Jesus Christ

[AE14]

So he decided where he would be born and whom he would be a descendant of? Do you realize how many prophesies there were regarding his ancestry, birth, ministry, death burial and resurrection? If you did, I don't think you would really pose that argument.

Besides, what would one have to gain even if this ruse was possible? No wealth, no women, torture and finally crucification.

And what of His followers who Proclaimed to be eye witnesses of the resurrected Christ? What did they have to gain for lying? Every one of his disciples were martyred. A man might die for something he believes to be true but certainly not for something he knows to be a lie.

firstly I think you need to understand that there is a lot to gain. Look at his legacy after death and those of his direct followers. I mean lets be serious

Also, you need to understand the importance of pagan beliefs here. There are many ties from the origins of christianity (son of god and virgin birth) in other beliefs. It just makes you wonder

 

[Fujitsu]

Believers, on the other hand, mistakingly take the bible for a pretext which is without historicity, which is simply not the case.

There are plenty of believers that fall outside of this generalization.

Firstly, the bible has contradictions, both intra- and inter-'canonly'. Whether they are of any significance is a personal distinction I am not qualified to make for anybody, but they are there.

Bahhh. These "contradictions" are mostly perspective and interpretation. I think it would be more appropriate to say "the Bible appears to have contradictions..."

Secondly, the bible, despite its religious importance, is a historical text. This means that this book was written by real people, at a concrete place and time, with its own political, social, and economic agenda, which not more than likely, but most definitely, affected which canons became apocrypha.

Well said.

Thirdly, the Judaic intention of the Torah, was not to create a book which would be later used in conjunction with any religious text, let alone form the basis of a new religion. This is an accepted historic 'fact' (fact in quotations, because any aspect of knowledge which presents itself as 'fact' as it pertains to the operations of individuals is a load of bull****) by historians and theologians alike. Once again, whether an individual of faith chooses to accept this or not is of little importance to me.

Generally and as I am sure you know, Believers accept the Bible as the inspired word of God. As a Believer, the Judaic intention of the Torah, though a ‘fact’ you say, is irrelevant compared to God’s intention.

In my eyes, accepting the fact the bible is a historical document affected by historical factors does not diminish the veracity of your faith.

Could not agree more…

 

[Mulletsoldier]

There are plenty of believers that fall outside of this generalization.

True, however, I think it not a stretch to subsume most under that authority. When the predominant vestige of Christianity falls under the moniker of 'papal authority', I do not feel it was an overstatement. I am not generalizing all Christian action upon Catholic lines, but, in my experience, the majority of believers believe in the universality of the bible

Bahhh. These "contradictions" are mostly perspective and interpretation. I think it would be more appropriate to say "the Bible appears to have contradictions..."

I take it you have some theological interest, and as such I do not feel I have to spell out the more real than perceived contradictions of the bible. A tangible disjunction, in my opinion, exists inter- and intra-canonly, in both New and Old Testament apocrypha. The contradictions are there, in plain English (ironic, as they would have been in plain Greek, Hebrew, Latin, etc., ).

Generally and as I am sure you know, Believers accept the Bible as the inspired word of God. As a Believer, the Judaic intention of the Torah, though a ‘fact’ you say, is irrelevant compared to God’s intention.

I made a point to expose its illegitimacy as a true 'fact' as most would interpret it, and rather categorize it as an elucidation, for the time being. With that being said, your 'gods' intention is irrelevant to the fact real, living human beings transcribed, altered, and shared the bible of their own free-will. Whether or not you choose to accept such a fact is irrelevant as well.

 

[Fujitsu]

True, however, I think it not a stretch to subsume most under that authority. When the predominant vestige of Christianity falls under the moniker of 'papal authority', I do not feel it was an overstatement. I am not generalizing all Christian action upon Catholic lines, but, in my experience, the majority of believers believe in the universality of the bible

Fair enough.

I take it you have some theological interest, and as such I do not feel I have to spell out the more real than perceived contradictions of the bible. A tangible disjunction, in my opinion, exists inter- and intra-canonly, in both New and Old Testament apocrypha. The contradictions are there, in plain English (ironic, as they would have been in plain Greek, Hebrew, Latin, etc., ).

Hmmm. Well, just for fun, maybe you could direct me to your most juicy ‘more real than perceived’ contradiction. I know we could go round and round about this until the rapture (or lack of), but I can’t resist.

I made a point to expose its illegitimacy as a true 'fact' as most would interpret it, and rather categorize it as an elucidation, for the time being.

In my original quote, I kept ‘fact’ quoted to acknowledge your explanation of the use of the word fact. All I was saying is that even if Believers accept that Moses did not intend for the Torah to be the beginning of the Bible, it does not mean a Believer must accept that the NT and OT were not meant to be together (as Irish Cannon said).

With that being said, your 'gods' intention is irrelevant to the fact real, living human beings transcribed, altered, and shared the bible of their own free-will. Whether or not you choose to accept such a fact is irrelevant as well.

I think this brings us to our key difference in opinion. I think the Bible we have today is the Bible exactly how God wanted us to have it. Differences of interpretation are man’s doing, not God’s. Also, I think most Believers feel that how God used 'real, living human beings' to bring us from the Torah to the Bible of today is….. oh, yes one more time….. irrelevant!

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Hmmm. Well, just for fun, maybe you could direct me to your most juicy ‘more real than perceived’ contradiction. I know we could go round and round about this until the rapture (or lack of), but I can’t resist.

Genesis I and II disagree on the creation order.

All the Apostles disagree on specific aspects of Jesus' live, including, though not limited to: his last moments and resurrection, and the amount of time he spent in Jerusalem (or is it Bethlahem? nevertheless, the point remains).

Gospels disagree on the hierarchal order of Kings Jesus himself descended from.

As well as many other discrepancies which invariably lead to a downward spiral of solipsism and circular logic between you and I. I.e., I claim that an omnipotent and omniscient being would not have necessitated the 'fixing' of certain elements in the Genesis story (such as 'forgetting Adam needed a woman, and not having the Sun or Moon on the first few days), to which you counter that these were 'tests', and around we go. These types of disjunctions continue right down to Jesus' last words and where he died (cross, stake, or tree). Now, admittedly so, these have equally plausible 'explanations' to validate these discrepancies as they do to invalidate then; regardless, I am afraid, of one's stance on them, they exist.

In my original quote, I kept ‘fact’ quoted to acknowledge your explanation of the use of the word fact. All I was saying is that even if Believers accept that Moses did not intend for the Torah to be the beginning of the Bible, it does not mean a Believer must accept that the NT and OT were not meant to be together (as Irish Cannon said).

Truth, and I am not about to incite a millennium old religious debate on the convergence (unwanted, albeit, on one side) of Judaism and Christianity. Suffice to say I see the historicity of such an event, and you view the divinity.

I think this brings us to our key difference in opinion. I think the Bible we have today is the Bible exactly how God wanted us to have it. Differences of interpretation are man’s doing, not God’s. Also, I think most Believers feel that how God used 'real, living human beings' to bring us from the Torah to the Bible of today is….. oh, yes one more time….. irrelevant!

Exactly, and your faith in god is once again irrespective of the manner in which his word was transcribed, shared, and altered. Whether intended or not, for better or for worse, the inspired word of god and his disciples was altered by real men and women (though, admittedly, predominantly men [sign of the times and what have you]). So, I suppose that arrives us at an equal point of irrelevancy. I do not take into account the legitimacy of your opinion, nor do you mine.

EDIT:

As a final note, I think the most glaring difference between you and I is even as I type this I am fully prepared to admit all the things I am espousing here may be completely wrong. I am rather sure, you are not. And that in itself reveals the fundamental difference of in-belief as opposed to non-believing individuals. A great quote in that regard is as follows:

I do not pretend to know where ignorant men are sure. That is all an Agnostic is.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Genesis I and II disagree on the creation order.

All the Apostles disagree on specific aspects of Jesus' live, including, though not limited to: his last moments and resurrection, and the amount of time he spent in Jerusalem (or is it Bethlahem? nevertheless, the point remains).

Gospels disagree on the hierarchal order of Kings Jesus himself descended from.

As well as many other discrepancies which invariably lead to a downward spiral of solipsism and circular logic between you and I. I.e., I claim that an omnipotent and omniscient being would not have necessitated the 'fixing' of certain elements in the Genesis story (such as 'forgetting Adam needed a woman, and not having the Sun or Moon on the first few days), to which you counter that these were 'tests', and around we go. These types of disjunctions continue right down to Jesus' last words and where he died (cross, stake, or tree). Now, admittedly so, these have equally plausible 'explanations' to validate these discrepancies as they do to invalidate then; regardless, I am afraid, of one's stance on them, they exist.

And none of this begins to mention the massive issues of translating symbolic, conceptual languages (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic) into denotative, letter based ones (French [admittedly less baron than English], English, etc.,)

In Hebrew and/or Greek and/or Aramaic, single symbols can constitute rich poetic descriptions and concepts which get, to use a cliche, 'lost in translation'. Obviously, such is not the case as our symbols are in fact arbitrary letters which merely represent irreduceable sounds.

However, even moreso what is being lost, is the fact I do not give a ****! I have written way too many essays in the past few days to be arguing about this. Sorry bud. Haha.

 

[bpmartyr]

firstly I think you need to understand that there is a lot to gain. Look at his legacy after death and those of his direct followers. I mean lets be serious

Also, you need to understand the importance of pagan beliefs here. There are many ties from the origins of christianity (son of god and virgin birth) in other beliefs. It just makes you wonder

So you are saying that it would be totally worth it to live a life of servitude which also consisted of regular beatings ending in a horrible death simply to have your name go down in the History books? Not even knowing for sure if you WOULD even be remembered and all the time knowing that you are lying about the resurrection and this life is all there is? DO you not see the absurdity of that claim?

The New Testament writers believed what they were saying was true. Christ believed He was God. That is the only reasonable explanation IMO.

Could I be wrong about all this? Sure, and I freely admit it. If I KNEW it I wouldn't describe it as BELIEVE. I know my brother but I don't say I 'believe' in my brother. (unless of course we are talking about something like character where of course I couldn't be certain and know but believe he may be efficacious or upstanding in that regard)

 

[Fujitsu]

Genesis I and II do not give separate accounts or stories. The second is merely a more in-depth explanation. Jesus’ family tree is another that I can offer an explanation for if given more time, but I think that is beside the point. Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John all provide different accounts with different perspectives, each experiencing different parts of the life of Jesus. To me, these are not disjunctions, but rather, just a different side of the story.

You are a well spoken fellow, and I respect your views and opinions. And you are right – I am not willing to admit that I could be wrong, at least not on this: that Jesus’s life and resurrection happened as the Bible says.

And I pass no judgment to anyone who disagrees.

 

[bpmartyr]

Genesis I and II do not give separate accounts or stories. The second is merely a more in-depth explanation. Jesus’ family tree is another that I can offer an explanation for if given more time, but I think that is beside the point. Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John all provide different accounts with different perspectives, each experiencing different parts of the life of Jesus. To me, these are not disjunctions, but rather, just a different side of the story.

You are a well spoken fellow, and I respect your views and opinions. And you are right – I am not willing to admit that I could be wrong, at least not on this: that Jesus’s life and resurrection happened as the Bible says.

And I pass no judgment to anyone who disagrees.

I would add: the validity of an account of various witnesses is typically invalidated by exact rendering of the events. It suggest collusion.

To say that the various books of the Bible are corrupted from translation or even intentional alteration indicates a very limited amount of research on the subject. These books have been thoroughly scrutinized for ages by scholars from both the believing and skeptic point of view. Aramaic and Hebrew texts dating back thousands of years verify that what you read today is as it was then. The differences in the languages themselves can not be discounted but when studying them in the original language and comparing to the English translations they are in essence the same. Yes different strings of words are used to describe what in Hebrew may be just one word but that does not necessitate that they are incompatible to translation.

This is simplified and I am myself no scholar but I have spent countless hours comparing the various arguments from both sides. If it were really that simple to discount, I would have done so and gone on living a life for myself certain that once I am in the grave, there is nothing more; so eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die.

I may be wrong ... but I sure hope that I am right!

 

[VolcomX311]

:goodpost:

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Genesis I and II do not give separate accounts or stories. The second is merely a more in-depth explanation. Jesus’ family tree is another that I can offer an explanation for if given more time, but I think that is beside the point. Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John all provide different accounts with different perspectives, each experiencing different parts of the life of Jesus. To me, these are not disjunctions, but rather, just a different side of the story.

You are a well spoken fellow, and I respect your views and opinions. And you are right – I am not willing to admit that I could be wrong, at least not on this: that Jesus’s life and resurrection happened as the Bible says.

And I pass no judgment to anyone who disagrees.

I never claimed they gave different stories, the story is the same, the order is different. Look closely, the discrepancy is there.

As it pertains to Jesus, there is also incredibly clear discrepancies. Which, as stated, range from the amount of time he spent in Jerusalem (3 days, or a year?) or upon which object he died (on the cross and carried off? on a stake? or on a tree?) which go beyond the offering of alternate perspectives of the same phenomena. They are describing different events. Now, and also as stated, this does not take away from the bible's validity as a whole, but, merely, means that the bible is not from without disjunctions, mistakes, and inter-author divergence. I.e., it has historicity

I would add: the validity of an account of various witnesses is typically invalidated by exact rendering of the events. It suggest collusion.

To say that the various books of the Bible are corrupted from translation or even intentional alteration indicates a very limited amount of research on the subject. These books have been thoroughly scrutinized for ages by scholars from both the believing and skeptic point of view. Aramaic and Hebrew texts dating back thousands of years verify that what you read today is as it was then. The differences in the languages themselves can not be discounted but when studying them in the original language and comparing to the English translations they are in essence the same. Yes different strings of words are used to describe what in Hebrew may be just one word but that does not necessitate that they are incompatible to translation.

This is simplified and I am myself no scholar but I have spent countless hours comparing the various arguments from both sides. If it were really that simple to discount, I would have done so and gone on living a life for myself certain that once I am in the grave, there is nothing more; so eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die.

I may be wrong ... but I sure hope that I am right!

As have I, and I am honestly a little surprised you implied my view stems from a lack of research. I've spent more time than I would care to mention studying the bible (as both a theological work, and a work of fiction). I can chronologically tell you which canons made it into the apocrypha and why, can you? It seems your idea of 'research' is applying your biased view of the bible to further reaffirm your reading of a primary text. If that's 'research', friend, we're all in trouble.

You are exactly right though, this book has been scrutinized by a vast number of people, stemming from vast religious backgrounds, who have purported the very points I was espousing in the first place. I choose to represent those views as closely as possible, using my intuition and predisposition towards skepticism, though I am quite sure you take the same approach when reading the bible.

 

[bpmartyr]

As have I, and I am honestly a little surprised you implied my view stems from a lack of research. I've spent more time than I would care to mention studying the bible (as both a theological work, and a work of fiction). I can chronologically tell you which canons made it into the apocrypha and why, can you? It seems your idea of 'research' is applying your biased view of the bible to further reaffirm your reading of a primary text. If that's 'research', friend, we're all in trouble.

Which canons made it into the apocrypha? The apocrypha are texts of uncertain authenticity or writings where the authorship is questioned. In Judeo-Christian theology, the term apocrypha refers to any collection of scriptural texts that falls outside the canon. The canon is a list of Biblical books which establishes the names of books which are considered to be authoritative as scripture by a particular religious community.

Catholic bibles vary from Protestant in that they contain a set of books Protestants call "the Apocrypha".

I only assume your views on this particular subject stem from a lack of research by the caliber of the statements you put forth. Look, your obviously a smart guy who HAS done a great deal of study in various fields and perhaps even in this one. I know personally, I lack the time necessary to really spend putting forth detailed arguments as I am sure you do as well. I like you and respect you and didn't mean to come off like a prick or try to demean you. This is one of those subjects, ya know.

That being said, I still do not agree with you.

 

[VolcomX311]

Which canons made it into the apocrypha? The apocrypha are texts of uncertain authenticity or writings where the authorship is questioned. In Judeo-Christian theology, the term apocrypha refers to any collection of scriptural texts that falls outside the canon. The canon is a list of Biblical books which establishes the names of books which are considered to be authoritative as scripture by a particular religious community.

Catholic bibles vary from Protestant in that they contain a set of books Protestants call "the Apocrypha".

I only assume your views on this particular subject stem from a lack of research by the caliber of the statements you put forth. Look, your obviously a smart guy who HAS done a great deal of study in various fields and perhaps even in this one. I know personally, I lack the time necessary to really spend putting forth detailed arguments as I am sure you do as well. I like you and respect you and didn't mean to come off like a prick or try to demean you. This is one of those subjects, ya know.

That being said, I still do not agree with you.

Word

 

[Irish Cannon]

Which canons made it into the apocrypha? The apocrypha are texts of uncertain authenticity or writings where the authorship is questioned. In Judeo-Christian theology, the term apocrypha refers to any collection of scriptural texts that falls outside the canon. The canon is a list of Biblical books which establishes the names of books which are considered to be authoritative as scripture by a particular religious community.

Catholic bibles vary from Protestant in that they contain a set of books Protestants call "the Apocrypha".

I only assume your views on this particular subject stem from a lack of research by the caliber of the statements you put forth. Look, your obviously a smart guy who HAS done a great deal of study in various fields and perhaps even in this one. I know personally, I lack the time necessary to really spend putting forth detailed arguments as I am sure you do as well. I like you and respect you and didn't mean to come off like a prick or try to demean you. This is one of those subjects, ya know.

That being said, I still do not agree with you.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to bpmartyr again.

 

[Irish Cannon]

"There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them."

-George Orwell

I understand that George Orwell was not a spiritual man, and this quote doesn't necessarily pertain to any of this, but I always think of it when theology is discussed.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Which canons made it into the apocrypha? The apocrypha are texts of uncertain authenticity or writings where the authorship is questioned. In Judeo-Christian theology, the term apocrypha refers to any collection of scriptural texts that falls outside the canon. The canon is a list of Biblical books which establishes the names of books which are considered to be authoritative as scripture by a particular religious community.

Catholic bibles vary from Protestant in that they contain a set of books Protestants call "the Apocrypha".

I only assume your views on this particular subject stem from a lack of research by the caliber of the statements you put forth. Look, your obviously a smart guy who HAS done a great deal of study in various fields and perhaps even in this one. I know personally, I lack the time necessary to really spend putting forth detailed arguments as I am sure you do as well. I like you and respect you and didn't mean to come off like a prick or try to demean you. This is one of those subjects, ya know.

That being said, I still do not agree with you.

Sorry, I had not slept that day and the order was reversed. It was to be

I can chronologically tell you which apocrypha made it into canons and why, can you?

Which, that challenge would still remain. Questioning the caliber of my statements is fine, but, then, refute them. Pretty simple task. If they are of such a low caliber and lacking validity, then preparing a counter-argument would be quite easy, no? More rhetoric on your part in this department than objective knowledge.

 

[bpmartyr]

Sorry, I had not slept that day and the order was reversed. It was to be



Which, that challenge would still remain. Questioning the caliber of my statements is fine, but, then, refute them. Pretty simple task. If they are of such a low caliber and lacking validity, then preparing a counter-argument would be quite easy, no? More rhetoric on your part in this department than objective knowledge.

Naw, I'm out. This subject is too deep and I don't have the time. Your too smart for this old man anyway. The fight is yours! :thumbsup:

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Haha, you're right.


My MulletSenses began getting the best of me. Sorry Snugglepuss.

 

[VolcomX311]

Naw, I'm out. This subject is too deep and I don't have the time. Your too smart for this old man anyway. The fight is yours! :thumbsup:

That's not conceeding to a loss, that's called good character. Props to martyr

 

[MashedPotato]

Just a thought ....


Ever wondered if religions were created to control the people, or are reglions created to give people hope in times or hardship?

Either way most religious point to the same belief system

1) There is an all might god(s)
2) There is also a bad "god(s)" (for those who dont obey the laws of the land).
3) There is a book/set of "rules and stories", all of which are taken as given fact. (now im not saying non of them are true etc, just questionning why we demand evidence for everything else in life (i.e flaming someone who posts a fact on here with no evidence), yet are happy to accept at book as the given truth .... based on no hard evidence, per say.

Cant we all just have a religion that teaches us to be kind and moral for the sake of being kind and moral?

Just a thought.

Im not a religous man, and i do belive in a higher power (reminds me of another thread not long ago... ), and i also celebrate christmas, not because of the religious reason, but rather because i love seeing people get along and giving. Why cant we all be nice all year round, give for the sake of giving, not just for christmas.

My 10 cents ramble.

 

[Tiberius]

I like to picture Jesus as a 3 layer chocolate cake with a jetpack. Cus then he'd be really cool, but also extremely delicious.

 

[BLADE74]

Just a thought ....


Ever wondered if religions were created to control the people, or are reglions created to give people hope in times or hardship?

Either way most religious point to the same belief system

1) There is an all might god(s)
2) There is also a bad "god(s)" (for those who dont obey the laws of the land).
3) There is a book/set of "rules and stories", all of which are taken as given fact. (now im not saying non of them are true etc, just questionning why we demand evidence for everything else in life (i.e flaming someone who posts a fact on here with no evidence), yet are happy to accept at book as the given truth .... based on no hard evidence, per say.

Cant we all just have a religion that teaches us to be kind and moral for the sake of being kind and moral?

Just a thought.

Im not a religous man, and i do belive in a higher power (reminds me of another thread not long ago... ), and i also celebrate christmas, not because of the religious reason, but rather because i love seeing people get along and giving. Why cant we all be nice all year round, give for the sake of giving, not just for christmas.

My 10 cents ramble.

Religions were man made. They were created by humans and not by God. Basically any particular religion take a piece of the bible. torrah, etc and chooses to worship in a particular way to a particular passage. Not one will follow the entire book of stories and follow the worship in totality. Although I do find Pentecostals to do this in the closest way intended by God.

Now as for the book having evidence. Of course it does! most prohecy's of the old told about hte new Testament and about 2300 have come to pass so far which is a little past half that were prophesized.

1. There is an almighty GOD not plural
2. There are people who worship false Gods (Lucipher, Buddha, Alah, etc) whcih in turn are presumed to be bad spirits
3. Leading with Faith and not by human intellect is what is intended by the almighty father to make us sinners worthy enough to have eternal life with him. The first Adam messed that up by choosing Eve over God so ALL were born into sin from there on out. Except Jesus who was born of the Virgin Mary so that he could be WITHOUT sin and live a perfect life in order to teach us how to worship, pray, and praise God. There are reasons why we are baptized more than just at birth becuase there are a series of steps one must take to become cleansed and filled with the Holy Ghost which is the ultimate task in getting Right with God.

Lots of things and other religions make sense and have logic but God is not a logical God because logic is to easy for one to comprehend and would not make Him unique if we totally understood Him. If you really look at the religions and how most are the "I'm right your wrong attitude" You'll really see that religion was formed by the enemy called Satan to cause strife and lead us away from God.

All we are.......pawns in a Chess match between Satan and God

 

[AE14]

Religions were man made. They were created by humans and not by God. Basically any particular religion take a piece of the bible. torrah, etc and chooses to worship in a particular way to a particular passage. Not one will follow the entire book of stories and follow the worship in totality. Although I do find Pentecostals to do this in the closest way intended by God.

Now as for the book having evidence. Of course it does! most prohecy's of the old told about hte new Testament and about 2300 have come to pass so far which is a little past half that were prophesized.

1. There is an almighty GOD not plural
2. There are people who worship false Gods (Lucipher, Buddha, Alah, etc) whcih in turn are presumed to be bad spirits
3. Leading with Faith and not by human intellect is what is intended by the almighty father to make us sinners worthy enough to have eternal life with him. The first Adam messed that up by choosing Eve over God so ALL were born into sin from there on out. Except Jesus who was born of the Virgin Mary so that he could be WITHOUT sin and live a perfect life in order to teach us how to worship, pray, and praise God. There are reasons why we are baptized more than just at birth becuase there are a series of steps one must take to become cleansed and filled with the Holy Ghost which is the ultimate task in getting Right with God.

Lots of things and other religions make sense and have logic but God is not a logical God because logic is to easy for one to comprehend and would not make Him unique if we totally understood Him. If you really look at the religions and how most are the "I'm right your wrong attitude" You'll really see that religion was formed by the enemy called Satan to cause strife and lead us away from God.

All we are.......pawns in a Chess match between Satan and God

I gotta say, without trying to disrespect you, but some of your info is wrong.

The oldest religions were all polytheistic. If you read the OT the term elohim is in fact plural, which makes you wonder about OT tradition and polytheism. Also, when you look at the 10 commandments, "you are to worship no other god but me", sort of leads us to believe there are others.

Also, the Buddha was never a god, and never claimed to be.

 

[Jayhawkk]

Although I do find Pentecostals to do this in the closest way intended by God.

If it were as simple as knowing what God intended then we would not have the splits in religions like we do.

 

[BLADE74]

No disrespect taken. Some do worship the idols who weree prophets which in turn makes then "like" a God. My statement is based on that none of the biblical stories mention a particular religion as being CHOSEN. Now Jewish in Christian views are considered the "chosen people" of God but in new Testament the mentiuon in Rev of 7 churches is actually 7 holy cities and the real church would be considered Jesus the body of the church per sei.

 

[VolcomX311]

No disrespect taken. Some do worship the idols who weree prophets which in turn makes then "like" a God. My statement is based on that none of the biblical stories mention a particular religion as being CHOSEN. Now Jewish in Christian views are considered the "chosen people" of God but in new Testament the mentiuon in Rev of 7 churches is actually 7 holy cities and the real church would be considered Jesus the body of the church per sei.

I'm not being disrespectful at all, I may be misunderstanding what you wrote. TRUE, no chosen religion is pointed out, there's no verse that states, "and thus shall be thine religion" but God was pretty peaved whenever the jews strayed away from worshiping ANYTHING else other then Himself, which I think sort of implies the whole Chosen issue. The whole issue with the Jews being discouraged to marry outside their tribe isn't an issue of God frowning upon mixed ethnic marriages (as its been wrongly taken out of context by racist preachers everywhere), but the issue was marrying outside of the jewish tribe meant the risk of incurring the culture of the other tribe, which meant incurring their tradition of worshiping their God(sssss) and God was reeeaaally against that, so again, I believe that implies the "Chosen Religion" (and I hate the word Religion) issue. I won't even get into the whole, "I am the way, the truth and the light, no one comes before the Father except through me" thing.

And Christians are not chosen, just the Jews. Christians were/are pegans brought under the blood of Christ, but not "the chosen people" like the Jews were. I'm not arguing for the record, again, I may have misunderstood what you wrote and I'm clarifying as friendly and non-confrontational as possible.

Revelations is a bit mysterious because its so metaphorical, but I can't disagree with any point where Jesus is made the superlative of the message, so, that interpretation sounds solid to me.

 

[BLADE74]

None taken. God had taken the Jews from Egypt and brought them to their promise land of Israel. Back then the Gentiles, Jews, Ecclesiates, etc were all considered tribes. By the blood of Christ all will be allowed into the heavens whether they were Jew, Gentile, Catholic, Baptist, Buddha but ALL have to recognize Jesus to do so according to scipture. There are groups called Messianic Jews whom believe Jesus as more than just a prophet or a carpenter. Who knows why He did what he didi or why He choses to create the diversity the way he did. to prove a point? who really knows until that time comes for you to cross over

 

[AE14]

not really sure I understand where you are going. In essence, originally the teachings of jesus were not intended to create a religion but reform Judaism. It was until Paul (Saul) really turned himself into a new person (and new name) and started to pursue christianity.

However, my other pointed seemed to be glossed over. Based on the readings in teh OT, god was called elohim, which is in fact plural. Polytheism was the typical belief system of the time. Now, it truly is not until the Amarna period and Akhenaton do we see an "organized" monotheistic belief. However, if the exodus happened it happened during the 18th dynasty in Egypt just slightly earlier, same dynasty as Akhenaton.

My point (after all my rambling) is that polytheism based on sheer time has been the truest form and even the OT makes reference to it.

Also, if you are interested read some of Roman historian Pliny the younger. He had an interesting take on the early Chirstians from a Roman view.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

not really sure I understand where you are going. In essence, originally the teachings of jesus were not intended to create a religion but reform Judaism. It was until Paul (Saul) really turned himself into a new person (and new name) and started to pursue christianity.

However, my other pointed seemed to be glossed over. Based on the readings in teh OT, god was called elohim, which is in fact plural. Polytheism was the typical belief system of the time. Now, it truly is not until the Amarna period and Akhenaton do we see an "organized" monotheistic belief. However, if the exodus happened it happened during the 18th dynasty in Egypt just slightly earlier, same dynasty as Akhenaton.

My point (after all my rambling) is that polytheism based on sheer time has been the truest form and even the OT makes reference to it.

Also, if you are interested read some of Roman historian Pliny the younger. He had an interesting take on the early Chirstians from a Roman view.

Most definitely. An interesting everyday-interaction 'peek', so to speak, into Pagan-Christian governance in the Roman Empire.

From Trajan to Pliny:

that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance

(Book 10, I believe).

Sounds familiar, no?

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Despite the discussion in this thread, and the existence of a god or gods notwithstanding, a brief anthropological view of history reveals a certain pattern; that one interminable link exists between all dominant cultures (empires) and their idealogues-they, in the specific form originally induced, always fall.

Now, this does not necessitate a complete abandoning of the positive moral aspects of any one creed, society, or religion. As we see in the case of Greek-to-Roman polytheistic tradition, and Greek/Roman-to-Western European democratic exchange, the continuum dialogue of human history retains qualities while abandoning others. In the dialectic thus far, very few elements have retained a certain degree of permanence needed to exhibit inter-millennial use.

One of the most immediate factors which has caused Judeo-Christian values to pervade is their propensity to engrain themselves within the dominant economic values of the time. More than any other religion, Judaism and Christianity (Protestantism, in particular) stress productive normative values, masked as 'good works'. Whether motives ulterior or not, Christians have been stressed to be 'fruitful and multiply' an idealogue which has been consistently conflated with methods of capital and commodity exchange. But, that too, like any other facet of existence has an impermanence which is unavoidable. The greatest illusion is one of continuity, especially as it pertains to social relations.

 

[MashedPotato]

Despite the discussion in this thread, and the existence of a god or gods notwithstanding, a brief anthropological view of history reveals a certain pattern; that one interminable link exists between all dominant cultures (empires) and their idealogues-they, in the specific form originally induced, always fall.

Now, this does not necessitate a complete abandoning of the positive moral aspects of any one creed, society, or religion. As we see in the case of Greek-to-Roman polytheistic tradition, and Greek/Roman-to-Western European democratic exchange, the continuum dialogue of human history retains qualities while abandoning others. In the dialectic thus far, very few elements have retained a certain degree of permanence needed to exhibit inter-millennial use.

One of the most immediate factors which has caused Judeo-Christian values to pervade is their propensity to engrain themselves within the dominant economic values of the time. More than any other religion, Judaism and Christianity (Protestantism, in particular) stress productive normative values, masked as 'good works'. Whether motives ulterior or not, Christians have been stressed to be 'fruitful and multiply' an idealogue which has been consistently conflated with methods of capital and commodity exchange. But, that too, like any other facet of existence has an impermanence which is unavoidable. The greatest illusion is one of continuity, especially as it pertains to social relations.

Hands down the best reply to any question ive seen in a long time. Well constructed and good points.

:goodpost:

 

[bLacKjAck.]

Too tired to reply with anything that logistically contribute at this point, but do know I have my "piece" to share in the morning.

 

[MashedPotato]

Too tired to reply with anything that logistically contribute at this point, but do know I have my "piece" to share in the morning.

lol. I look forward to reading it. (no sarcasm intended)

 

[AE14]

Most definitely. An interesting everyday-interaction 'peek', so to speak, into Pagan-Christian governance in the Roman Empire.

From Trajan to Pliny:

(Book 10, I believe).

Sounds familiar, no?

much of Pliny paints a different view of the christians. In fact, they were just a "cult" to the Romans of the time. In fact no different than the Egyptian magic cults like the cult of Isis etc..... Funny how a few events change the way things work out.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

much of Pliny paints a different view of the christians. In fact, they were just a "cult" to the Romans of the time. In fact no different than the Egyptian magic cults like the cult of Isis etc..... Funny how a few events change the way things work out.

Well, any 'upstart' religion is viewed as such, both contemporarily and in antiquity. The fine line between 'cult' and 'religion' status is almost always state or economic endorsement. (see: Supremacy rulings in England in 16th century granting King divinity inheritance and the headship of the Church of England [engrained newly emerging Protestantism as official state religion)].

 

[bLacKjAck.]

Mmmk,

All I have to say is this. We can sit here and argue about history and whose religion is better and why...and proving this and that. But here is what you cannot argue with me about even for a second. And that is my experience and what I know to be true. I accepted Jesus into my life about 4 years ago, I was on the "down and outs" and really had nowhere to go and no one left to turn to for answers. So I thought I am going to give this a try. Well that is the best decision I have ever made. I began to search Him out in prayer and in the Word (Bible) for all my anwers, and they were ALL there and more.

My point is this...in my opinion it is not about a religion at all. It is about a relationship and no one on this board or anywhere else in the world can convince that I don't have an actual ongoing relationship with Jesus Christ. He has proven Himself to me WAY too many times over and over again. Every time I humble myself and pray He meets my need.

This is the thing that kills me about most Christians, they spend all their time fighting with other people and trying to convince them of something that THEY WILL NEVER CONVINCE ME OF THEM. People have been fighting over "who is right and who is wrong" for hundreds of years. And this is still going on today in this thread as we speak.

So I do my best to stay out of debates and arguments and spend my time trying my best to be more and more like Christ and walk the way He walked the earth (see the Gospels). That is what it is all about in my opinion, giving love to people who need it, lending a hand to people in need. Mullet see this ---> Not because it is a "work", but because I truly want to and desire to help people. Do you have to be a Christian to have this desire? No. But when you are a Christian I would hope that is one desire you would have

Just so all of you know, I am no cook. My brain functions perfectly and I am totally normal. I have NO judgement for anyone else beliefs and I am your friend just as much as any Christian friend I have.

Don't ask me questions because I am not here to debate. I have said my piece and now I am done. Hope you all have a wonderful day.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

That is what it is all about in my opinion, giving love to people who need it, lending a hand to people in need. Mullet see this ---> Not because it is a "work", but because I truly want to and desire to help people. Do you have to be a Christian to have this desire? No. But when you are a Christian I would hope that is one desire you

I stated that as a reason why contemporary Christian and liberal-democratic capitalist values have been so consistently conflated with eachother. Not the impetus for Christians being generous.

 

[bLacKjAck.]

I stated that as a reason why contemporary Christian and liberal-democratic capitalist values have been so consistently conflated with eachother. Not the impetus for Christians being generous.

Ok, my misunderstanding. And I agree.

 

[Jayhawkk]

Mullet is ****ing the thesaurus again... takes me longer to get through one of his paragraphs than War and Peace. lol

Love ya babes


Main Entry: im·pe·tus
Pronunciation: \ˈim-pə-təs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, assault, impetus, from impetere to attack, from in- + petere to go to, seek — more at feather
Date: 1641
1 a (1): a driving force : impulse (2): incentive, stimulus b: stimulation or encouragement resulting in increased activity
2: the property possessed by a moving body in virtue of its mass and its motion —used of bodies moving suddenly or violently to indicate the origin and intensity of the motion

 

[Jayhawkk]

I went to public school b!tch

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Haha, I went to public school and dropped out from grades 10-12.

=P

 

[Jayhawkk]

Way to boost my ego Mullet, lol.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Seriously, I think it was the drugs which gave me a push in the right direction intellectually. There has always been a fair amount of study devoted to perception expansion through altered states of consciousness. I mean, the Saskatchewan Group, Aldus Huxley and others did some interesting qualitative, substantive research on LSD's effects in research settings. I definitely believe certain expanses of the subconscious can only be 'unlocked', so to speak, through psychoactive substances.

One thing I truly wish was that modern society embraced these types of substances more openly. There is very little evidence that the sub-culture related to psychoactive drugs contributes in any real way to secondary illicit activity; and, even less of a correlation to violent crimes. Don't get me wrong, I am all far harsher penalties for addictive, physically-harmful substances such as Meth, Coke/Crack, Heroin (and other barbituates), but the actual compound LSD (once fully synthesized) has no physiological effects (once synthesized in parentheses because Ergot poisoning can cause adverse physical reactions).

I feel that these kinds of experiences de-alienate man from his natural settings, and even from one another. We have framed our realities in such a way that we have bastardized ourself from nature and framed our interaction as a fragmented action-reaction circuit, that all interaction must have a 'purpose'. These are values which have engrained, and to a degree perpetuated, our certain 'consumer-driven' lifestyle. This kind of lifestyle is the cause for a myriad of issues which are too numerous to list here.

Point being, I am not sure why I am ranting about LSD.

 

[Jayhawkk]

You are freaking out.... maaan.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

LOL!

The snosberries taste like snosberries.

 

[bpmartyr]

Nice post BJ. You too Mullet. Jay ... not so much. jk

 

[Jayhawkk]

lmao! Butthead

 

[MashedPotato]

Nice post BJ. You too Mullet. Jay ... not so much. jk

:lol:

This conversation is rather riveting, please do carry on dear fellows

 

[In Hulk]

Bloodline of the Holy Grail by Sir Laurence Gardner = Utter ownage

Why is it that when people make a conscious decision to change their life and take steps to achieve their goals, they attribute their success to God? Are they afraid of being responsible for their own life? Is it that far fetched to believe that man is capable of altering his reality?

In Mark 11:24, Jesus Christ said, “What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.” He was referring to creating reality, manifesting thoughts and ideas, the power of the mind and the power that man posesses.

Anyway, the whole thing bothers me. Religions just seem like massive cults of followers unwilling to entertain arguments that challenge or test their blind faith. Not to mention that Christians are by far some of the most unchristian people you will ever meet. A whole base supposedly devout followers of a hippy pacifist, who support wars and violence, and vehemently oppose government assistance programs to the impoverished. How hilarious is that?

Anyway, in short, the bible was written by men, not god. The end.

 

[B5150]

Bloodline of the Holy Grail by Sir Laurence Gardner = Utter ownage

Why is it that when people make a conscious decision to change their life and take steps to achieve their goals, they attribute their success to God? Are they afraid of being responsible for their own life? Is it that far fetched to believe that man is capable of altering his reality?

In Mark 11:24, Jesus Christ said, “What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.” He was referring to creating reality, manifesting thoughts and ideas, the power of the mind and the power that man posesses.

Anyway, the whole thing bothers me. Religions just seem like massive cults of followers unwilling to entertain arguments that challenge or test their blind faith. Not to mention that Christians are by far some of the most unchristian people you will ever meet. A whole base supposedly devout followers of a hippy pacifist, who support wars and violence, and vehemently oppose government assistance programs to the impoverished. How hilarious is that?

Anyway, in short, the bible was written by men, not god. The end.

KJV - Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive [them], and ye shall have [them].

RSV - Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

YLT - Because of this I say to you, all whatever -- praying -- ye do ask, believe that ye receive, and it shall be to you.

NAS - "Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they shall be [granted] you.

You possess nothing that wasn't granted to you. You may believe you willed something into being but the very will you possess was granted to you.