at the fact that they had disputes to settle as proof that you are right. But that's a false dichotomy, something you try to use too much... The disputes they settled may have been unrelated to your topics. You need to establish that you know what they believed, not prove that that they had disputes.

The disputes they settled were proof that there wasn't universal agreement on the Nicene Creed among people that the Nicean Council acknowledged as Christians. This invalidates your claim that the Nicene Creed defines Christianity since there were Christians that even the Nicean Council, clearly a Council whose opinion you've said matters, agrees were Christian who did not believe in the Creed.

That's the point. It's really very simple. If you must be Christian to go to the Council, and you must or they had no right to decide what Christians must believe. And some people entered that Council not believing what the Nicene Creed had to say, like the divinity of Jesus Christ, then it's clear that Christians CANNOT be defined in such a way. Logic finds you wrong.

According to the early church they were relevant. They were being taught by Christian leaders who were invited to the conference. How is that not relevant? The Bible certainly could include everything that was being taught as Christian doctrine by the early Church. Why couldn't it?

Because not all of the books were written by Christians. The gnostic beliefs, for example, did not start with Christ, they existed before Christ and their followers simply tried tag onto the Christian growth and capture some of it...

To use discernment and weed out the fake teachings is only common sense.

Not according to Jesus. Jesus said that the Law will never change. Apparently, you claim differently. Hmmm... I wonder to whom I will defer.

Just because a lesson changes doesn’t mean that there is a contradiction in theology, nor a discrepancy in the message. You trying to make that connection for your personal purposes is untrue.

Luke 22:35-37
35Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.

36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

Jesus tells his followers to buy swords etc., then compare it to this…

Matthew 26:52
"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

Mark 14:48
"Am I leading a rebellion," said Jesus, "that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me?

In neither case is Jesus disagreeing with himself. The example of the church making a statement that you think contradicts what Jesus said somewhere else on a different topic, is not proof that the Church does not teach what Jesus taught.

See, you're avoiding the point. Jesus said that his teachings were for the Jews and that one must first be a Jew in order to be subject to them. Peter, who you said was infallible, upheld this belief and established it as a part of his early church. The current church believes the claim that Christians must first be Jews to be heresy. That is a teaching of Jesus that is now considered heresy.
AS to Jesus only coming for the Jews: Jesus says he also came for the Gentiles. First he tells us that there will be a time of the Gentiles…

Luke 21:24
They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

And he tells the apostles to go to all the Nations…
Luke 24:45-49
45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things. 49I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

And Jesus prayed for ALL the world to believe, not just the Jews …

John 17:20-23
20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

So who are we going to believe? You or Jesus?

The disputes they settled were proof that there wasn't universal agreement on the Nicene Creed among people that the Nicean Council acknowledged as Christians. This invalidates your claim that the Nicene Creed defines Christianity since there were Christians that even the Nicean Council, clearly a Council whose opinion you've said matters, agrees were Christian who did not believe in the Creed.

Your argument does not stand up, you use a false dichotomy. They wanted to know 'how' Jesus was divine, not as you say, whether or not he was divine.

That's the point. It's really very simple. If you must be Christian to go to the Council, and you must or they had no right to decide what Christians must believe. And some people entered that Council not believing what the Nicene Creed had to say, like the divinity of Jesus Christ, then it's clear that Christians CANNOT be defined in such a way. Logic finds you wrong.

They disagreed on things, but not on the things you accuse them of. Reality finds you in error.

Just because a lesson changes doesn’t mean that there is a contradiction in theology, nor a discrepancy in the message. You trying to make that connection for your personal purposes is untrue.

Luke 22:35-37
35Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.

36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

Matthew 26:47
While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people.

Then compare it to this…

Matthew 26:52
"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

Mark 14:48
"Am I leading a rebellion," said Jesus, "that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me?


AS to Jesus only coming for the Jews: Jesus says he also came for the Gentiles. First he tells us that there will be a time of the Gentiles…

Luke 21:24
They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

And he tells the apostles to go to all the Nations…
Luke 24:45-49
45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things. 49I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

And Jesus prayed for ALL the world to believe, not just the Jews …

John 17:20-23
20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

So who are we going to believe? You or Jesus?

So was Jesus wrong when he said he was sent ONLY to the Jews? Was he resent? Jesus made it clear that faith saves in the event with the woman he calls a dog. That's not the point. The point is that according to Jesus, himself, he was sent ONLY to the Jews. I didn't say it. He did.

Why would I recognise anything I do as sin?
Why would I recognise any creature outside of me to decide for me what is a sin?
Why would I deny absolutely anything of myself
or do anything I do not want to do?
And why would that be required to approach some God that either is absent or want me to do anything what I want to do.
I don't have any evil side in me and I deny nothing of myself
and do everything I want to becouse this far I can.
Why would I hate the flesh, hate money and hate the material world.
Why this existential angst that I would try to become something I am not
just becouse this religious angst points at us not being as God intended us to be?
Why would that be true? Nothing of that is required to find a deeper and intellectual meaning with ones existence.
To understand ones place in cosmos and to be intellectually stimulated
have nothing to do with denying anything nor is it required to moderate anything.
Life is about extemes , that is everything that drives the world.
Just becouse there are bad things in the world doesn't mean you have a right to be coward and cowardly believe that the world is evil.

Weakness, fear and angst are flaws that shows that you are a unpure person with no will to be pure nor capacity to bee !

Strenght,honesty,engagement in your duties,pride,
courage,extremes and satisfaction of the needs of the self.

That is all any human needs.

Your argument does not stand up, you use a false dichotomy. They wanted to know 'how' Jesus was divine, not as you say, whether or not he was divine.

They disagreed on things, but not on the things you accuse them of. Reality finds you in error.

You amuse me in your ignorance. I present you with the evidence of the rift and what it was about. We know this was the core of the Nicene Creed and suggests the need it was created to fulfill. We also know that it was not universally agreed upon at any point in the Council. Not by the Christians then. And you can try to change the subject all you like, but it is a fact that people acknowledged by the Council as leaders of the Christian Church did not agree with the Creed when it was formed and the fact that they didn't all agree was the precise purpose of forming the Council. This invalidates your claim that all Christians must accept the creed. You don't get to redefine the term after the fact no matter how important you think you are.

So was Jesus wrong when he said he was sent ONLY to the Jews? Was he resent? Jesus made it clear that faith saves in the event with the woman he calls a dog. That's not the point. The point is that according to Jesus, himself, he was sent ONLY to the Jews. I didn't say it. He did.

Jesus was not wrong, your understanding of the events is wrong.

You amuse me in your ignorance. I present you with the evidence of the rift and what it was about. We know this was the core of the Nicene Creed and suggests the need it was created to fulfill. We also know that it was not universally agreed upon at any point in the Council. Not by the Christians then. And you can try to change the subject all you like, but it is a fact that people acknowledged by the Council as leaders of the Christian Church did not agree with the Creed when it was formed and the fact that they didn't all agree was the precise purpose of forming the Council. This invalidates your claim that all Christians must accept the creed. You don't get to redefine the term after the fact no matter how important you think you are.

Of the 318 assembled, only two did not vote to accept the creed. What was the debated issue? There was no debate about whether Jesus was the Creator of heaven and earth, working in conjunction with God the Father. There was no debate about whether Jesus was the “only begotten Son”, meaning uniquely and singularly the Son of God - the only one of his kind. The debate was on a technical issue of whether “begotten” meant “conceived” by God the Father, or “created” by God the Father.
http://www.jesus-institute.org/lands/nicenecouncil.shtml


Obviously the only ignorance here is the one that rests in your position.

Jesus was not wrong, your understanding of the events is wrong.

Hmmm... let's just go with what Jesus said in plain words in the Bible.

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.
I'm not changing what he said. This is directly from Matthew. If I'm misunderstanding and Jesus didn't say "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel.", then what did he really say?

Again, keep pretending this is what I'm saying, but this is a direct quote of the Bible.

http://www.creeds.net/ancient/Nicene_Intro.htm

The new emperor soon discovered that "one faith and one church" were fractured by theological disputes, especially conflicting understandings of the nature of Christ, long a point of controversy. Arius, a priest of the church in Alexandria, asserted that the divine Christ, the Word through whom all things have their existence, was created by God before the beginning of time. Therefore, the divinity of Christ was similar to the divinity of God, but not of the same essence. Arius was opposed by the bishop, Alexander, together with his associate and successor, Athanasius. They affirmed that the divinity of Christ, the Son, is of the same substance as the divinity of God, the Father. To hold otherwise, they said, was to open the possibility of polytheism, and to imply that knowledge of God in Christ was not final knowledge of God.

The divinity of Christ was part of a major rift in the Church. It was hardly accepted as fact at that time. YOU are talking about the FINAL vote, not the initial votes. It was clear that walking in the door many Christian leaders believed and were teaching things that were in line with the Nicene Creed. This is precisely what created the need for a Council and for a Creed.

No matter how you slice it, if EVERY vote was not unanimous then some of what came out of that Council was not what went in. To deny that is to deny logic.

EDIT: Meanwhile, you're doing what you always do, trying to claim this is about me. I'm not denying the divinity of Jesus. I'm pointing to history to show that Christians do not all accept the Creed, and these people were accepted as Christian leaders by the very Council you are defending. According to them, these people and there followers were Christian. Who are you to claim otherwise?

Yay, let's play the source game. It's historical fact that Nicene Council was to codify Christianity BECAUSE of variance in the beliefs being taught by the Church. That's really not disputable.

Now as stated here they agree that it was divinity, but to be clear, they were using divinity very loosely which was the nature of the argument. One group says "sure he's divine, but not God." The other group says, "he can't be divine and not God, because it means there are multiple gods." And they said, "oh, we don't mean he's a god, just that he's divine." And so on...

The point being that when I refer to Divine, I'm am clearly using this definition of the term b : being a deity <the divine Savior>. One group clearly did not claim Jesus was a deity and not God because it would, in fact, make Christianity polytheistic. That was the cause of the rift. They weren't just discussing how Jesus was divine but whether or not he was a deity.

Hmmm... let's just go with what Jesus said in plain words in the Bible.

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.
I'm not changing what he said. This is directly from Matthew. If I'm misunderstanding and Jesus didn't say "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel.", then what did he really say?

Again, keep pretending this is what I'm saying, but this is a direct quote of the Bible.

In the same way that Jesus is NOT saying that he is not good when he says:
18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. -Mark 10:18

But here at the beginning, we see who Jesus came for...and that includes the gentiles.

Luke 2:25-32
25Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. 26It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 27Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, 28Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying:
29"Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you now dismiss your servant in peace.
30For my eyes have seen your salvation,
31which you have prepared in the sight of all people,
32a light for revelation to the Gentiles
and for glory to your people Israel."

In the same way that Jesus is NOT saying that he is not good when he says:
18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. -Mark 10:18

But here at the beginning, we see who Jesus came for...and that includes the gentiles.

Luke 2:25-32
25Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. 26It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 27Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, 28Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying:
29"Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you now dismiss your servant in peace.
30For my eyes have seen your salvation,
31which you have prepared in the sight of all people,
32a light for revelation to the Gentiles
and for glory to your people Israel."

Yes, and again, you're interpreting that. My is a direct, unchanged and clear quote. What you're quoting there makes it clear that Gentiles and Jews alike would witness Jesus' ministry. However, you'll notice it says FOR GLORY TO YOUR PEOPLE ISRAEL. Hmmmm... not FOR GLORY OF ALL MEN or the like. Again, one has to simply ignore the words to make that mean something different than what Jesus said.

Meanwhile, yes, Jesus meant that there is not any human, anywhere, of any stripe that can call themselves good without God including Jesus, himself. He plainly says that and meant that. So, yes, he was saying he was not good.

Now, according to you what was Jesus saying when he said "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel."?

Yes, and again, you're interpreting that. My is a direct, unchanged and clear quote. What you're quoting there makes it clear that Gentiles and Jews alike would witness Jesus' ministry. However, you'll notice it says FOR GLORY TO YOUR PEOPLE ISRAEL. Hmmmm... not FOR GLORY OF ALL MEN or the like. Again, one has to simply ignore the words to make that mean something different than what Jesus said.

He did come for Israel. More on this below, last bit.

Meanwhile, yes, Jesus meant that there is not any human, anywhere, of any stripe that can call themselves good without God including Jesus, himself. He plainly says that and meant that. So, yes, he was saying he was not good.

Jesus is God. No one is good but God, why do you call me good? Ergo; You call me good because I am God...

Now, according to you what was Jesus saying when he said "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel."?

Jesus came to re-establish contact for an express reason, which was NOT just for the redemption of Israel. It was so that they (Israel) would do their assigned job of spreading the news to the rest of the world about His coming Kingdom.

God's purpose for the Israelites, all twelve tribes, was for them to spread the Good News to the rest of the world. The Jews muffed it and they grew into a "self-centered" society. They tried to keep the Good News for themselves and did not become a light to the rest of the world, they did not bear fruit... and thus, they were eventually cut off. But when Jesus said this, the events had not yet occurred. Kind of like me fifteen years ago, I would say I am single with no Children, and today, I am married with children... Neither statement was a lie.

The Church today is the people who profess the God of the bible. They have become what Hosea said they would, "known as the sons of the living God."

He did come for Israel. More on this below, last bit.

ONLY Israel according to the clear and plain words of Jesus Christ. You intentionally leave that word out.

Jesus is God. No one is good but God, why do you call me good? Ergo; You call me good because I am God...

Wow. Just wow. Again, you take what is clearly and change the meaning. He says quite clearly, why are you calling me good, you know that is reserved for God alone. That in no way says, "I am God so keep calling me that." It's a rebuke. It's utterly clear.

Jesus never said he was God. Ever.

Jesus came to re-establish contact for an express reason, which was NOT just for the redemption of Israel. It was so that they (Israel) would do their assigned job of spreading the news to the rest of the world about His coming Kingdom.

Again, so was Jesus wrong when he said exactly the opposite of this statement.

God's purpose for the Israelites, all twelve tribes, was for them to spread the Good News to the rest of the world. The Jews muffed it and they grew into a "self-centered" society. They tried to keep the Good News for themselves and did not become a light to the rest of the world, they did not bear fruit... and thus, they were eventually cut off. But when Jesus said this, the events had not yet occurred. Kind of like me fifteen years ago, I would say I am single with no Children, and today, I am married with children... Neither statement was a lie.

The Church today is the people who profess the God of the bible. They have become what Hosea said they would, "known as the sons of the living God."

In the case of being married with children is something that can change. However, if I am sent to someone's house to pick up a cat, then what I was sent for cannot change. What I pick up could change. What I do there could change. I could even be contact by the person who sent me and asked to pick up more or less or something different. But it will never change why I was sent. Jesus said he was sent only to the Jews. He says this plainly in clear language. You claim that my claim that he was sent only to the Jews based on his clear statement that he was sent only to the Jews is a misinterpretation. You have to yet to show that what he said did not mean "I was sent ONLY to the Jews." In fact, you avoided that point altogether pretending instead that such a thing can change.

You're openly changing the word of the Christ. On what authority?

...

Jesus never said he was God. Ever.

...

The people actually listening and talking to Jesus sure seem to think Jesus called himself God, even when they didn't agree with him…

John 8:57-59
The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple.

John 10:30-33
"I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

Straight up, no cotroversy about what he said. What misunderstanding will you place on that I wonder... You are mistaken yet again. They didn't want to stone him because he didn't call himself God, the wanted to stone him because he DID call himself God.

More:

John 12:44-46
And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent Me. And he who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me. I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness."

John 14:6-9
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'?"

The people actually listening and talking to Jesus sure seem to think Jesus called himself God, even when they didn't agree with him…

John 8:57-59
The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple.

John 10:30-33
"I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

Straight up, no cotroversy about what he said. What misunderstanding will you place on that I wonder... You are mistaken yet again. They didn't want to stone him because he didn't call himself God, the wanted to stone him because he DID call himself God.

More:

John 12:44-46
And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent Me. And he who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me. I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness."

John 14:6-9
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'?"

Ah, yes, John, the most controversial of the Gospels. The one people like you always cite but refuse to actually listen to.

Again, he clearly says the Father can be seen through him. "no one comes to the Father, but through Me." He says the Father can be seen through him and in him. He says this clearly. He says he is eternal and that he and the Lord are one, but he also says they are not the same in that Father is reached THROUGH him and that he was sent by the Father.

As you said, different sides of the triangle. They may each be part of the same triangle, thus they are one, but they are not the same side or it wouldn't be a triangle, it would be a line. There would be no Trinity.

He doesn't call himself God.

Let's add the context of your quotes -
49"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. 50I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."

52At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. 53Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"

54Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. [b]My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word.[b] 56Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

57"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

He knows him and keeps his word? It doesn't say "I know me and keep my word, but he clearly references the Father as not being him. Repeatedly.

Now, for the good part. Jesus explains his claim. Here:
22Then came the Feast of Dedication[b] at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade. 24The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ,[c] tell us plainly."
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."

31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

34Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'[e]? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? 37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." 39Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

He clearly says that the He and the Father are intrinsicly linked by the fact that the Father sent him to represent the Father. He clearly states that the Father is seen in the works of the Christ and the fact that he is there performing those works. That's not the same as claiming to be God.

Do you have anymore quotes you'll intentionally lose the context to. He was sent by the Father. He never says that he is God. Ever. Next.

Your own analogy fails...

You are thinking like Philip was thinking... There must be more to God, another part, why can't I see the other part?

Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."

If YOU were right, Jesus could have shown him the other side of the triangle, if it wasn’t being shown already. However, in seeing Jesus, you are seeing the entire Triangle in person at once. He had already seen God, and Jesus is frustrated by people like Philip that just don't get it, but keep insisting that there is something “more,” something hidden, to still be seen.

Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'?"

There is nothing else to show you. Jesus is God.

Your own analogy fails...

You are thinking like Philip was thinking... There must be more to God, another part, why can't I see the other part?

Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."

If YOU were right, Jesus could have shown him the other side of the triangle, if it wasn’t being shown already. However, in seeing Jesus, you are seeing the entire Triangle in person at once. He had already seen God, and Jesus is frustrated by people like Philip and that don't get it but keep insisting that there is something “more,” something hidden.

Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'?"

There is nothing else to show you. Jesus is God.


Again, that requires that you ignore the context where Jesus says clearly that the Father is reached THROUGH him and where Jesus says clearly that his works and his existence are all evidence of the Father. He says it plainly and to suggest that they are one in the same is like me saying that Jocabia sent me to make this response and then claiming that I'm not talking about someone else. You are ONCE AGAIN taking the expressed words of Jesus that say clearly the Father sent him and that the Father is reached through him and that he is evidence of the Father and claiming it means entirely the opposite of what it says. He says why would you need proof the Father exists when every miracle I perform and my mere existence proves this for you. He doesn't say this in some obscure way. He says it blatantly.

36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? 37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." 39Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

"I am God's Son?" Not "I am God." "I am evidence of God." Not "I am evidence of myself." "I was sent by God." Not "I was sent by me." "I do miracles in God's name." Not "I do miracles in MY name." Jesus is clear. You just choose to bastardize his words and do so proudly.

Now notice he says almost the exact same thing again in John 14 (again in the context you intentionally left out).

9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

He says he is doing the Lord's work and thus the Lord can be seen in him. It's not an obscure way of say it. It's explicit. He says he is glorifying the Father here and many other times in the scripture and in your own quoted passages he says that he does NOT glorify himself. Jesus draws a line between himself and the father even while he is saying they are one and that he who sees the father sees him. It's a clear line. You simply refuse to see it.

Again, that requires that you ignore the context where Jesus says clearly that the Father is reached THROUGH him and where Jesus says clearly that his works and his existence are all evidence of the Father. He says it plainly and to suggest that they are one in the same is like me saying that Jocabia sent me to make this response and then claiming that I'm not talking about someone else. You are ONCE AGAIN taking the expressed words of Jesus that say clearly the Father sent him and that the Father is reached through him and that he is evidence of the Father and claiming it means entirely the opposite of what it says. He says why would you need proof the Father exists when every miracle I perform and my mere existence proves this for you. He doesn't say this in some obscure way. He says it blatantly.

Kings talk of themselves in the second person all the time. Your analogy fails.

Jesus isn't mad that the guy shouldn't need proof, when Thomas asked for proof Jesus told him to stick his hand in his side and wasn't mad (but he did bless those that don't need proof). Jesus is mad because Philip thinks God is somewhere else when he is standing right in front of him...

Kings talk of themselves in the second person all the time. Your analogy fails.

Jesus isn't mad that the guy shouldn't need proof, when Thomas asked for proof Jesus told him to stick his hand in his side and wasn't mad (but he did bless those that don't need proof). Jesus is mad because Philip thinks God is somewhere else when he is standing right in front of him...

This is just stupid. Here, let's make it more clear since you don't read the context of your own quotes.

John 14
so that the Son may bring glory to the Father.

John 8
50I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge.

54Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word.

If Jesus IS the Father then He is, in fact, seeking glory for Himself.

Meanwhile, he even calls upon the Father at one point to demonstrate His glory.

27"Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28Father, glorify your name!"

Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it again." 29The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.

30Jesus said, "This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." 33He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.

Again, Jesus addresses the Father and it is not him.

EDIT: Come on, this is the part where you erase the context of more quotes to claim he is saying the opposite of what he explicitly says. When Kings speak of themselves in the second person do they answer from the other room as happens here?

And Thomas asked for proof that Jesus was standing before him, not proof of the Father and the miracles. In other scripture when asked to prove he was of God with a Miracle here is what occurred...

1The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven.
2He replied,[a] "When evening comes, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,' 3and in the morning, 'Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. 4A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus then left them and went away.

He called them wicked, not a word that Jesus used for people he didn't have issue with. To suggest Jesus had nothing against the kind of proof Philip asked for is simply ignorance of the text.

In regards to your inability to believe, I'll take another bit of advice I heard once...

If someone is struggling with the idea that Jesus was both God and human, no amount of logic can pummel that person into orthodox faith. This is a job, not for human arguments, though they play a valuable role, but ultimately for the Holy Spirit.
http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/jesusdivineprint.htm#oct1304

Also from there, but something I agree with:
Jesus Spoke with God’s Own Authority
Jesus Forgave Sins as if He Were God
Jesus Assumed the Character of Divine Wisdom
Jesus Claimed Unprecedented Intimacy with God
The Death and Resurrection Showed that Jesus was the Divine Savior

In regards to your inability to believe, I'll take another bit of advice I heard once...

If someone is struggling with the idea that Jesus was both God and human, no amount of logic can pummel that person into orthodox faith. This is a job, not for human arguments, though they play a valuable role, but ultimately for the Holy Spirit.
http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/jesusdivineprint.htm#oct1304

Also from there, but something I agree with:
Jesus Spoke with God’s Own Authority
Jesus Forgave Sins as if He Were God
Jesus Assumed the Character of Divine Wisdom
Jesus Claimed Unprecedented Intimacy with God
The Death and Resurrection Showed that Jesus was the Divine Savior

Again, you make this about me. I'm not struggling, I believe Jesus is God. I believe he WAS human. I believe his humanity was the point. I hold Jesus to be divine and the savior. What I believe is not the point. Much of what I believe is solely based on faith. I'm happy to admit that. Much of what you believe is based solely on faith. You deny this.

You are making arguments about how we define words (your definition of course excludes many in the early Church that even the Nicean Council recognized as Christians). You are making arguments about what the scripture SAYS. That is not about what my faith tells me or yours tells you. Either the definition is what you say or it's not. The dictionary, history and all logic says it's not. Either the Bible says what you claim or it doesn't. Again, history, language and all logic say it doesn't. That's not a question of faith. You try to change the subject to be about me and what a bastard I am once again because you know you lost. I'll admit I'm always impressed by the recognition. It's the only evidence of a commitment to logic one can find in much of what you post. Now if you'd like to scripturally or historically support your arguments instead of falling back on "that Jocabia is just a bad Christian", then perhaps I'll stop laughing.

EDIT: Meanwhile this is the second post where you make no argument whatsoever other than to say that I have lost my faith and that this makes me wrong. There's a reason that's called an ad hominem FALLACY. Do you have an arguments that don't require ad hominem fallacies, true scotsman fallacies or one to ignore the context of your quotes?

If someone is struggling with the idea that Jesus was both God and human, no amount of logic can pummel that person into orthodox faith.

Tee-hee

Tee-hee

Faith doesn't require logic. However when arguing about things that are evidenced like what the Bible says, what the Council did, what early Christians believed, etc., logic must be applied. He has made it clear that when he loses a battle of logic that he's happy to simply just step outside it and accuse a person of having a crisis of faith, when the two are often not related.

...
You are making arguments about how we define words (your definition of course excludes many in the early Church that even the Nicean Council recognized as Christians). You are making arguments about what the scripture SAYS. That is not about what my faith tells me or yours tells you. Either the definition is what you say or it's not. The dictionary, history and all logic says it's not. Either the Bible says what you claim or it doesn't. Again, history, language and all logic say it doesn't. That's not a question of faith. You try to change the subject to be about me and what a bastard I am once again because you know you lost. I'll admit I'm always impressed by the recognition. It's the only evidence of a commitment to logic one can find in much of what you post. Now if you'd like to scripturally or historically support your arguments instead of falling back on "that Jocabia is just a bad Christian", then perhaps I'll stop laughing.

I know it is pointless when you deny actual history in favor of your erroneous misstatements about it, and repeatedly maintain the same lies no matter how many times you are shown that your version is wrong... (like first claiming that the vote was a large minority, then being shown that it was 318 to 3, you then claim that this is somehow insignificant because the first vote was by a wider margin on the fist day (although from all the accounts I’ve read the votes on the first day before debate and discussion it was still less than two dozen votes, your position is weak) ~ or making obscure statements like claiming that the council of Nicea recognized other doctrines somehow enhances your position but you never tell us what you think these other doctrines were with PROOF, but instead only say what you think it was like it’s somehow self evident… All of this in your implication that basic tenants of the Christian faith were forever changed then and there is somehow a more secret truth about Christ than the fact that He is God) …

And your misunderstanding of the scripture to attempt to discredit these things and basic doctrines of Christianity in mass for the last two millennium, is simply the icing on the cake.

Faith doesn't require logic. However when arguing about things that are evidenced like what the Bible says, what the Council did, what early Christians believed, etc., logic must be applied. He has made it clear that when he loses a battle of logic that he's happy to simply just step outside it and accuse a person of having a crisis of faith, when the two are often not related.

You feign injury like a crocodile feigns tears. You do not tell the truth. You accuse me of misquoting history and using bad logic about the council's actions, the whole time that it is you that has made incorrect implications of what the councils findings mean, then when you are called on it you quickly try to act like you meant something else entirely. Like claiming 318-3 is a significant minority/movement.

I know it is pointless when you deny actual history in favor of your erroneous misstatements about it, and repeatedly maintain the same lies no matter how many times you are shown that your version is wrong... (like first claiming that the vote was a large minority, then being shown that it was 318 to 3, you then claim that this is somehow insignificant because the first vote was by a wider margin on the fist day (although from all the accounts I’ve read the votes on the first day before debate and discussion it was still less than two dozen votes, your position is weak) ~ or making obscure statements like claiming that the council of Nicea recognized other doctrines somehow enhances your position but you never tell us what you think these other doctrines were with PROOF, but instead only say what you think it was like it’s somehow self evident… All of this in your implication that basic tenants of the Christian faith were forever changed then and there is somehow a more secret truth about Christ than the fact that He is God) …

And your misunderstanding of the scripture to attempt to discredit these things and basic doctrines of Christianity in mass for the last two millennium, is simply the icing on the cake.

I love when you play these games. The final votes was 315 to 3 (there were 318 members). The first vote by your own admission was nothing like that. It was a sizeable minority that eventually chose to go with the Creed. You know this. You've admitted this, but you choose to skew the facts because you can't be honest and make an argument at the same time. 10% is most certainly a sizeable minority and most agree that it was at least 10% that disagreed with that specific tenet and many that disagreed with other aspects that are not considered to be in hand, like the holidays or the content of the Bible.

I'm not discrediting anything. Again you argue logical fallacies. I'm pointing out that your argument is baseless and that it excludes some accepted early Christians. Your definition is plainly wrong as proven by simply looking at who was invited to the Council among them being people by your own admission who did not believe what you claim is required for Christianity. This is basic logic, my friend.

That doesn't doesn't discredit the Bible. It simply means that Christians should look to all scripture and to their history when analyzing their relationship with the Christ. It doesn't make any of the accepted scripture wrong. The only one saying the Bible is wrong is you. You claimed that saying that Jesus said I was sent ONLY to the Jews was a misinterpretation even though it's a direct quote.

I said the Council recognized other Christians. I said nothing about recognizing other doctrine. Again, you simply lie to try and make your point. Some of those other Christians read and taught other Gospels.

Come on, let's here the next lie.

You feign injury like a crocodile feigns tears. You do not tell the truth. You accuse me of misquoting history and using bad logic about the council's actions, the whole time that it is you that has made incorrect implications of what the councils findings mean, then when you are called on it you quickly try to act like you meant something else entirely. Like claiming 318-3 is a significant minority/movement.

I'm not hurt. I don't care enough about your illogical claims to care.

Incorrect implications? Can you deny if the vote was not unanimous that some of the people recognized by the Council as Christian leaders do not agree with the Creed and certainly didn't when the Council invited them as Christians? This is logic 101. You can't deny that the Council recognized Christians and that those Christians don't agree with you.

...and does not forgive sins. The Bible is a book written by people who wanted others to conform with their views, and is not the word of God. Nature originally guided people, along with a belief in the Rule of Three. Wicca again allows nature to guide. Paganism is not a religion, though some people with certain beliefs claim it to be their religion.

Controversial?

And this is from someone who was not all that long ago confirmed into the Church of England.

Based on stuff on this thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511401 and on trusting my feelings. See http://www.geocities.com/pjcroad/nature (especially the first two paragraphs).

pardon me for jumping in and answering the OP after pages of what I can only describe as nonsense........

it's sad that you are so easily swayed, have you talked to anyone at your "church" about your "feelings"?

...
Come on, let's here the next lie.

The next time you post I'm sure we'll have it.

God forgives sins. Jesus is a spirit that banishes evils spirits.

So who the hell is responsible for giving me my damn pony?!

... You can't deny that the Council recognized Christians and that those Christians don't agree with you.

3 out of 318 don't agree with me. But from what I read, two of them came over a few months later... I don't feel so bad about that.

3 out of 318 don't agree with me. But from what I read, two of them came over a few months later... I don't feel so bad about that.

They were still Christians according to the Council you so revere and, thus, the Council when formed did not agree with your definition of Christianity. No matter how you slice it, Christians existed before the way you now define them and they have a place in history AS Christians. You have not the right nor the ability to take that away from them. Again, logic defies your conclusion.

The next time you post I'm sure we'll have it.

Come on, you're not even going to pretend to be holier than thou this time? I must be breaking you.

Meanwhile, once again you admit the Council recognized people as Christian that you don't recognize. By all logic, that is a redefinition of Christianity, which by fact no one save Christ has the ability or the right to do.

They were still Christians according to the Council you so revere and, thus, the Council when formed did not agree with your definition of Christianity. No matter how you slice it, Christians existed before the way you now define them and they have a place in history AS Christians. You have not the right nor the ability to take that away from them. Again, logic defies your conclusion.

People that don't hold to the tenants of a group are ecommunicated or kicked out of that group and they are not a part of that group. Basic reality reveals the error of your theory.

People that don't hold to the tenants of a group are ecommunicated or kicked out of that group and they are not a part of that group. Basic reality reveals the error of your theory.

Let me see, so according to you the Council NEVER recognized them as Christian? We are talking about a word here. There could be a permenant split, like excommunication, but it doesn't change the fact that they and their beliefs were recognized as Christian until a political Council attempted to change the definition. Christians existed before that definition and they were recognized. There is no changing that. You can't redefine a word after the fact. Language doesn't work that. Belief systems don't even work that way.

You've been defending that the oldest beliefs are more likely true. Obviously the oldest beliefs didn't have these people as not being Christian. Again, you're denying your own arguments.

You can't convene a Council and define a word that already exists and then claim that those that disagree with you have no claim to the word. It simply doesn't work that way.

EDIT: And please, please, open a dictionary. Tenant - http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tenant Tenet - http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tenet I let the first instance pass and a possible typo or mispelling, but you are using the wrong word. Particularly embarrassing when you are claiming to be the authority on definitions in multiple threads.

Let me see, so according to you the Council NEVER recognized them as Christian? We are talking about a word here. There could be a permenant split, like excommunication, but it doesn't change the fact that they and their beliefs were recognized as Christian until a political Council attempted to change the definition. Christians existed before that definition and they were recognized. There is no changing that. You can't redefine a word after the fact. Language doesn't work that. Belief systems don't even work that way.

You've been defending that the oldest beliefs are more likely true. Obviously the oldest beliefs didn't have these people as not being Christian. Again, you're denying your own arguments.

You can't convene a Council and define a word that already exists and then claim that those that disagree with you have no claim to the word. It simply doesn't work that way.

The person that convened the council was called, by YOU, to be a pagan...

Was he a Christian capable of discerning who was and who was not a Christian? Here I'll help, No, he was not.

The council was convened to determine what is true Christianity and what is not. Up until then the Christians in the world were unable to convene any kind of orthodoxy and keep out the bizarre the crazies, seeing as how they were being persecuted from one end of the Roman Empire to the other they had to meet in secret small groups, not large public groups. Now, for the first time in over two hundred years they were able to meet and clean out the weeds from the garden…

Jesus was not wrong, your understanding of the events is wrong.What do mean by "wrong"? No, he wasn't wrong, his attitude was just arrogant and overall unacceptable.

Kings talk of themselves in the second person all the time.Kings call themselves "you" ? :eek:

You'll get no argument from me. I was a little surprised the first time I happened accross the outright racism of the Greek Scripture - it didn't seem to 'fit'. But then - when one really reads the Hebrew scripture, it really isn't so incongruous after all.The very assumption that something like a "chosen people" exists that renders its members in a ..err.. special position before a sole god is as racist as it can get, no matter in what language that concept is expressed. And reading the Bible the racism of those adhering to this concept is unmistakably depicted by the protagonists actions.

The very assumption that something like a "chosen people" exists that renders its members in a ..err.. special position before a sole god is as racist as it can get, no matter in what language that concept is expressed. And reading the Bible the racism of those adhering to this concept is unmistakably depicted by the protagonists actions.

the first commandment doesnt say that there is ONE god. it says that we (ancient hebrews) may not put other gods above jehova.

its fine to have your god prefer your people above others. its flat out weird to have the sole creator of the universe and all life on earth care for no one but a few thousand people living in a tiny part of the planet.

and THEN to take that one god with his strange preferences for someone else as YOUR god....well NOW who has the inferiority complex? im not one of my god's chosen people!

the first commandment doesnt say that there is ONE god. it says that we (ancient hebrews) may not put other gods above jehova.You mean Israelites. The commandments say nothing about Hebrews in general. And don't forget: the commandments that made into the Ark are those of Exodus 34 (starting at 14). Although both sets of commandments don't speak of monotheism, that's what Judaism and thus Christianity and Islam have since adhered to.

its fine to have your god prefer your people above others. its flat out weird to have the sole creator of the universe and all life on earth care for no one but a few thousand people living in a tiny part of the planet.

and THEN to take that one god with his strange preferences for someone else as YOUR god....well NOW who has the inferiority complex? im not one of my god's chosen people!What do you mean by "strange preferences for someone else"? Christianity views itself as legitimate successor and replacement for Judaism.

You mean Israelites. The commandments say nothing about Hebrews in general. And don't forget: the commandments that made into the Ark are those of Exodus 34 (starting at 14). Although both sets of commandments don't speak of monotheism, that's what Judaism and thus Christianity and Islam have since adhered to.


uh

whatever


What do you mean by "strange preferences for someone else"? Christianity views itself as legitimate successor and replacement for Judaism.

christianity can view itself as anything it wants. how many of todays christians are descended from the israelites who are their god's chosen people?

Religon in its purest form really cannot be viewed as bad or good, its the people that believe in it, and interpert what is being taught to further what they want to do in the world and use faith and religion as a backbone to make themselves look good

The person that convened the council was called, by YOU, to be a pagan...

He was a pagan. He continued pagan practices and was not baptized until shortly before his death. Incidently he chose an Arian priest to do the baptism. Interesting choice since according to you the Arians were not Christians.

Was he a Christian capable of discerning who was and who was not a Christian? Here I'll help, No, he was not.

The council was convened to determine what is true Christianity and what is not. Up until then the Christians in the world were unable to convene any kind of orthodoxy and keep out the bizarre the crazies, seeing as how they were being persecuted from one end of the Roman Empire to the other they had to meet in secret small groups, not large public groups. Now, for the first time in over two hundred years they were able to meet and clean out the weeds from the garden…

Hmmm... the weeds from the garden? The weeds planted by Peter? Some of things they 'weeded' out was the diversity sewn by Peter, the practice of circumcision sewn by Peter, the practice of embracing Judaism sewn by Peter. Constantine was a notable hater of Jews. Is it any surprise that a Council convened by him took a tack notably absent of much of direction sewn by both Jesus and Peter toward Judaism. (See the epistle of Constantine if question Constantine's view of Jews)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.iv.viii.i.x.html

You'll also notice that he, who just happened to be a pagan, was directly responsible for turning a pagan ritual into a Christian one without even bothering to change the name. This wonderful Christian who takes responsiblity to for convening the Council and leading it, talks about the chosen people of both God and Jesus as if they are scum and murderers. His antisemitism drips venom. He called the people of our Savior and the chosen people of our Lord sinful, suggests that have no access to what is right despite being the people to whom God delivered the Old Testament.

Constantine also outlawed the practice of converting Christians to Judaism (which did not require them to give up Christianity) and the practice of circumcizing them. Yeah, you'll have to forgive me if I don't base by understanding of the Christ on the efforts of that pagan.

uh

whatever



christianity can view itself as anything it wants. how many of todays christians are descended from the israelites who are their god's chosen people?

I don't know. I am. Does that help? Now just ask every other Christian and you'll have your answer.

What do mean by "wrong"? No, he wasn't wrong, his attitude was just arrogant and overall unacceptable.

Please feel free to let me know exactly when my attitude falls within your standards and when it doesn't. Because I care. Why shouldn't I care what YOU think? There's nothing arrogant about your accusation. Nope, nothing at all. Thanks for contributing.

Jesus was the Son of God, and since that entails that he carries some DNA of God, (I'm going out on a limb I know) then in some way he really is God in human form.
I doubt God has DNA. Jesus does forgive. It's all in the Bible.

Please feel free to let me know exactly when my attitude falls within your standards and when it doesn't. Because I care. Why shouldn't I care what YOU think? There's nothing arrogant about your accusation. Nope, nothing at all. Thanks for contributing.Who was talking about your attitude? I was refering to Yeshua's Jewish attitude to view non-Jews as unworthy of his salvation (or whatever). That's neither wrong nor right, just crappy.

uh
whateverYeah, you're clueless as always.

christianity can view itself as anything it wants. how many of todays christians are descended from the israelites who are their god's chosen people?Christians claim to be the continuation of the chosen people. In Christianity descent is no longer relevant but the belief in Yeshua (although this may be against Yeshua's own teachings).

Who was talking about your attitude? I was refering to Yeshua's Jewish attitude to view non-Jews as unworthy of his salvation (or whatever). That's neither wrong nor right, just crappy.

Oh, the person you were replying to was talking about me.

Yeah, you're clueless as always.

Christians claim to be the continuation of the chosen people. In Christianity descent is no longer relevant but the belief in Yeshua (although this may be against Yeshua's own teachings).

It is and it isn't. Jesus says that he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel, but he also heals the Canaanite woman for having great faith. It seems his message that while He'd come to give his message to the Jews, great faith saves all.

Yeah, you're clueless as always.

Christians claim to be the continuation of the chosen people. In Christianity descent is no longer relevant but the belief in Yeshua (although this may be against Yeshua's own teachings).

i dont understand why you are so hostile to my response to your suggestion that judaism represents a kind of inferiority complex. all i suggested was that christianity does too.

i dont understand why you are so hostile to my response to your suggestion that judaism represents a kind of inferiority complex. all i suggested was that christianity does too.

His problem is that he knows his responses on not really on point so he has to appear provoked. How else will he get a reason to rant?

Oh, the person you were replying to was talking about me.PootWaddle wrote "Jesus was not wrong". That's what I replied to. You are not Jesus, I suppose?

i dont understand why you are so hostile to my response to your suggestion that judaism represents a kind of inferiority complex. all i suggested was that christianity does too.You did? But Christians are not descended from any Israelites. So what did you mean?

You did? But Christians are not descended from any Israelites. So what did you mean?

thats my point. few christians have jewish roots, some do as witnessed by jocabia but most dont.

the god of the israelites has a chosen people. the israelites. so when the non jews of the greek mediterranean took judaism for their own in the form of christianity, they started worshipping a god for whom they are NOT the chosen people. how odd is THAT?

thats my point. few christians have jewish roots, some do as witnessed by jocabia but most dont.

the god of the israelites has a chosen people. the israelites. so when the non jews of the greek mediterranean took judaism for their own in the form of christianity, they started worshipping a god for whom they are NOT the chosen people. how odd is THAT??? they changed judaism, you know. they added jesus. chritianity redefined "chosenness" as belief in jesus as the only intermediary between human and god.
btw there is no god who ever chose israelites for anything. only later jews claimed it was so.

PootWaddle wrote "Jesus was not wrong". That's what I replied to. You are not Jesus, I suppose?

Except Jesus was not the subject of the post. I was. That's the point. If you are going to use a pronoun, and it's not referring to the subject of the post, then you should clarify that use. You didn't. It's a pretty basic communication requirement. Next time, perhaps.

?? they changed judaism, you know. they added jesus. chritianity redefined "chosenness" as belief in jesus as the only intermediary between human and god.
btw there is no god who ever chose israelites for anything. only later jews claimed it was so.

Christians still believe the Israelites are the chosen people. The religion is an offshoot of judaism. You can try and ignore that connection, but ignoring only leads to ignorance. She is trying not to ignore that connection and you are trying to change what she says and then complaining about what she didn't say. It's called strawman. It's a fallacy. And it's not accomplishing anything except a higher post count for both of you.

Jesus is God. No one is good but God, why do you call me good? Ergo; You call me good because I am God...


Wow - that is so not what he said...

I'm beginning to understand why this whole thing gives you trouble... you extrapolate weird things out of even the most basic sentences.

Wow - that is so not what he said...

I'm beginning to understand why this whole thing gives you trouble... you extrapolate weird things out of even the most basic sentences.

The problem is that he started with conclusion in hand, much like every other quote he uses. It's a logical mistake.

PW logic:
Given: Jesus is God

Proof of this - Since Jesus is the Father, all those times he mentions the Father in the third person he must be referring to himself in the third person. When Jesus says to only call God good, he must have been talking about himself since Jesus is God. Even when God speaks when Jesus asks him to and a voice comes from the heavens while Jesus is standing right before men, it is really Jesus, since, of course, Jesus is God.

Conclusion: Jesus is God.

Clearly, you're seeing logical flaws where there are none, Gravy. There's nothing wrong with circular logic as long as you forget how logic works.

The people actually listening and talking to Jesus sure seem to think Jesus called himself God, even when they didn't agree with him…

John 8:57-59
The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple.


Which some sects interpret as Jesus admitting to being one of the angels (favourite seems to be Michael).

Certainly - this suggests prior incarnation - but that is not the same as being 'god'.


John 10:30-33
"I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

Straight up, no cotroversy about what he said. What misunderstanding will you place on that I wonder... You are mistaken yet again. They didn't want to stone him because he didn't call himself God, the wanted to stone him because he DID call himself God.

More:


Actually - again, not all Christian movements read this the same way. Some say the spirit is 'indwelling' Jesus, and that is what this means. Some say this is a unification of purpose. Kind of 'we are of like mind'.

So - there is controversy, whether you are aware of it or not.

Personally - since Jesus and 'God' are being described as separate entities here, (especially since he keeps talking about 'my father' - which is a clear example of two separate forms), I see the logical interpretation as being something about unity of principle, rather than a literal shared identity.


John 12:44-46
And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent Me. And he who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me. I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness."


Wow - I'd say this was pretty obvious.... again, Jesus separates himself from God, and yet you somehow read it in backwards language.

'This isn't my message', he's saying... I'm just bringing it. I represent another agency.


John 14:6-9
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'?"

Well, that isn't the translation I favour - but, again - even this translation can clearly be argued as Jesus saying that God is the MESSAGE, not the messenger.

Kings talk of themselves in the second person all the time. Your analogy fails.


Curious... do they?

Or - are you thinking of The Rock?

(I appreciate some people find it hard to differentiate between televised wrestling programming and 'real life').

...and does not forgive sins. The Bible is a book written by people who wanted others to conform with their views, and is not the word of God. Nature originally guided people, along with a belief in the Rule of Three. Wicca again allows nature to guide. Paganism is not a religion, though some people with certain beliefs claim it to be their religion.

Controversial?

And this is from someone who was not all that long ago confirmed into the Church of England.

Based on stuff on this thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511401 and on trusting my feelings. See http://www.geocities.com/pjcroad/nature (especially the first two paragraphs).
I've been away for a few days. Can anyone explain how we got 26 pages out of this OP? Multi, what are you talking about? Are you for or against religion/Christianity/what? And what do you mean "paganism is not a religion"? Of course it's a religion, or rather a kind of religion. It's a label indicating a whole bunch of different religions.

You feign injury like a crocodile feigns tears. You do not tell the truth. You accuse me of misquoting history and using bad logic about the council's actions, the whole time that it is you that has made incorrect implications of what the councils findings mean, then when you are called on it you quickly try to act like you meant something else entirely. Like claiming 318-3 is a significant minority/movement.

I wonder why three people completely refusing to agree, is NOT significant to you?

Many more caved in under pressure... that doesn't mean there was no conflict of interests - quite the opposite. It just means, when the chips were down (and lives were literally on the line), a number of people were willing to represent something other than their own personal convictions.

Add to that, the mechanism of the situation - where a pretty select crowd were invited in the first place - and it should be an easily perceptible suggestion that unity was very much NOT what was present at the time.

Indeed - if everything were as unified as you like to suggest - the whole thing would have been unnecessary.

3 out of 318 don't agree with me. But from what I read, two of them came over a few months later... I don't feel so bad about that.

So - if an opinion is faked, bullied, or simply lied about... you are willing to accept that as some sort of justification?

Curious... do they?

Or - are you thinking of The Rock?

(I appreciate some people find it hard to differentiate between televised wrestling programming and 'real life').

I think he's thinking of the "royal 'we'" -- second person plural, in that the king represents the state and when he talks, it's the people talking. Or something like that. Kings actually don't do that anymore, but corporations sometimes do when issuing statements that the whole board of directors is taking no-personal-responsibility for. I hear it referred to as the "corporate 'we'".

christianity can view itself as anything it wants. how many of todays christians are descended from the israelites who are their god's chosen people?

Indeed. And, to be serious - how do 'God's chosen people' feel about this claim of being the spiritual successor to Israel?

If the scripture is to be believed, even when they have been in the wrong, Israel has been protected and favoured, and has been consistently TOLD what their position is on the world stage.

If 'Israel' doesn't say that Israel has been forsaken, then Israel hasn't been forsaken.

So - if an opinion is faked, bullied, or simply lied about... you are willing to accept that as some sort of justification?
At the risk of drawing blame for critiquing PW's argument without addressing it (because you and Jocabia already have), I read this as being simply a dismissal of disagreement/disproof as being unimportant. Notice how he trivializes the disagreement for being the minority, and then makes some breezy and unsupported claim that they "came over" later. It's a "feh, whatever" argument, but it doesn't hold water from what I've read so far.

Yeah, you're clueless as always.

Christians claim to be the continuation of the chosen people. In Christianity descent is no longer relevant but the belief in Yeshua (although this may be against Yeshua's own teachings).

But, the point bneing made was, it doesn't matetr what Christianity claims. That doesn't make it so.

If I go into your bank, and tell them I am your 'successor', and to give me all your money, your bank will probably look at me with at least a little suspicion - and will, quite rightly, tell me that MY opinion on my being your successor is irrelevent.

That's the point that was being made - the opinion of God might be important. The opinion of Israel might be important. But, what Christianity says about itself? Makes not a jot of difference to their claims of succession.

The problem is that he started with conclusion in hand, much like every other quote he uses. It's a logical mistake.

PW logic:
Given: Jesus is God

Proof of this - Since Jesus is the Father, all those times he mentions the Father in the third person he must be referring to himself in the third person. When Jesus says to only call God good, he must have been talking about himself since Jesus is God. Even when God speaks when Jesus asks him to and a voice comes from the heavens while Jesus is standing right before men, it is really Jesus, since, of course, Jesus is God.

Conclusion: Jesus is God.

Clearly, you're seeing logical flaws where there are none, Gravy. There's nothing wrong with circular logic as long as you forget how logic works.

Yes... this is the kind of circular logic that shoots me in the brain.

The bible is the word of god. It is so, because it says so IN the bible. How do we know that claim is valid? Because the bible is the word of god...

The problem with a "chosen people" is that every god's people are chosen by that god -- according to the people. This is consistent among virtually every organized religion, including the home town sects of the pagan gods -- the Athenians were the chosen favorites of Athena because they were from her city, for instance.

But every time a religion spreads from its place of origin, it requires a redefinition of what "chosen" means. It goes from being the people served by the god (created, protected, guided, etc) to being the favorite servants of the god (among all his/her other, newer servants).

Which some sects interpret as Jesus admitting to being one of the angels (favourite seems to be Michael).

Certainly - this suggests prior incarnation - but that is not the same as being 'god'.



Actually - again, not all Christian movements read this the same way. Some say the spirit is 'indwelling' Jesus, and that is what this means. Some say this is a unification of purpose. Kind of 'we are of like mind'.

So - there is controversy, whether you are aware of it or not.

Personally - since Jesus and 'God' are being described as separate entities here, (especially since he keeps talking about 'my father' - which is a clear example of two separate forms), I see the logical interpretation as being something about unity of principle, rather than a literal shared identity.



Wow - I'd say this was pretty obvious.... again, Jesus separates himself from God, and yet you somehow read it in backwards language.

'This isn't my message', he's saying... I'm just bringing it. I represent another agency.



Well, that isn't the translation I favour - but, again - even this translation can clearly be argued as Jesus saying that God is the MESSAGE, not the messenger.

Well, it's pretty clear language really, again, unless you start with conclusion in hand. If almost every reference I make to someone is in the third person save one, then I am most likely speaking metaphorically the one time I'm not. Now, this would be the obvious conclusion if PW was reading a book about a boss of a factory and the owner.

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."

He says clearly, the Father has given Jesus this authority and this power and for that reason He and the Father are one. That in no way is the same as saying, "I am God." Not even close. The only way to reach that conclusion is to start with it.

I answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. Everything I do with the authority of the owner speaks for me. But you do not believe. My employees listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them a job, and they will never be terminated; no one can take them from this factory. The owner has given them to me, and his authority is the greatest authority here, no one can take them from his factory. I and the owner are one.

Yes, I'm sure if someone read that they would conclude I was suggesting that I am the owner.

I think he's thinking of the "royal 'we'" -- second person plural, in that the king represents the state and when he talks, it's the people talking. Or something like that. Kings actually don't do that anymore, but corporations sometimes do when issuing statements that the whole board of directors is taking no-personal-responsibility for. I hear it referred to as the "corporate 'we'".

I've encountered it with the Queen of England, I think. She still uses the 'royal we'. But, as you say - this 'we' is not the person referring to him/her self... it is a reference to a throne and all that goes with it, or a government, and all that goes with that.

I don't imagine the Queen nipping off to the loo, saying 'we are going to take a dump'... it's a 'speaking from the throne' voice thing.

At the risk of drawing blame for critiquing PW's argument without addressing it (because you and Jocabia already have), I read this as being simply a dismissal of disagreement/disproof as being unimportant. Notice how he trivializes the disagreement for being the minority, and then makes some breezy and unsupported claim that they "came over" later. It's a "feh, whatever" argument, but it doesn't hold water from what I've read so far.

No - exactly. That's the problem. There clearly WAS disagreement. That's what the whole thing was 'for'.

To attempt to pretend it was some kumbya-love-in-circle-jerk is to trivialise the whole thing, and to ignore the first few hundred years of mainstream Christianity... and a lot of what has gone by since, as well.

Edit: In the interests of full disclosure, I have to point out that Jocabia pretty much fielded this one himself, and I've just been walking aroud 'kicking the corpses'. Kudos need to go to Jocabia for this one, and for standing up to Poot's bullying to defend his position.

Seriously - how low does it have to get when your argument becomes 'Well, you're not a real Christian, anyway'.

I've encountered it with the Queen of England, I think. She still uses the 'royal we'. But, as you say - this 'we' is not the person referring to him/her self... it is a reference to a throne and all that goes with it, or a government, and all that goes with that.

I don't imagine the Queen nipping off to the loo, saying 'we are going to take a dump'... it's a 'speaking from the throne' voice thing.
I don't know -- sometimes, the way British politics go, she could very well say that. And she would be speaking "from the throne," wouldn't she? (sorry) :D

I don't know -- sometimes, the way British politics go, she could very well say that. And she would be speaking "from the throne," wouldn't she? (sorry) :D

I could see that one coming, even as I hit the 'send' button... :o

It certainly wouldn't be too far off the historical pattern for British monarchs.

No - exactly. That's the problem. There clearly WAS disagreement. That's what the whole thing was 'for'.

To attempt to pretend it was some kumbya-love-in-circle-jerk is to trivialise the whole thing, and to ignore the first few hundred years of mainstream Christianity... and a lot of what has gone by since, as well.
Is he really claiming total unity? Truthfully? I think it's more of a trick of trying to cut dissidents out of the group and then claim unity by excision, in a way. "Everyone says XYZ." "These people don't." "Those people aren't part of 'everyone.'" It doesn't work because he doesn't have the authority to define who gets to be in the group called "Christian," and the people who do have that authority do allow those dissidents to be included.

I could see that one coming, even as I hit the 'send' button... :o

It certainly wouldn't be too far off the historical pattern for British monarchs.

If you lay up a cheap shot or joke, you can always count on me to take it. :)

Is he really claiming total unity? Truthfully? I think it's more of a trick of trying to cut dissidents out of the group and then claim unity by excision, in a way. "Everyone says XYZ." "These people don't." "Those people aren't part of 'everyone.'" It doesn't work because he doesn't have the authority to define who gets to be in the group called "Christian," and the people who do have that authority do allow those dissidents to be included.

He seems to be accusing Jocabia of some kind of academic dishonesty for implying that Constantine might have been more than a facilitator handing around milk-and-cookies at a party where everyone already agreed on one solid version of what Christianity was always about.

It's depressing. A lot of scholars think that the scripture was co-opted twice, once by Paul, and then again by Constantine. Each took the main thrust of the religious movement, and directed it where they thought it should go. Each displayed a singular indifference to what was being touted as the 'message'.

It is curious that this post-Pauline, post-Constantine version of the message is the most popular.

Or maybe - since both are about people, and about power... it isn't surprising at all. Just sad. And inconsistent with the original spirit of the thing.

If you lay up a cheap shot or joke, you can always count on me to take it. :)

If i wasn't being such a good boy, I could totally make a euphmistic riposte to the 'count on me to take it' part. :o

He seems to be accusing Jocabia of some kind of academic dishonesty for implying that Constantine might have been more than a facilitator handing around milk-and-cookies at a party where everyone already agreed on one solid version of what Christianity was always about.

It's depressing. A lot of scholars think that the scripture was co-opted twice, once by Paul, and then again by Constantine. Each took the main thrust of the religious movement, and directed it where they thought it should go. Each displayed a singular indifference to what was being touted as the 'message'.

It is curious that this post-Pauline, post-Constantine version of the message is the most popular.

Or maybe - since both are about people, and about power... it isn't surprising at all. Just sad. And inconsistent with the original spirit of the thing.
Yeah, whatever, humanity sucks. Wadda ya gonna do?

But in that sense, I suppose we could say that PW's approach is the traditional one of making the religion and its history be whatever you want it to be for your own purposes at any given time. Paul did it to serve his ends. Constantine did it to serve his ends. And PW is trying to do it here to serve the ends of his argument. Too bad he's not as "persuasive" as a Paul or a Constantine.

If i wasn't being such a good boy, I could totally make a euphmistic riposte to the 'count on me to take it' part. :o
OH, THAT'S SO INAPPROPRIATE! :D

I was going to bow before the master of cheap shots, but then I realized that might be a mistake.

Yeah, whatever, humanity sucks. Wadda ya gonna do?

But in that sense, I suppose we could say that PW's approach is the traditional one of making the religion and its history be whatever you want it to be for your own purposes at any given time. Paul did it to serve his ends. Constantine did it to serve his ends. And PW is trying to do it here to serve the ends of his argument. Too bad he's not as "persuasive" as a Paul or a Constantine.

Humanity doesn't intrinsically suck, though. That's the sad part. We are quite a pleasant creature, on paper. It's just this constant need to find someone to obey, and someone else to kill, that makes us collectively so un-fun.

I'm certainly not accusing Poot of some new sin... revisionist history is as old as history. But, I'll oppose his attempts to propose opinion as fact, because I'm just like that. :)

As you say - it's not even out-of-character in this ballpark, he's just not as successful as some of the previous hijackers.

OH, THAT'S SO INAPPROPRIATE! :D

I was going to bow before the master of cheap shots, but then I realized that might be a mistake.

Again, I am with-holding the immediate response to make comments about how it would only be a mistake if you were facing the wrong way when you did so.

Mainly because I couldn't thing of a way for you to face that would be 'wrong'... except in a good way.

[/ sexual harassment]

Humanity doesn't intrinsically suck, though. That's the sad part. We are quite a pleasant creature, on paper. It's just this constant need to find someone to obey, and someone else to kill, that makes us collectively so un-fun.

I'm certainly not accusing Poot of some new sin... revisionist history is as old as history. But, I'll oppose his attempts to propose opinion as fact, because I'm just like that. :)

As you say - it's not even out-of-character in this ballpark, he's just not as successful as some of the previous hijackers.
When it comes to the inherent nature of humanity, my favorite quote is from a newspaper editor whose name I've forgotten: "Life is a damned, dirty, treacherous game, and 999 men out of a 1000 are bastards." But that's just because I'm a cynic (it's my hobby). But on the rest, I agree completely. The same tricks get pulled over and over, and we step up to expose and oppose them over and over, tirelessly. It's called "the good fight."

Again, I am with-holding the immediate response to make comments about how it would only be a mistake if you were facing the wrong way when you did so.

Mainly because I couldn't thing of a way for you to face that would be 'wrong'... except in a good way.

[/ sexual harassment]
Just a tiny tad. You change your baby's diapers with those hands, after typing such stuff? :D

When it comes to the inherent nature of humanity, my favorite quote is from a newspaper editor whose name I've forgotten: "Life is a damned, dirty, treacherous game, and 999 men out of a 1000 are bastards." But that's just because I'm a cynic (it's my hobby). But on the rest, I agree completely. The same tricks get pulled over and over, and we step up to expose and oppose them over and over, tirelessly. It's called "the good fight."

I'm a cynic, too... but a little less than I was, for which I thank our mutual friend Jocabia - he's given me a more forgiving vision of our universal brethren and sistren. Yeah, for the most part, we are either predators striking out, or prey sacrificing the weaker herdmates... but we have our redemption too... like poetry, or art.

At this point in the game, I'm finding a few small reasons to consider the species worthwhile... maybe even suggestions we might one day make a positive impact, on aggregate.

Meanwhile, like you say, fight the good fight. :)

Just a tiny tad. You change your baby's diapers with those hands, after typing such stuff? :D

Not immediately...

Make of that what you will. :o

I'm a cynic, too... but a little less than I was, for which I thank our mutual friend Jocabia - he's given me a more forgiving vision of our universal brethren and sistren. Yeah, for the most part, we are either predators striking out, or prey sacrificing the weaker herdmates... but we have our redemption too... like poetry, or art.

At this point in the game, I'm finding a few small reasons to consider the species worthwhile... maybe even suggestions we might one day make a positive impact, on aggregate.

Meanwhile, like you say, fight the good fight. :)
Considering the billions of people in the world, 1 out of 1000 still makes a heck of a lot of decent human beings of good character. That's what makes the fight good and worth keeping up -- we're not as alone as we might sometimes feel. Not just a "voice crying in the wilderness."

Not immediately...

Make of that what you will. :o

And then this happens. So much for humanity. :p

Yet, strangely, you fail to put me off my feed. My stomach just growled so loud, I'm going to go cook something right now. Make of that what you will. :D

Man, I missed this place.

He seems to be accusing Jocabia of some kind of academic dishonesty for implying that Constantine might have been more than a facilitator handing around milk-and-cookies at a party where everyone already agreed on one solid version of what Christianity was always about.

It's depressing. A lot of scholars think that the scripture was co-opted twice, once by Paul, and then again by Constantine. Each took the main thrust of the religious movement, and directed it where they thought it should go. Each displayed a singular indifference to what was being touted as the 'message'.

It is curious that this post-Pauline, post-Constantine version of the message is the most popular.

Or maybe - since both are about people, and about power... it isn't surprising at all. Just sad. And inconsistent with the original spirit of the thing.

When analyzing history one has to look at what makes sense. Is it coincidence that a pagan despot called together the council and it just happened to move the 'holy' days away from Jewish holy days, a people he goes into a venomous tirade about in his notification of bishops after the Council, and directly onto pagan holy days even coopting aspects of those pagan festivals? Is it a coincidence that a council called upon to create orthodoxy in a religion centered around a savior chose texts that support such orthodoxy, like the Pauline scriptures? Is it a coincidence that a council called by a man who was actively antisemetic decided that anything linking Christianity back to Judaism was heresy? Are all these coincidences? Or is the more likely and elegant explanation that the person who called the council got exactly what he was looking for, support for things he already practiced?

And the amazing part is that this group took a passage to mean that Peter was infallible and all popes that followed him, as well (instead of the church he founded simply being the holder of the teachings of Jesus as Jesus pretty clearly said), but also openly and clearly says that Peter had to be corrected because he originally upheld the principle of Jesus in requiring Christians to first be Jewish. How can an infallible man have a need to be corrected? Hmmmm... does the entire Catholic Church not know what infallible means, or is it possible that this is just another in a sequence of errors that have occurred when people allowed Christianity to be hijacked away from the Christianity taught by Peter?

And before our friend, PW, comes around and makes up what this means, this is not about scripture or about Jesus or God, but the actions of people, political figures, men.

I'm a cynic, too... but a little less than I was, for which I thank our mutual friend Jocabia - he's given me a more forgiving vision of our universal brethren and sistren.

Wow, thanks. Let's be clear, I'm a penis when it comes to debating.

However, when it comes to religion, I don't pretend as if I have a handle on the truth. I, nor any man, should be looked at as a source of Truth.

This debate isn't about what to believe, it's about what happened, what the scripture actually says. It's not about faith or opinion; it's about logic and history. That has nothing in my opinion to do with what we are to believe other than as a starting point. For each of us, our beliefs must be solidified not by men, whoever they may be, but by looking at the message offered to us by God. There is a place where that message exists uncorrupted and it is there that we must measure our faith. We can use the evidence found in the world to analyze what we find in our faith, but in the end we must accept that only God can give us true direction. Not Paul. Not Constantine. Not the Pope.

Anything placed in the hands of men bears their fingerprints. My heart is and always has been in the hands of God. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

Considering the billions of people in the world, 1 out of 1000 still makes a heck of a lot of decent human beings of good character. That's what makes the fight good and worth keeping up -- we're not as alone as we might sometimes feel. Not just a "voice crying in the wilderness."

The worrying thing is, I'm way over my odds... I know quite a few human beings that seem to fit the decent category, and it's certainly more than 1 for every thousand I know. Which means there must be peopkle out there who only know utter bastards. :(

And then this happens. So much for humanity. :p

Yet, strangely, you fail to put me off my feed. My stomach just growled so loud, I'm going to go cook something right now. Make of that what you will. :D

Man, I missed this place.

Hey... crassness, debased sense of humour, impropriety and sexual innuendo... this is the best part of humanity. :)

Welcome back, Muravyets, you have been missed. :)

The worrying thing is, I'm way over my odds... I know quite a few human beings that seem to fit the decent category, and it's certainly more than 1 for every thousand I know. Which means there must be peopkle out there who only know utter bastards. :(

Yeah, ditto. Although, I think that travelling around NS has helped even me out a bit. I've never seen so many fundamentalists (and I mean that in every way, Atheist, Christian, Racist, Eurocentric, Democrat, Republican, etc.) as I've met on here. And my general view of extremists of all stripes is that they're part of the 999.

?? they changed judaism, you know. they added jesus. chritianity redefined "chosenness" as belief in jesus as the only intermediary between human and god.
btw there is no god who ever chose israelites for anything. only later jews claimed it was so.

im not a biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination but i did spend my fair share of time in church.

it was all the way back in genesis when god made abraham and his decendants his chosen people. sure it wasnt long before the boys got into trouble and ended up in slavery in egypt. remember that moses thing where god killed every freaking firstborn son of egypt to get them to let the jews go?

the entirety of the old testament is about god and his relationship to his people. there are no stories about god going to the chinese to get them to follow the 10 commandments. he never showed up in ancient america to tell the olmecs to shape up. god only ever spoke to the jews. no one else. when other people were inconveniently placed he authorized his people to slaughter them to the last man.

the god of the old testament had only one chosen people and he was very specific about who they were. christians can yell "me too me too" all they want but they are not god's chosen people. their god prefers someone else. they dont have a problem with that but i find it very odd.

im not a biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination but i did spend my fair share of time in church.

it was all the way back in genesis when god made abraham and his decendants his chosen people. sure it wasnt long before the boys got into trouble and ended up in slavery in egypt. remember that moses thing where god killed every freaking firstborn son of egypt to get them to let the jews go?

the entirety of the old testament is about god and his relationship to his people. there are no stories about god going to the chinese to get them to follow the 10 commandments. he never showed up in ancient america to tell the olmecs to shape up. god only ever spoke to the jews. no one else. when other people were inconveniently placed he authorized his people to slaughter them to the last man.

the god of the old testament had only one chosen people and he was very specific about who they were. christians can yell "me too me too" all they want but they are not god's chosen people. their god prefers someone else. they dont have a problem with that but i find it very odd.

Kind of a reversal of 'better to reign in hell' mentality, maybe? Like - begging to be let in, even to be the whipping boy?

It dos come across as wishful thinking, though... They liked the story of Israel and it's God, and they wanted in - so the story gets rewritten to 'allow' them a way?

Oh, here's one.

33At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

I guess what he meant was "Me, me, why have I forsaken myself?"

41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,

42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.

"Me, please make me not have to be the Savior." Yeah, that makes sense.

And then an angel comes down and strengthens.... God?

There is much evidence that Jesus was man and certainly not the Father when he was incarnate.

Meanwhile, suggesting Jesus was the Father violates the trinity, where the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are all parts of God but are seperate from each other.

Oh, here's one.

33At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

I guess what he meant was "Me, me, why have I forsaken myself?"

41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,

42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.

"Me, please make me not have to be the Savior." Yeah, that makes sense.

And then an angel comes down and strengthens.... God?

There is much evidence that Jesus was man and certainly not the Father when he was incarnate.

Meanwhile, suggesting Jesus was the Father violates the trinity, where the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are all parts of God but are seperate from each other.

Similalry - we have God sitting there saying something along the lines of... "this is my... me... in whom I am well pleased"....

Kind of a reversal of 'better to reign in hell' mentality, maybe? Like - begging to be let in, even to be the whipping boy?

It dos come across as wishful thinking, though... They liked the story of Israel and it's God, and they wanted in - so the story gets rewritten to 'allow' them a way?

since it all started at a time when borrowing from other religions was seen as fair play i know ive over stated it. dramatic effect because beleriand was annoying me

i assume that they went for judaism because the theology is vastly superior to the hodgepodge approach of polytheism. but then they couldnt deal with the practical details of judaism--circumcision, dietary laws-- plus its hard to give up all the aspects of polytheism so you get the trinity and the saints, and there was that whole very cool spirit son of god thing making the rounds.....

im not a biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination but i did spend my fair share of time in church.

it was all the way back in genesis when god made abraham and his decendants his chosen people. sure it wasnt long before the boys got into trouble and ended up in slavery in egypt. remember that moses thing where god killed every freaking firstborn son of egypt to get them to let the jews go?

the entirety of the old testament is about god and his relationship to his people. there are no stories about god going to the chinese to get them to follow the 10 commandments. he never showed up in ancient america to tell the olmecs to shape up. god only ever spoke to the jews. no one else. when other people were inconveniently placed he authorized his people to slaughter them to the last man.

the god of the old testament had only one chosen people and he was very specific about who they were. christians can yell "me too me too" all they want but they are not god's chosen people. their god prefers someone else. they dont have a problem with that but i find it very odd.

Well, the truth is that Jesus makes it clear that a woman with appropriate faith who is a 'dog' has access to Jesus' gifts. There is no reason why faith cannot save, but it's certain that Jesus was sent to God's chosen people.

since it all started at a time when borrowing from other religions was seen as fair play i know ive over stated it. dramatic effect because beleriand was annoying me

i assume that they went for judaism because the theology is vastly superior to the hodgepodge approach of polytheism. but then they couldnt deal with the practical details of judaism--circumcision, dietary laws-- plus its hard to give up all the aspects of polytheism so you get the trinity and the saints, and there was that whole very cool spirit son of god thing making the rounds.....

Oh, indeed - there isn't much that is 'new' in the New Testament. The 'messiah' idea had been around for a while, in various forms. The 'sons of god' were fairly standard material. Resurrection wasn't that uncommon. Even little details - the apostles, the specifics of some of the ministry - are often very similar to other local colour.

Well, the truth is that Jesus makes it clear that a woman with appropriate faith who is a 'dog' has access to Jesus' gifts. There is no reason why faith cannot save, but it's certain that Jesus was sent to God's chosen people.

He was 'here' for one group, but he wasn't averse to handing out the presents to those who really looked up for it. So to speak.

since it all started at a time when borrowing from other religions was seen as fair play i know ive over stated it. dramatic effect because beleriand was annoying me

i assume that they went for judaism because the theology is vastly superior to the hodgepodge approach of polytheism. but then they couldnt deal with the practical details of judaism--circumcision, dietary laws-- plus its hard to give up all the aspects of polytheism so you get the trinity and the saints, and there was that whole very cool spirit son of god thing making the rounds.....

Well, in all fairness, it is clear that the earliest Christians defended circumcision and other Jewish practices and expected people to first convert to Judaism. And the Saints and even the trinity did not necessarily exist among those that defended conversion to Judaism first.

He was 'here' for one group, but he wasn't averse to handing out the presents to those who really looked up for it. So to speak.

Congrats on toning that down, I know that was difficult for you.

Well, the truth is that Jesus makes it clear that a woman with appropriate faith who is a 'dog' has access to Jesus' gifts. There is no reason why faith cannot save, but it's certain that Jesus was sent to God's chosen people.

that is the basis of christianity.

it just seems to me that if you open the system up to non-jews (as any loving monotheistic god would) you have to open it up to all people everywhere.

if there is only one god then isnt the worship of ANY loving god worshipping that god?

that is the basis of christianity.

it just seems to me that if you open the system up to non-jews (as any loving monotheistic god would) you have to open it up to all people everywhere.

if there is only one god then isnt the worship of ANY loving god worshipping that god?

Logically, one would assume that all loving aspects of god(s) refer to one god or one collection of gods.

Sadly, 'logic' doesn't spend much time in most religious circles.

Lov is well and good, but not nearly as much fun as quibbling the precise spelling of the name of god. And then killing anyone that spells it differently.

Well, in all fairness, it is clear that the earliest Christians defended circumcision and other Jewish practices and expected people to first convert to Judaism. And the Saints and even the trinity did not necessarily exist among those that defended conversion to Judaism first.

there were quite a few christian and messiah/spirit son of god groups in the hellenistic mediterranean world. they had lots of ideas and lots of approaches to the divine. some of them were jewish, most probably werent.

the saints and the trinity surely were late additions to the christian stew. over the course of 100 years of thinking, talking and sharing they decided on the base idea and story. i would think that the great success in the nonjewish population was the impetus for dropping any requirement for being jewish--its just too tough and it a barrier to evangelism.

with the idea of christ being rejected by the jewish population for the most part, it had to be OK to bring in those who were not part of god's "chosen people" if the new religion was going to make it in the fiercely competitive hellenic theology world.

i guess we'll find out later if it was OK with god or not.

there were quite a few christian and messiah/spirit son of god groups in the hellenistic mediterranean world. they had lots of ideas and lots of approaches to the divine. some of them were jewish, most probably werent.

the saints and the trinity surely were late additions to the christian stew. over the course of 100 years of thinking, talking and sharing they decided on the base idea and story. i would think that the great success in the nonjewish population was the impetus for dropping any requirement for being jewish--its just too tough and it a barrier to evangelism.

with the idea of christ being rejected by the jewish population for the most part, it had to be OK to bring in those who were not part of god's "chosen people" if the new religion was going to make it in the fiercely competitive hellenic theology world.

i guess we'll find out later if it was OK with god or not.

I don't think it's really a qeustion. The 'new' religion preaches faith. Christ showed that faith was a bridge for non-Jews. The part I think may not be okay is the vast number of anti-semitic Christians who seem to forget that Jesus would not approve.

The problem I have is that Christ made it clear that he wasn't preaching with popularity in mind and then a competitive church basically tossing that out the window and just changes whatever it feels like in order to compete.