Is Jesus the Antichrist?

okinrus

11-15-03, 03:21 AM

The Jesus Christ Superstart article?
Very little bearing on truth.

e stole a colt (Luke 19:29-34)

No, this was a colt that had never been ridden. The mysterious owner is most certaintly an angel. This is why Jesus told is disciples to say "The Lord needs it".

for his own purpose and he created a new commandment in Mark 12:31.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is not a new commandment.

Jesus broke the sabbath (John 5:16, Matt 12:1-5).

Healing someone is not breaking the sabath. Were the Jews really meant to close their hospitals on the sabath? Furthermore, picking the grain like this is allowed by Deuteronomy 23:26, "When you go through your neighbor's grainfield, you may pluck some of the ears with your hand, but do not put a sickle to your neighbor's grain."

The Jews and the Romans found Jesus guilty and the Romans executed Jesus. The OT says (Isa 53:2)

Isaiah 53:2 says "He grew up like a sapling before him, like a shoot from the parched earth; There was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him, nor appearance that would attract us to him."

He is also to be marred (Isa 52:13-14), the Bible makes no mention of a marked Jesus.

Like Roman scourging would not cause any marks?

he knew the best way to get people to have faith in him is to love him. Appearing as a loving messiah not only will he get many followers to turn to him and away from God but he can re-write religion.

Satan is incapable of love. There is no love within him.

Nehushta

11-15-03, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by heart
All I could think of was the verse Malachi 3:6 which states, "For I am the LORD, I change not ..." With that in mind I find it funny how Jesus, aka god, changed many laws that went against "god"/ himself. To me this would only confirm Jesus isn't "god" -that or god is lying.

One of God's strictest commandments was to remember the sabbath day, which God had defined as the seventh day of the week (i.e., Saturday), and keep it holy (see Exodus 20:8). No work whatsoever was to be done on this day, under penalty of death (see Exodus 31:15, 35:2, Deuteronomy 5:14). The sabbath day was to be kept by the children of Israel throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant (see Exodus 31:16).

Jesus could easily have chosen to honor this perpetual covenant by restricting his healings to the remaining six days, but he deliberately chose instead to make it an issue by doing healings on the sabbath, and in the temple, no less! One woman he healed had been afflicted for 18 years, and another man for 38 years - what was the big emergency that they couldn't have waited another day?

It wasn't so much that Jesus wanted to do good on the sabbath - he simply wanted to break this covenant between the Jews and their God, and the healings were nothing more than an opportunity for him to get his foot in that particular door. He justified this by saying that the sabbath was made for man, rather than vice versa, and then used this false premise to "prove" that the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath (see Mark 2:27,28), and also by denying that his Father had known any sabbath up until that point and so neither should he (see John 5:17). Please note that this last item is very telling about who his Father is, or at least, who he isn't. Finally, Paul came along and dismissed the sabbath altogether, along with a number of God's other laws(see Colossians 2:16,17).

Note that Christians have changed the sabbath, which was supposedly established by the god they worship as a perpetual covenant, from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week. So much for the idea that God is unchanging, or that Christians really care one way or another.

Nehushta

11-15-03, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by okinrus
No, this was a colt that had never been ridden. The mysterious owner is most certaintly an angel. This is why Jesus told is disciples to say "The Lord needs it".

By all means, okinrus, feel free to add anything you like to the gospel stories - Matthew certainly did. :rolleyes:

Healing someone is not breaking the sabath. Were the Jews really meant to close their hospitals on the sabath?

See my previous post. Smoke and mirrors, sleight of hand - magicians' tricks to get you to look the other way so that you do not discover the deceit being performed right before your very eyes. This is what Jesus did best.

Satan is incapable of love. There is no love within him.

Who said anything about Satan loving anyone? Appearing as a loving messiah and being a loving messiah are two completely separate things. If Satan can present himself as an angel of light (see 2 Corinthians 11:14), then why not as a loving messiah?

Jenyar

11-15-03, 09:42 AM

Nehushta,

The same God that created the seventh day created the eighth. The issue about the sabbath is only an issue if you don't have enough faith in God to believe He can continue being involved in the creation He started.

The "perpetual covenant" was not broke, it was fulfilled. The day of rest was the day of God, and when He resumed working, we started celebrating a new covenant: that of the resurrection.

You see, Nehushta, the law could only perpetuate rest. Have a look at Genesis again: when does the seventh day end? Was the "an evening and a morning"? Do you know what eternal rest is called, eternal sleep? Death. And that is what Paul frequently calls it. The law could only condemn you for not keeping the sabbath - it was powerless to allow love to be greater than it. And love is the whole of the law. The fact that Jesus assumed the authority to exercise something as simple and self-evident as love against the authority of God's own law showed that He was the authority: the sabbath was made for man (i.e. to exercise and honour love), not man for the sabbath!

Jesus roused us from the sleep induced by the sabbath and perpetuated by blindly and ignorantly "keeping the law". And He did it in every sense of the word: by rising from the dead.

That is why we celebrate the Sunday - the day Jesus rose from the dead - as the "Day of the Lord."

Nehushta

11-15-03, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Jenyar
And love is the whole of the law.

Jesus established the Law of Thelema?

That is why we celebrate the Sunday - the day Jesus rose from the dead - as the "Day of the Lord."

How very pagan of you. :D

Jenyar

11-15-03, 10:48 AM

Jesus established the Law of Thelema?

Jesus established more than that:

Matthew 5:43
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

But decide for yourself:

Matthew 7:12
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Mark 12
30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' [Deut. 6:4,5 ] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' [Lev. 19:18] There is no commandment greater than these."

Romans 13:10
Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

How very pagan of you.
I believe the Jews used the word gentile.

Paul's answer would have been:

Colossians 2
15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

Nehushta

11-15-03, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Jenyar
Jesus established more than that:

Matthew 5:43
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

Love your enemy, but hate your family if you wish to be a disciple of Jesus (see Luke 14:26). I know we've been through this one before, but there is no explanation that can justify hating your family, or even putting Jesus first above your family. Jesus had no love or respect for his own family, and replaced them in his heart with the little cult he created. He expected his disciples to do the same.

okinrus

11-15-03, 01:58 PM

By all means, okinrus, feel free to add anything you like to the gospel stories - Matthew certainly did.

No, I'm not adding anything. There is a later account of Peter and John following the man holding the water. My interpretation combines both as one concept.

See my previous post. Smoke and mirrors, sleight of hand - magicians' tricks to get you to look the other way so that you do not discover the deceit being performed right before your very eyes. This is what Jesus did best.

I hate to inform you but Jesus healed by praying to his Father in heaven. Are you saying that it is wrong to pray on the Sabbath? Jesus does nothing without the Father(John)? So the concept of Jesus working without the Father is foreign to the gospel and must be dismissed.

Who said anything about Satan loving anyone? Appearing as a loving messiah and being a loving messiah are two completely separate things. If Satan can present himself as an angel of light (see 2 Corinthians 11:14), then why not as a loving messiah?

Why would Satan instruct his servants do to the opposite of what he wants?

Love your enemy, but hate your family if you wish to be a disciple of Jesus (see Luke 14:26)

What Jesus said was in aramaic and the aramaic word for hate can mean put aside.

Nehushta

11-15-03, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by okinrus
No, I'm not adding anything. There is a later account of Peter and John following the man holding the water. My interpretation combines both as one concept.

Then please present your case here so that we may all examine the alleged facts of the matter.

I hate to inform you but Jesus healed by praying to his Father in heaven. Are you saying that it is wrong to pray on the Sabbath? Jesus does nothing without the Father(John)? So the concept of Jesus working without the Father is foreign to the gospel and must be dismissed.

Ah, but who was his father? That is what needs to be established here. Jesus claimed that his father knew no sabbath, and indeed it is said the Devil never takes a day off. You must be more careful in your assumptions, okinrus.

Anyway, where did you ever see Jesus praying to God or anyone else in order to heal someone? Sometimes healing occured simply by someone touching the hem of his garment - where did prayer enter into it?

Why would Satan instruct his servants do to the opposite of what he wants?

Think about it - what goals have Christians attributed to Satan? Wasn't it his loftiest goal to turn the Jews away from the God of Israel and to go after other gods their fathers didn't know? Posing as God incarnate and getting the Jews to worship him instead would certainly work out to his benefit in the long run. Getting the Gentiles to follow suit was just icing on the proverbial cake. Is that really so difficult for you to see?

What Jesus said was in aramaic and the aramaic word for hate can mean put aside.

And why should anyone put their family aside? Is this what you think the 5th commandment was about?

okinrus

11-15-03, 03:58 PM

And why should anyone put their family aside? Is this what you think the 5th commandment was about?

The 5th commandment is "honor your father and mother". This is fullfilled in the new commandment of "honor your Father and Mother."

Anyway, where did you ever see Jesus praying to God or anyone else in order to heal someone? Sometimes healing occured simply by someone touching the hem of his garment - where did prayer enter into it?

In John, Jesus says that he does nothing without the Father and that he does whatever the Father has shown him because like a good son, he only does what the does.

tomasito

11-15-03, 06:47 PM

Woe unto the inhabitants of the earth. For the great dragon that was cast out of heaven has been sent with fury; for he knows his time is short.This is the ancient serpent, the devil. He is a murderer and a liar and there is no truth found in him. He is the father of lies.

I see the spirit of anti-christ at work in these dicussions that label Jesus as evil.

"No man comes to the father but by me" declares Jesus. Jesus is the way ,truth and life.

He will one day judge you not as a humble person he was. But as a king whose bright presence will destroy evil.
Lo, and They will see the son of God coming down in a cloud of glory. They will moan and look at whom they pierced.

The reason why the fight is against christianity is because its the only way(salvation through the blood of Jesus.)

Nehushta

11-15-03, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by tomasito
Woe unto the inhabitants of the earth. For the great dragon that was cast out of heaven has been sent with fury; for he knows his time is short.This is the ancient serpent, the devil. He is a murderer and a liar and there is no truth found in him. He is the father of lies.

Yep, Jesus must realize by now that we've got his number, and I'll bet he's madder than a wet hen! :D

okinrus

11-15-03, 11:28 PM

Does Nehusta really believe that Jesus is Satan or is he doing this as some ploy to upset christians?

LostInThought7

11-16-03, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by tomasito
The reason why the fight is against christianity is because its the only way(salvation through the blood of Jesus.)

Yes, that, and the fact that modern Christianity spreads the doctrine that humans are worthless, pitiful creatures that don't deserve to live (Isaiah 64:6), and only do because of the great mercy of an all-powerful being (Numbers 14:9) who's existance can't even be proven (Logic). And, according to your average Christian, God is the perfect example of morality, yet is allowed to destroy human civilizations at will because they do not worship him as much as he wants them to (Gen 6:17, Gen 19:24, ah screw it, too many to count), and he demands continual animal sacrifice. Hmmmm. And they think it is okay for God to do such things. They even praise him and willingly become his slaves. Because God gave us life, he can take it away if he wants. Which goes back to: we are pathetic beings who don't deserve dignity and freewill.

God was once an idea of goodness and truth, but after so many generations, humans changed him into a jealous, wrathful diety. The meaning behind the rituals were lost over time (animal sacrifice changed from: don't become too attached to your material possesions to: spend a few coins at the temple, the priest'll kill a dove or two, my sins are forgiven) and Jesus tried to restore them.

So I take back my previous statement. He might not have been a liar. Jesus may have actually believed himself to be the saviour of a fallen religion.

Maybe Jesus isn't the evil one, he is the good one, come to change all of the evil, false dogma of an evil, false god back into what it should have been.

This theory works with almost all agruments already posted. "Why put your family aside..." truth and goodness is more important than blood relations. Do you disagree, Nehushta? "No man comes to the father except through me" No one can see the true God unless they accept and practice the messege of Jesus' Love. "The sabbath was made for man, not..." again, mindless rituals have taken the place of love.

Jenyar

11-16-03, 06:48 AM

LostinThought, if you are really on the side of truth then at least don't misrepresent Christianity.

Humans are worthless, pitiful creatures that don't deserve life? Excuse me, but please read Isaiah 64 completely:

8 Yet, O LORD , you are our Father.
We are the clay, you are the potter;
we are all the work of your hand.

We were created more than deserving life - as the crown of God's creation, created in His image. The only problem is your image of who God is. Existentialists would rather have us believe that we are no more than glorified primordial rock, and all that we are is only what we imagine ourselves to be. And humanists would have us believe we are all that we ever need, that suffering and pain is only temporary obstacles in the way of becoming what we should be. Where is the intrinsic humanity in that?

Nehushta

11-16-03, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by okinrus
Does Nehusta really believe that Jesus is Satan or is he doing this as some ploy to upset christians?

Do you really believe I'm a he, or this just a ploy to upset me? Why would I choose the name of a great, great, etc. grandmother of Jesus as my handle if I am male? Or do you not know who Nehushta was?

First of all, I have serious doubts that Jesus ever lived as a human man. I favor the Christ-as-myth theories more than any other. I pretty much see all of the canonical bible stories as variations on the various fallen god myths, which are nothing more than astrological, solar and planetary myths that have been perverted by priests with an agenda.

It is my belief that the Christ myth grew from the Gnostic myths in which the birth of Christ represented the descent of spirit into matter (which was also seen as the cause of evil, by the way); the death of Christ represented ego death (the Luciferian descent into Orcus); and the resurrection represented spiritual rebirth. The Literalists perverted these myths for their own purposes, just as the ancient priests perverted the earlier astrological myths.

You see, while Christians tremble in fear before the Great and Powerful Oz, I am busy looking for the man behind the curtain. And since I believe that everyone who comes here is searching for the same thing, whether they realize it or not, I will expose him wherever I find him.

My advice to you is, if you can't handle the Truth, don't risk exposure to it by frequenting religious debate forums.

okinrus

11-16-03, 11:44 AM

Do you really believe I'm a he, or this just a ploy to upset me? Why would I choose the name of a great, great, etc. grandmother of Jesus as my handle if I am male? Or do you not know who Nehushta was?

You've already told us what Nehushta was. I hardly expect some snake on a pole to have a gender but if you want to pretend that your female that's fine.

It is my belief that the Christ myth grew from the Gnostic myths in which the birth of Christ represented the descent of spirit into matter (which was also seen as the cause of evil, by the way); the death of Christ represented ego death (the Luciferian descent into Orcus); and the resurrection represented spiritual rebirth. The Literalists perverted these myths for their own purposes, just as the ancient priests perverted the earlier astrological myths.

Most of the gnostic material, except the gospel of Thomas, came after the canonical writings and the writings of the new testament.

You keep accusing me but your arguing something that you don't believe in? Why don't you argue that Christ does not exist and then we can show that Christ exists you can show Christ is Satan?

Medicine*Woman

11-16-03, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by okinrus
You've already told us what Nehushta was. I hardly expect some snake on a pole to have a gender but if you want to pretend that your female that's fine.
----------
M*W: Interesting alliteration, okinrus, "snake on a pole...". Let's look back at the Garden of Eden when the allegorical serpent coiled around the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil tempting Eve. (Eve, the mother of all living was taken from the English word "evil.") LOL Okay, back to our image of the serpent around tree. The Hebrew words for "serpent," "Eve," and "YHWH" all appear to be the same "hah-wah."

Your "snake on a pole" was depicted in a painting called "The Crucified Serpent," by Nicolas Flamel.

The serpent spiraling caduceus of Hermes symbolized wisdom and healing. It also was the emblem of othe Sumerian god Enki, Lord of the Sacred Eye. Your "snake on a pole" is them emblem of the Greek Father of Medicine, Asklepios of Thessaly and was accepted by Hippocrates and the American Medical Association.

The descriptions "brazen serpent" and "pole" are used in Bible scripture.

Then there were the storys of Moses turning his staff into a serpent. This allegory is repeated throughout the Bible and has also been associated with the Ark of the Covenant.

Another interesting association I want to add here is "spare the rod and spoil the child." If one "spares the rod," they fail to teach their children so they shall have wisdom. This has nothing to do with whipping them!

Your "snake on a pole" also means "feminine spirit," "sophia," wisdom," so please feel free to call Nehusta and me a "snake" anytime you want!

Most of the gnostic material, except the gospel of Thomas, came after the canonical writings and the writings of the new testament.

You keep accusing me but your arguing something that you don't believe in? Why don't you argue that Christ does not exist and then we can show that Christ exists you can show Christ is Satan?

Nehushta

11-16-03, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by okinrus
You've already told us what Nehushta was. I hardly expect some snake on a pole to have a gender but if you want to pretend that your female that's fine.

Apparently you weren't paying attention - the snake on the pole was Nehushtan. Nehushta was the mother of Jehoiachin, (a.k.a., Coniah, Jeconiah or Jechonias). You do know who that was, don't you?

Most of the gnostic material, except the gospel of Thomas, came after the canonical writings and the writings of the new testament.

If you're more comfortable believing that the Literalist interpretation came before the Gnostic philosophy it was interpreting, then that's okay by me (just in case you were seeking my permission :) ). But if you really want to know more about this subject, I'd like to recommend you start by reading "The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0609807986)," by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy.

You keep accusing me but your arguing something that you don't believe in? Why don't you argue that Christ does not exist and then we can show that Christ exists you can show Christ is Satan?

What do you mean I'm arguing something I don't believe in? Just because I don't believe that Jesus really existed as a human man on this earth doesn't mean I don't believe that there is any truth behind the original myth. After all, a myth is simply a means of representing a truth. Just because the Literalists perverted these myths all to hell and back doesn't mean the original myths had no validity, does it?

okinrus

11-16-03, 02:17 PM

Apparently you weren't paying attention - the snake on the pole was Nehushtan. Nehushta was the mother of Jehoiachin, (a.k.a., Coniah, Jeconiah or Jechonias). You do know who that was, don't you?
No, I thought your name was was the serpent god. But Nehushtan is sometimes spelled differently I think. There is someone with the handle "SnakeLord" on these forums.

If you're more comfortable believing that the Literalist interpretation came before the Gnostic philosophy it was interpreting, then that's okay by me (just in case you were seeking my permission ).

Why would I ask you permission? :confused:

But if you really want to know more about this subject, I'd like to recommend you start by reading "The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God?," by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy.

I don't find the evidence compelling though I have not read the book. It's more likely that the cult of Mithra borrowed from christians than vice-versa.

Nehushta

11-16-03, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by okinrus
No, I thought your name was was the serpent god. But Nehushtan is sometimes spelled differently I think.

The name Nehushtan only appears once in the bible (see 2 Kings 18:4), as does the name Nehushta (see 2 Kings 24:8). I know of no other spelling for either one.

There is someone with the handle "SnakeLord" on these forums.

Ah yes, I found "SnakeLord" on the 9th page of the "S" members list. Apparently he is from London, while I am an American citizen, born and bred in California. His interests are listed as "Aliens, Cigarettes, Alchohol", in that order. I don't really have an overwhelming interest in any of those things (although I will admit that I once vacationed in the general vicinity of Area 51, and X-Files is the only television show I've watched with anything approaching regularity during the past 10 years). SnakeLord is a former freelance writer, while I am an Electrical Engineer. No, I am not SnakeLord.

Why would I ask you permission? :confused:

Uh, that was a joke.

I don't find the evidence compelling though I have not read the book.

How can you find the evidence compelling or otherwise when you refuse to even examine it?

It's more likely that the cult of Mithra borrowed from christians than vice-versa.

I'm not sure why you brought up the cult of Mithra, but since you did, it seems unlikely that Mithraism borrowed from Christianity when Mithraism had been around for about 500 years before the alleged birth of Christ. :rolleyes:

LostInThought7

11-16-03, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Jenyar
LostinThought, if you are really on the side of truth then at least don't misrepresent Christianity.
I present it as I know it...

Humans are worthless, pitiful creatures that don't deserve life? Excuse me, but please read Isaiah 64 completely:

8 Yet, O LORD , you are our Father.
We are the clay, you are the potter;
we are all the work of your hand.
Yes. I'm not seeing how this counters my image of God at all. O Lord, you are our Father. We are created and shaped by you. This just shows that God is THE BEING that is in control. I don't see how this shows us that the clay is important at all, unless it is important because God is shaping it, but that doesn't give glory to the clay, just the potter.

We were created more than deserving life - as the crown of God's creation, created in His image. The only problem is your image of who God is.
So, we are good in God's eyes. We are the best of his creation, the closest thing to God in all of nature. Yet: a man lives in the mountains in the middle of nowhere. He never hears of the laws set down by Moses (or God, whatever) and though he is a good man, is damned to hell for all eternity because he is too evil. Since he doesn't shed blood for the forgiveness of his sin, since he has never kept any of the agreements that he never made (OT covenants), he is not worthy to get into the kingdom of heaven. And not getting into heaven isn't punishment enough: he is cast into a lake of fire to burn forever. And of course, he has never heard of Jesus either, so there is no way that he can call upon Jesus to save him. It seems to me that the biblical God doesn't think too highly of the nature of humans...

I may have made a mistake in my interpretation of the Bible, I only ask that you point it out to me.

okinrus

11-16-03, 04:32 PM

I'm not sure why you brought up the cult of Mithra, but since you did, it seems unlikely that Mithraism borrowed from Christianity when Mithraism had been around for about 500 years before the alleged birth of Christ.

Borrowing from just about every other culture. Can you prove that Mithraism began worshiping Mithra's blood like the Eucharist? I don't think so. Christians such as Justin Martyr were well aware of what Mithraism was doing.

I am not SnakeLord.

I know your not him. What I'm saying is that naming yourself some type of a snake is common. Naming yourself the grandmother of Jesus is not common.

The name Nehushtan only appears once in the bible (see 2 Kings 18:4), as does the name Nehushta (see 2 Kings 24:8). I know of no other spelling for either one.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Nehushta+serpent&btnG=Google+Search
I'm not the only one who spelled Nehushtan in english as Nehushta.

Nehushta

11-16-03, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by okinrus
Borrowing from just about every other culture.

Actually, it is Christianity that has borrowed from just about every other culture. :rolleyes:

Can you prove that Mithraism began worshiping Mithra's blood like the Eucharist? I don't think so. Christians such as Justin Martyr were well aware of what Mithraism was doing.

Mithraism was the official religion of Rome in Justin's time. Like Christians, they also celebrated a ritual meal in which worshippers ate the flesh of a sacrificed bull and drank its blood. When no bull was available, bread or fish were used as substitutes for the meat, and wine took the place of the blood. Mithran initiates believed that, by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the bull, they would be born again and would have eternal life. Apparently their rituals were similar enough to the Christian Eucharist that Justin Martyr had to do some fancy footwork to prove a distinction between the two:

From "The Eucharist: Body and Blood of Christ (http://www.catholicherald.com/saunders/97ws/ws970904.htm):"

During the days of Roman persecution, to clearly distinguish the Eucharist from the cultic rite of Mithra and to dispel Roman charges of cannibalism, St. Justin Martyr (d. 165) wrote in his First Apology, "We do not consume the Eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilate of its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of His own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving."

Jenyar

11-17-03, 02:01 AM

originally posted by LostinThought7
So, we are good in God's eyes. We are the best of his creation, the closest thing to God in all of nature. Yet: a man lives in the mountains in the middle of nowhere. He never hears of the laws set down by Moses (or God, whatever) and though he is a good man, is damned to hell for all eternity because he is too evil. Since he doesn't shed blood for the forgiveness of his sin, since he has never kept any of the agreements that he never made (OT covenants), he is not worthy to get into the kingdom of heaven. And not getting into heaven isn't punishment enough: he is cast into a lake of fire to burn forever. And of course, he has never heard of Jesus either, so there is no way that he can call upon Jesus to save him. It seems to me that the biblical God doesn't think too highly of the nature of humans...

I may have made a mistake in my interpretation of the Bible, I only ask that you point it out to me.
Gladly. A man who lives in the mountains in the middle of nowhere is not your concern unless you care about him. He will learn about right and wrong from nature, and will be judged by his heart. You don't know whether he is evil or not, only God does - and you can be sure He will judge fairly. Noah and Abraham also didn't know the laws of Moses, or anything else, yet they had faith in God. So rather worry about yourself, who has the benefit of knowledge and still can't believe. Jesus died for all mankind, including those who don't know him. Those who trust God for their lives will be justified through Christ even without realizing it.

Jenyar

11-17-03, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by Nehushta
Actually, it is Christianity that has borrowed from just about every other culture. :rolleyes:
I challenge you to prove any dependence.

Mithraism was the official religion of Rome in Justin's time. Like Christians, they also celebrated a ritual meal in which worshippers ate the flesh of a sacrificed bull and drank its blood. When no bull was available, bread or fish were used as substitutes for the meat, and wine took the place of the blood. Mithran initiates believed that, by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the bull, they would be born again and would have eternal life. Apparently their rituals were similar enough to the Christian Eucharist that Justin Martyr had to do some fancy footwork to prove a distinction between the two:
That just proves that people could understand the principles without realizing its significance. Religious festivals, practices, days and rituals are all just shadows of meaning. The question is whether they really had any meaning to stand on. It isn't hard to think how meals could be seen as a ritual of sustenance - but sustenance by whom? Jews (and Christians) were forbidden to drink the blood of an animal, because life came from God and was sacred. The Mithra cult could drink all the blood they wanted without gaining eternal life.

Also read Doesn't the religion of Mithra prove that Christianity is false? (http://www.carm.org/evidence/mithra.htm)

MacM

11-17-03, 02:14 AM

MW,

I haven't had time to read al the material from the links but the quick glance tells me I might enjoy some reading.

I have some questions for tose following this thread.

1 - Have you ever wondered why we are given Jeuse at his miraculus birth and agains as Jesus the Savior but nothing of his childhood?

2 - How many of you have read, seen or ever heard of "The Lost Books of the Bible?"

I have a copy. It is marked "Not for sale or public dissemination" and appears to be a book for theologins.

If it is a bonafide collection of Biblical stories, it becomes clear why it was edited out of the bible.

Jesus was a smart mouth kid that back talked his teachers and even killed several playmates and one teacher because the teacher attempted to discipline him for back talking.

Jenyar

11-17-03, 02:36 AM

That's just a conspiracy theory. No books of the Bible were lost, some were just not included because they were stories made up to try and "fill in the gaps", such as the one you mention. Nobody would have recorded the life of a child who wasn't in the public eye until his thirties.

For more information about these reputedly "lost books", see:
http://www.carm.org/lostbooks.htm
and Do the lost books of the Bible prove that the Bible has been altered? (http://www.carm.org/evidence/lost_books.htm)

If you believe some of these books carry authority as accounts of Jesus' life, then you should state which books and why.

everneo

11-17-03, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by MacM
Jesus was a smart mouth kid that back talked his teachers and even killed several playmates and one teacher because the teacher attempted to discipline him for back talking.
This from your personal copy that you cannot share.?!

I too have a personal copy that i cannot share that says he just pinched those playmates and one teacher that tried to kill him. :D

okinrus

11-17-03, 02:57 AM

Supposively the story goes that the young boy was killed by accident somehow and Jesus was blamed. But then Jesus raised the boy into the life and escaped punishment. So Jesus did not really kill anyone.

MacM

11-17-03, 09:43 AM

Okinrus,

Supposively the story goes that the young boy was killed by accident somehow and Jesus was blamed. But then Jesus raised the boy into the life and escaped punishment. So Jesus did not really kill anyone.

ANS: Not so fast. that is not what the "Lost Books of the Bible" state. In fact he kills 3 or 4 kids. It never says he brought them back to life or was being blamed for acts of others.

It did state that on one occasion he made the dead boy speak. but that was all.

And you have failed to address the killing of his teacher.

You are trying to misapply something in the Bible to offset the "Lost Books of the Bible" version". Let me suggest you stick to the "Lost Books of the Bible" version and deal with it.

okinrus

11-17-03, 12:56 PM

ANS: Not so fast. that is not what the "Lost Books of the Bible" state. In fact he kills 3 or 4 kids. It never says he brought them back to life or was being blamed for acts of others.

the infancy gospel of Thomas? http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/gospels/inftoma.htm

Nehushta

11-17-03, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by okinrus
the infancy gospel of Thomas? http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/gospels/inftoma.htm

It was difficult to pin down a date for the Gospel of Thomas from that site, but here is more information that dates this Gospel to 140 C.E. or even earlier: The Gospel of Thomas: Frequently Asked Questions (http://home.epix.net/~miser17/faq.htm).

okinrus

11-17-03, 02:48 PM

This is the infancy gospel not the gnostic gospel of thomas.

DethoS

11-17-03, 05:19 PM

Is it just me or is everyone completely ignoring the blatant lie contained in the first paragraphs of the new testament. It says Jesus was the descendant of the line of David, then it goes on to explain the exact people who passed down this line and it ends at Joseph, then it says Joseph found Mary pregnant. Perhaps there may be a good reason for this, such as sacred knowledge of a secret cult being passed down such as geometry and mathematics, astronomy, or something even more mysterious such as necromancy.

Nehushta

11-17-03, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by okinrus
This is the infancy gospel not the gnostic gospel of thomas.

According to this page, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was written around 140-170 C.E., while the Gospel of Thomas was written 50-140 C.E.: Early Christian Writings (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com)

Nehushta

11-17-03, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by DethoS
Is it just me or is everyone completely ignoring the blatant lie contained in the first paragraphs of the new testament. It says Jesus was the descendant of the line of David, then it goes on to explain the exact people who passed down this line and it ends at Joseph, then it says Joseph found Mary pregnant. Perhaps there may be a good reason for this, such as sacred knowledge of a secret cult being passed down such as geometry and mathematics, astronomy, or something even more mysterious such as necromancy.

I don't think anyone's ignoring it, but quite honestly, I haven't seen it addressed in this thread. Perhaps I overlooked it?

But since you brought it up, what did you have in mind, exactly? Is it the fact that Jechonias of the abominable branch was listed in Matthew as the father of Salathiel, and grandfather of Zorobabel, while Luke replaced him with Neri, so as not to associate Jesus with a king whose line had been deliberately cut off by God? To me, that is the most fascinating thing about the conflicting genealogies. I mean, there is obviously a magical spell of some kind that has been cast on Christians that renders them completely blind to this fact. Even when you point it out to them quite clearly, they still can't see it. Must be those gospel-colored glasses. :rolleyes:

okinrus

11-17-03, 11:31 PM

According to this page, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was written around 140-170 C.E., while the Gospel of Thomas was written 50-140 C.E.: Early Christian Writings

The page you posted before was specifically on the gospel of Thomas, the one with lists of "Jesus said". The infancy narrative, however, cannot be genuine.
I'm also having a little trouble finding that grandmother of Jesus?

Is it the fact that Jechonias of the abominable branch was listed in Matthew as the father of Salathiel, and grandfather of Zorobabel, while Luke replaced him with Neri, so as not to associate Jesus with a king whose line had been deliberately cut off by God?

I think the genealogy in Luke may be of Mary and not Jesus. I believe that Luke came quite some time after Mathew. If Luke was going to list the genealogy of Jesus then he would have used Mathew's list. http://www.geocities.com/intheword1/Genealogy.htm

LostInThought7

11-18-03, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by Jenyar
[B]Gladly. A man who lives in the mountains in the middle of nowhere is not your concern unless you care about him.
Yes, but this theoritical man that I created helps me prove that God judges unfairly, according to the Bible, that is.
He will learn about right and wrong from nature, and will be judged by his heart.
Whoa. I'm sorry, but every single Christian I've ever talked to continuosly talks about how being a good person is not enough, you have to become a Christian. Supossedly, the bible even confirms this.
You don't know whether he is evil or not, only God does - and you can be sure He will judge fairly.
This theoritical man that I created? Yes, I do know. He is good; he is not evil. And how can I be sure that he will be judged fairly? Because that's what a moral God would do? So which one are we talking about trusting, a moral god, or the God of the Bible?
Noah and Abraham also didn't know the laws of Moses, or anything else, yet they had faith in God.
But faith in God isn't enough. When Moses laws came around, you couldn't just have faith and be okay, you had you get a priest to do the rituals to forgive you of your sins. And now, God decided that since we can't even do that right, all we need to do is believe that Jesus is part God, and accept him as our saviour from hell. The laws change through time. According to what I've heard Christians say, Jews will not go to heaven because they do not accept Christ. Not even the Jews that follow the old law to the tee.
Jesus died for all mankind, including those who don't know him.
Again, this contradicts everything that I know about Christianity. You have to actually accept Jesus as the Son of God and all that to go to heaven. That's why there are missionaries. Because unless the Pagan peoples of Africa don't hear the messege of Jesus, they will die and go to hell. Jesus may have died for them, but his death itself didn't save them, they have to accept his him as their saviour.
Those who trust God for their lives will be justified through Christ even without realizing it.
Let's see if I have this right. All I need to do is be a good person, and trust God with my life. I try to be good;in fact, my main goal in life is to try to find out what would be the right thing for me to do in life, and do it. Those who trust God, huh? Do you mean, trust God or trust men? Because the prophets of God are men. There are false prophets, this is mentioned everywhere in the Bible. How do I know that Isaiah or Moses wasn't false prophets. How do I know that Paul or even Jesus himself is not a liar? So, if I had clear cut proof that God existed, and wasn't all evil and junk (if he was moral in my mind), then, yeah, I'd have no problem trusting him (probably not with my life, though, I'm not a slave, we are all acountable for our own actions). But since I don't have proof (in fact, I have much anti-proof), I can't do that.
...worry about yourself...
I'd much rather worry about truth and morality and the general well-being of the human race. My immortal soul comes after these things on my priority list.
...who has the benefit of knowledge and still can't believe.
Just using my logic to the best of my ability...

I have already said it, but here it is again. Alot of what you say seems to contradict what the Bible says. If you believe in picking and choosing doctrine from the Bible to believe, then I agree, and I'm pretty sure that I'll be okay on judgment day (if it even exists).

MacM

11-18-03, 12:43 AM

Because that's what a moral God would do? So which one are we talking about trusting, a moral god, or the God of the Bible?

God of the Bible is not a moral God. A moral God would not drown his creation because some refused to believe in him or follow his wishes.

It like a sadistic kid putting kittens in a burlap bag and throwing them in a creek. Aghhhh. I hate religion.

LostInThought7

11-18-03, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by MacM
It like a sadistic kid putting kittens in a burlap bag and throwing them in a creek. Aghhhh. I hate religion. [/B]

That's kinda how it seems....

Come on now, don't hate religion. Some of it's pretty good stuff. I say, hate ignorance, or hate hatred even. Not all religion is made up of slaves to a seemingly evil God.

Gadget252

11-18-03, 01:03 AM

be careful lostinthought, jesus tried to be tolerent like u are now and look what they did to him. the fact of the matter is that christian and other people emersed in the falacy of their own imaginations wont tolerate people that try to threaten their beliefs. i think it suitable for us to dispise them as they do us..........at least we are able to entertain ideas and still make an informed concious choice to reject it.

Jenyar

11-18-03, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by LostInThought7
Yes, but this theoritical man that I created helps me prove that God judges unfairly, according to the Bible, that is.
No, a theoretical person can only interact with an equally theoretical God. If he was a real person whom you knew, he would have had a chance to hear about God wouldn't he?

Whoa. I'm sorry, but every single Christian I've ever talked to continuosly talks about how being a good person is not enough, you have to become a Christian. Supossedly, the bible even confirms this.
Romans 2
13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

This theoritical man that I created? Yes, I do know. He is good; he is not evil. And how can I be sure that he will be judged fairly? Because that's what a moral God would do? So which one are we talking about trusting, a moral god, or the God of the Bible?
Once again, you can only go so far with a theoretical man living by theoretical laws. If he is a righteous man, he might be saved. But he can't be certain of his salvation until he has heard of it. That means his life might be lived in fear, and God does not want that. But if he doesn't fear God (which is done by treating life with love and respect - whether he knows God or not), he isn't righteous.

But faith in God isn't enough. When Moses laws came around, you couldn't just have faith and be okay, you had you get a priest to do the rituals to forgive you of your sins. And now, God decided that since we can't even do that right, all we need to do is believe that Jesus is part God, and accept him as our saviour from hell. The laws change through time. According to what I've heard Christians say, Jews will not go to heaven because they do not accept Christ. Not even the Jews that follow the old law to the tee.
Israel had a special burden on them, because through them salvation would come to all men. They were the first "Christians" in a sense, because they knew it was possible to attain salvation. But it was a long, hard road. Fortunately, they walked it and we reap the benefits (this was also explained to them in prophecy). They represent the learning curve of being God's chosen.

Christ showed that folowing the law to a tee was not sufficient anymore. It was a measure to lead people in the right direction, but if you don't keep in mind where you are going with it you will never reach the destination. God, and then Jesus, came to Israel first, remember - Jews no longer have a temple, king, priests or prophets. They might still be saved by faith, but once again: how can they be sure?

Again, this contradicts everything that I know about Christianity. You have to actually accept Jesus as the Son of God and all that to go to heaven. That's why there are missionaries. Because unless the Pagan peoples of Africa don't hear the messege of Jesus, they will die and go to hell. Jesus may have died for them, but his death itself didn't save them, they have to accept his him as their saviour.
You have to accept Jesus to be certain of heaven. The goal of missionaries is to restore the image God created people in - to remove their fear. To give you an idea: in Africa the native people believe their ancestors determine their fortunes, and they constantly have to keep them happy or live in fear of possesions and all kinds of evils and retributions beyond their control. When Jesus drove out demons, it was among people who believed in demons - and I can tell you it's a very real experience to them, whatever a Westerner might think. The fear and superstition among these people is tangible. In the past, out of ignorance missionaries and colonialists tried to apply Western/European values to "civilize" these people. But Jesus wasn't a Westerner in the first place.

You can see now how words of Jesus in Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple" can have a very potent meaning. If respect for your parents are only for the sake that they might favour you after they're dead, they are worth more to you dead than alive. But if their - and your own - life is worth what God says it's worth, then evil spirits have indeed been defeated by trusting your life to God.

Let's see if I have this right. All I need to do is be a good person, and trust God with my life. I try to be good;in fact, my main goal in life is to try to find out what would be the right thing for me to do in life, and do it. Those who trust God, huh? Do you mean, trust God or trust men? Because the prophets of God are men. There are false prophets, this is mentioned everywhere in the Bible. How do I know that Isaiah or Moses wasn't false prophets. How do I know that Paul or even Jesus himself is not a liar? So, if I had clear cut proof that God existed, and wasn't all evil and junk (if he was moral in my mind), then, yeah, I'd have no problem trusting him (probably not with my life, though, I'm not a slave, we are all acountable for our own actions). But since I don't have proof (in fact, I have much anti-proof), I can't do that.
Test their words. That's how prophets were tested, and that how Jesus proposed you test His words in John 7:
17If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

Being a good person won't be enough, but it will keep you on the right path which eventually will be enough. But if you aren't prepared to give your life to Him (He gave it to you in the first place, remember?) - if you try to keep it for yourself - you will lose it. Otherwise you are doing good for your own sake, as if you could save yourself from dying... the very problem Jesus had with the Jewish teachers. Without faith, you will be worse of in this world trying to be good for "God's" sake, than just being selfish for your own sake.

I'd much rather worry about truth and morality and the general well-being of the human race. My immortal soul comes after these things on my priority list.
No problem with that. But the human race can't do anything for your soul, and it will go on without you once you're dead. They didn't give you life.

okinrus

11-18-03, 04:45 AM

Whoa. I'm sorry, but every single Christian I've ever talked to continuosly talks about how being a good person is not enough, you have to become a Christian. Supossedly, the bible even confirms this.

God is the source of all good so it is impossible for someone to do good work without God; whether they aknowledge the role God plays or not.

MacM

11-18-03, 09:00 AM

okinrus,

God is the source of all good so it is impossible for someone to do good work without God; whether they aknowledge the role God plays or not.

And just where was your God in the Peterson case, the 9/11 attack, the sniper episode?

Must be nice to arbitraily take credit for everything good and deny any responsibility for natural disasters, human cruelity, etc.

HOw can one get such a resume, it is a clear winner.

Nehushta

11-18-03, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by okinrus
The infancy narrative, however, cannot be genuine.

Why not?

I'm also having a little trouble finding that grandmother of Jesus?

Nehushta is the mother of Jechonias (a.k.a., Coniah, Jeconiah and Jehoiachin) - see 2 Kings 24:8. Jechonias is a great, great...great grandfather of Jesus. That makes Nehushta a great, great...great +1 grandmother of Jesus. Since the Matthew and Luke genealogies are not in agreement regarding the number of generations from Salathiel (son of Jechonias) to Jesus, I can't be any more specific than that.

I think the genealogy in Luke may be of Mary and not Jesus. I believe that Luke came quite some time after Mathew. If Luke was going to list the genealogy of Jesus then he would have used Mathew's list. http://www.geocities.com/intheword1/Genealogy.htm

Okay, fine. But do you or do you not see Salathiel and Zorobabel listed in both genealogies? And if you are at least not blind to that fact, can you also reason that Salathiel would have the same father regardless of which of his descendants you're talking about? If you can see this much, then all that's left to figure out is which genealogy listed the correct father. Was it the Matthew genealogy, which boldly stated that Jechonias begat Salathiel? Or was it the Luke genealogy, which vaguely identified Salathiel as the son of Neri. Now, "son of" could mean a lot of things - a step son, foster son, son-in-law, grandson or direct, biological son. But how many meanings can you assign to the word "begat"? Considering all this, who do you think the biological father of Salathiel was?

Jenyar

11-18-03, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by MacM
And just where was your God in the Peterson case, the 9/11 attack, the sniper episode?
Probably with the victims. Where were you?
Must be nice to arbitraily take credit for everything good and deny any responsibility for natural disasters, human cruelity, etc.
It's probably more accurate to say God is the source of love, and we are the source of choices for or against love.

A cause and effect theology begs for these kinds of misconceptions. The book of Job contradicts this kind of thinking. Good and bad people suffer, good and bad people prosper - nature is indicriminate, but God isn't. He didn't take us out of the world, or change the world for our comfort, but He did give us commandments to live by. Commandments Al Qaeda et al ignore, and which nature has no mind to keep.

Jenyar

11-18-03, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Nehushta
Okay, fine. But do you or do you not see Salathiel and Zorobabel listed in both genealogies? And if you are at least not blind to that fact, can you also reason that Salathiel would have the same father regardless of which of his descendants you're talking about? If you can see this much, then all that's left to figure out is which genealogy listed the correct father. Was it the Matthew genealogy, which boldly stated that Jechonias begat Salathiel? Or was it the Luke genealogy, which vaguely identified Salathiel as the son of Neri. Now, "son of" could mean a lot of things - a step son, foster son, son-in-law, grandson or direct, biological son. But how many meanings can you assign to the word "begat"? Considering all this, who do you think the biological father of Salathiel was?
Maybe this diagram will help in your discussion:

http://www.cin.org/users/james/images/genealogy.gif
(From the Genealogies of Christ (http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/Genealogies_of_Christ.htm) - J. Atkin)

MacM

11-18-03, 09:58 AM

Jenyar,

but God isn't. He didn't take us out of the world, or change the world for our comfort, but He did give us commandments to live by. Commandments Al Qaeda et al ignore, and which nature has no mind to keep.

Either God is omnipotent and the creater of all or hi isn't.

If he is as you would like to claim then he is also responsible for designs that create sickness, dister and violence. Otherwise he is either not in control or insensative and uncaring.

It really is a simple step to hold an omnipotent being responsible for the bad as well as the good. Failure to do so is unjustified by the claim of creter of all and omnipotent.

Jenyar

11-18-03, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by MacM
Either God is omnipotent and the creater of all or hi isn't.

If he is as you would like to claim then he is also responsible for designs that create sickness, dister and violence. Otherwise he is either not in control or insensative and uncaring.

It really is a simple step to hold an omnipotent being responsible for the bad as well as the good. Failure to do so is unjustified by the claim of creter of all and omnipotent.
Decay was the result of separation from God. Creation is running down and it will keep on running down. But God intervened to prevent our going down with it. That doesn't mean He changed the way things work, or the result of sin. It means He lets the good and the bad grow together, and when the harvest comes He will separate them.

If you hold God responsible for everything the joke is on you, because you fail to see your own responsibility. God didn't fail to relieve sickness, disaster and violence - in fact, they are the very signs of the injustice God is delivering us from!

Do you see that if you only had this life, God would have been guilty of ending it unjustly. But now it is nature who represents this injustice and God who ensures that justice prevails; even more than that: no matter how much you share in the decay of this nature (the moral equivalent of this curse is sin), He gives you the chance for an eternal life. You will surely die as nature intends you to if you don't accept it, and then face the same judgement as death.

Luke 18
7And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"

2 Pet 3
4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."
9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Medicine*Woman

11-18-03, 12:05 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jenyar
Maybe this diagram will help in your discussion:

http://www.cin.org/users/james/images/genealogy.gif
(From [b]the Genealogies of Christ (http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/Genealogies_of_Christ.htm) - J. Atkin
----------
M*W: Interesting diagram! It resembles the qabala.

Medicine*Woman

11-18-03, 12:59 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jenyar
Decay was the result of separation from God.
----------
M*W: Everything in creation has a life cycle--"a time to be born, and a time to die." So are you saying everything in creation separates itself from God? Since everything in creation, including humans, IS God, how can God be separated from itself?
----------
Creation is running down and it will keep on running down.
----------
M*W: Creation is "evolving" and it will keep on "evolving." To say that "creation is running down" implies that either God isn't the creator of all, or that we are not spiritual beings, or that God made some big boo boos when he created us.
----------
But God intervened to prevent our going down with it.
----------
M*W: God has been with us from the beginning of creation. Since the human race is spiraling upward physically, spiritually, intellectually, etc., I fail to see God intervening at a later period in time "to prevent our going down" with creation! This is such a negativistic view about life that it defies the very existence of God.
----------
That doesn't mean He changed the way things work, or the result of sin. It means He lets the good and the bad grow together, and when the harvest comes He will separate them.
----------
M*W: Such an evil god you believe in--a trickster who puts the bad with the good to tempt them so they will fail (sin), and when some do, god shakes his finger at the tempted and banishes them for eternity into a literal or figurative lake of fire. God created us as One with Eternal Life in the Spirit. It is man-made religions that have done the "tempting" resulting in "sin." The one true God exists beyond mere human religion. It is man-made religion that created the various and sundry garden varieties of "sin." God cannot be found in religion. God has always dwelt in Man.
----------
If you hold God responsible for everything the joke is on you, because you fail to see your own responsibility. God didn't fail to relieve sickness, disaster and violence - in fact, they are the very signs of the injustice God is delivering us from!
----------
M*W: Only those who are without God would hold God responsible. Those in whom God dwells are accountable to their fellow man.
----------
Do you see that if you only had this life, God would have been guilty of ending it unjustly. But now it is nature who represents this injustice and God who ensures that justice prevails; even more than that: no matter how much you share in the decay of this nature (the moral equivalent of this curse is sin), He gives you the chance for an eternal life. You will surely die as nature intends you to if you don't accept it, and then face the same judgement as death.
----------
M*W: Everything in creation has a life cycle. If creation before humankind evolved, why would you think it odd for Our body to decay and call it "sin?"
----------
[b]Luke 18
7And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"
----------
M*W: The human race is God's chosen.
----------
2 Pet 3
4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."
----------
M*W: Everything in creation has a life cycle.
----------
9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
----------
M*W: Everything in creation has a life cycle. Evolution is not an over-night process. We are still in the process of evolution. We are in the last day of creation, but we're not finished yet. The God that created us, dwells within us, as we continue to evolve toward Homo spiritus when we will shed our Earthsuit (Earthly body) to live eternally as the One Spirit of God.

Nehushta

11-18-03, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Jenyar
Maybe this diagram will help in your discussion:

http://www.cin.org/users/james/images/genealogy.gif
(From the Genealogies of Christ (http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/Genealogies_of_Christ.htm) - J. Atkin)

It would, if it were honest about biological versus legal descent. If Jechonias begat Salathiel, then how does Neri become the biological father of Salathiel in this Tree of Life chart? Please show support for this idea in the OT.

okinrus

11-18-03, 02:00 PM

And just where was your God in the Peterson case, the 9/11 attack, the sniper episode?
God allows evil to happen. This is clear in the bible and in life. So either there is no God or there is a God who allows evil to happen. I can speculate on the reasons though. If someone is hungry that gives us a chance to do greater in order to feed them.

Must be nice to arbitraily take credit for everything good and deny any responsibility for natural disasters, human cruelity, etc.
It's unclear how much responsibility Satan has in this. Jesus called Satan ruler of the world but we do know that nothing happens without God.

I'm not going to argue about old genelogies. It suffices to say that often times the writers of them would only name the important persons and there could several gaps within them. Even error on the part of Luke or on the scribes copying from Luke are possibilities.

Nehushta

11-18-03, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by okinrus
Even error on the part of Luke or on the scribes copying from Luke are possibilities.

Are you sure you want to start down that slippery slope, okinrus? I'm game if you are! :D

You heard it here, folks! The bible is not infallible!

Seriously, if you start claiming biblical error whenever the recorded "facts" don't fit in quite so nicely with your Christian preconceptions, where do you stop?

okinrus

11-18-03, 05:06 PM

As I've already explained before. Infalliable is used by the Church in a theological sense. We accept that what is taught in the bible under the proper guidance of the Church is infalliable. (See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) We believe that the faith and doctrin contained in our faith are infalliable with respect to faith and morals. If Luke copied a record of Mary that was partially wrong then it's no concern to us. Similarly, when Peter first heard the news of Judah's death, it was different than the one taken down by Mathew. The key thing here is that how Judah's died has no bearing on the teachings of faith and morals.

MacM

11-18-03, 07:24 PM

Must be nice to arbitraily take credit for everything good and deny any responsibility for natural disasters, human cruelity, etc.

It's unclear how much responsibility Satan has in this. Jesus called Satan ruler of the world but we do know that nothing happens without God.

"Satan"? Oh yes the bad guy. Th one responsible for evertything that we don't want to credit God (the good guy) with doing.

Nice but if your God were omnipotent and all powerful, all knowing and the creter of weverthing, he knowingly created Satan and allowed if not created by proxy (knowingly) all evil.

Your God is either a falacy, a wimp or evil. take your choice. You can't seperate him from reailty and give him the credits you do.

spookz

11-18-03, 07:47 PM

how dare you call me a wimp!
HOW DARE YOU, SIR!

wesmorris

11-18-03, 07:52 PM

/God allows evil to happen.

What drives me completely fucking insane is that people have the freaking GAUL to think that they could remotely fucking predict what god would or would not fucking DO. ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!

WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE???????????

Dipshits.

Even by your own goddamn stupid system wouldn't this be a horrific fucking sin????? PRIDE? ARROGANCE?

In my book it's just plain stupidity.

My apologies for my emotional reaction, but man this kind of thing makes my head explode.

MacM

11-18-03, 08:05 PM

spookz,

how dare you call me a wimp!
HOW DARE YOU, SIR![/b]

:D

MacM

11-18-03, 08:12 PM

Wesmorris,

What drives me completely fucking insane is that people have the freaking GAUL to think that they could remotely fucking predict what god would or would not fucking DO. ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!

A bit short sighted I think. Nobody predicted what God would or would not do, nor what he should or should not do.

I merely hold their all knowing, omnipotent, creator of everything responsible for what he created while knowing what he was creating would be like.

You cannot claim he has those values and conclude anythingelse. The only alternative to God creating Satan and all evil is to deny he is all knowing, omnipotent and the creator of everything.

wesmorris

11-18-03, 08:22 PM

/A bit short sighted I think. Nobody predicted what God would or would not do, nor what he should or should not do.

Please explain then how the sentence "god allows evil to happen" is not saying exactly what god does or doesn't do? Note that it wasn't YOUR post that was quoted.

/I merely hold their all knowing, omnipotent, creator of everything responsible for what he created while knowing what he was creating would be like.

Honestly I havn't read your posts. I was skimming and saw that line and it made me twitch. I don't hold their fanatasies to anything but the poor mental health it creates in the hosts of this meme.

/You cannot claim he has those values and conclude anythingelse. The only alternative to God creating Satan and all evil is to deny he is all knowing, omnipotent and the creator of everything.

Logically, omnipotence is simply nonsense.

MacM

11-18-03, 08:48 PM

Wesmorris,

Please explain then how the sentence "god allows evil to happen" is not saying exactly what god does or doesn't do? Note that it wasn't YOUR post that was quoted.

Sorry. My error. It seemed aimed at what I had just posted and since it wasn't directed I took it wrong.

Go back to laughing please :D

wesmorris

11-18-03, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by MacM
Wesmorris,

Sorry. My error. It seemed aimed at what I had just posted and since it wasn't directed I took it wrong.

Go back to laughing please :D

No prahrbrem.

*kowtow*

okinrus

11-18-03, 08:52 PM

Nice but if your God were omnipotent and all powerful, all knowing and the creter of weverthing, he knowingly created Satan and allowed if not created by proxy (knowingly) all evil.

I don't believe that God knows the complete future because that would determine our future. I do, however, believe that God could know the future because he is outside of time. But our free will is determined by His lack of knowledge of what we will do and our concept of time is completely based upon our free will. To some extant he has decreased our free will but some decisions we make on our own. In any case, your narrowing your definition of God and wining about how the God of the bible appears cynical. If you were just reading the bible you probably would not come to the conclusion that God is fully omnipresent because there would then be no reason to test the Isrealites(Deuteronomy) and certaintly no reason for Jesus to grow in wisdom and truth.

okinrus

11-18-03, 09:05 PM

What drives me completely fucking insane is that people have the freaking GAUL to think that they could remotely fucking predict what god would or would not fucking DO. ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!

WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE???????????

Evil is self-evident. Furthermore, "pride" is admiting to the existance of evil unless if pride isn't evil. Assuming God exists then God would have to had to allow pride to exists unless if God is not omnipotent.

WildBlueYonder

11-18-03, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman

and I'm wondering if Jesus could be the Antichrist instead of the Christ? the real question should be, 'is mohammad the anti-christ?" he fits most of the profile, as in Revelations mentioning the ‘Beast’, the ‘Dragon’ & the ‘Abomination that causes desolation’.

Look at the timeline: Mohammad dead in 632, islam conquers their world (not with love), but by the sword, they turn the Gospel upside down, say that Jesus never died on the cross for salvation, that Jesus was a muslim, that Mohammad was a prophet, that the quran was the complete & perfect word of god, that a mosque should be built over the Temple mount, defiling it, you be the judge, ‘was mohammad the anti-christ?”
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Books/Muir/Caliphate/chap1.htm
http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/10-27-01/cover_8.asp
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/997560/posts

Mohammad could be the world-conquering Jewish messiah, if he were Jewish! That’s what they’re waiting for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah
http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/4q521.html
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/ashes.html

So, is it apocalypse now, what are the chances this is a prelude to our ‘Dark Angel’ future, the perfect religion that must conquer the world at any cost, what is it about muslims that in our short wars against al-Queda & Iraq, has produced 6 traitors: the Dirty Bomber, the American Taliban, Civilian translator, USAF translator, the grenade thrower, the Chaplain? How many traitors were Japanese, Italian or Germans during WWII? Zero, zilch, nada; so, what’s up with muslims, hmmm?

wesmorris

11-19-03, 12:16 AM

/Evil is self-evident.

That is not a sufficient proof. Neither is it evident of anything but an empty pointless claim.

/Furthermore, "pride" is admiting to the existance of evil unless if pride isn't evil.

Please refrain from gibberish. I suspect your postition is blindly founded in scripture and is as such, simply irrelevent to anyone who hasn't succumbed to the psychological operations implemented by your sunday school.

/Assuming God exists then God would have to had to allow pride to exists unless if God is not omnipotent.

Do you hold this statement to be logically valid? This can only be justified by an illogical and IMO almost sure irrelevant argument.

Have you considered the contradiction of omnipotence?

okinrus

11-19-03, 01:35 AM

Do you hold this statement to be logically valid? This can only be justified by an illogical and IMO almost sure irrelevant argument.

Yes, it's a logically valid statement. For instance, if I could stop a moving bus from hitting someone but I don't, then I have allowed the bus to hit that person. Now a omnipotent God is capable of doing every possible logical action. So any event that occurs must have been allowed by God because an omnipotent God could have stopped this event.

Have you considered the contradiction of omnipotence?

Yes, but the sole creator of the universe would have to be omnipotent before creating anything. Also, there's different definitions of omnipotence used. Omnipotence is usually defined to be the capability of doing everything that does not have a contradiction; hence, omnipotence by definition cannot have contradictions.

LostInThought7

11-19-03, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by Gadget252
be careful lostinthought, jesus tried to be tolerent like u are now and look what they did to him. the fact of the matter is that christian and other people emersed in the falacy of their own imaginations wont tolerate people that try to threaten their beliefs. i think it suitable for us to dispise them as they do us..........at least we are able to entertain ideas and still make an informed concious choice to reject it.

Hmmm, this reminds me of a poem that my good friend George wrote:

To those I drove away - by George

Again I drive the moneychangers out!
My tongue of Christ uncoils to liberate
My temple-mind once more, that I might shout
Of holy things, of simple things made great
By unobstructed view. The fleeing mob
Has stirred the dust, each mote a a history
Of crime -- of murder, theft, hatchet job,
Whole beds of lust -- there is no mystery.
The empty temple echoes with my feet
As I, alone, but no less guilty, search
The holy words, the prayers, for how to live.
My tongue of Christ confesses defeat;
These pigeons josling for a better perch,
Like those I drove away, I must forgive.

wesmorris

11-19-03, 09:16 AM

/Yes, it's a logically valid statement.

You're wrong. Your assumptions are contradictory and I illustrate below.

/For instance, if I could stop a moving bus from hitting someone but I don't, then I have allowed the bus to hit that person.

Sure. Via choice or constraint.

/Now a omnipotent God is capable of doing every possible logical action.

You need to find a better word. Omnipotence is "can do anything". The is no restriction to logic on the word, nor is it implictly limited to such.

But don't bother because a self-causal or eternal being is logically contradictory simply based on either fact. As such your "god" is necessarily unrestrained by logic. Further than that, since god created everything, didn't god created logic? Do you think god created logic and chose to adhere to it? If so, "who the fuck do you think you are?" comes to mind in regards to the fact that you continue to presume to even remotely comprehend the mind of god.

I'll just stop there.

Quantum Quack

11-19-03, 11:23 AM

How about another approach to this Jesus thing.

Let us asume for a moment that Jesus was a real person living 2000 off years ago. His time was a time of strong religious ideology. Superstitions were rampant.

In his life Jesus stumbled on to the psychic ability to use the third eye which gave him the ability to perform all those miracles.
But because he was not able to control his ability and because of the hostility of the Jewish community to Jesus etc they executed him.

When What's his name wanted Jesus to defend himself and Jesus kept silent this was because he could prove nothing and wanted to die. His suffering being so intense because of his inability to contain his enormous psychic abiliies that he sort suicide on the cross as a way to die. He couldn't do it to himself but let the Jews do it for him.

The only context Jesus could put his abilities was in a religious context as this was all he knew.

The religious environment generated the Christian belief and not Jesus himself.

okinrus

11-19-03, 11:50 AM

You need to find a better word. Omnipotence is "can do anything". The is no restriction to logic on the word, nor is it implictly limited to such.

well I do bother. I investigated this before on another thread with Tiassa.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm

Further than that, since god created everything, didn't god created logic? Do you think god created logic and chose to adhere to it?

It is possible that logic is an attribute of God. This is what most theologians believe I think.

If so, "who the fuck do you think you are?" comes to mind in regards to the fact that you continue to presume to even remotely comprehend the mind of god.

And you continuely try to insult people. If I write something, then surely it expresses my opinion. Is it obvious that I write what I believe on a message board? But as it pertains to this topic, were arguing about God portrayed in the bible, which limits the attributes of God. In fact, the God in the bible has to be rational because he admits to rational several times.

wesmorris

11-19-03, 12:14 PM

Well, I understand that you can reshape language to fit your needs, but you can't use it to justify assumptions. Please look at the root of the word please "omni" means all and "potence" is obviosly powerful. The logical ramifications are not implicit.

3 entries found for omnipotence.
om·nip·o·tent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-np-tnt)
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful

Well and you conveniently ignored the rest of my logical objections, ASS. You are wrong and you refuse to face it because your entire mental well-being relies on your correctness and your faith in your BULLSHIT.

Now I could accept it if you could admit that the belief is irrational, illogical and unreasonable, but if so, you should shut the fuck up about it and keep your insanity to yourself. But you can't can you? You have to continue to attempt to make it rational, though it has been illustrated to you NUMEROUS times as to why it isn't. YOU ARE IN DENIAL AND YOU MAKE ME SICK, from that consideration of your personality. That doesn't mean I dislike you. Hell you may be a great guy for that matter. I have no ill-will toward you, but if you're gonna post bullshit, don't be a pussy if I call you on it.

/And you continuely try to insult people.

You insult ME with your stupid fucking arrogance. Seems that our opinions fundamentally clash eh? Go figure. And BTW, it's not really my intent to insult you, so much as to let you know how poor your reasoning is. I want you to see where your thinking is flawed. See that's not intended harm, it's an intended transference of information. If you are offended by my language, then ignore me.

You make claims that "god is this and god is that". I say you're a fucking human and as such you cannot possibly fathom what "god is and what god isn't" and that your silly book is nothing but some historical exagerations coupled with some philosophical meanderings and elements of psychological control. You claim your book to be some sort of divine whatever. I claim your book a book, as meaningful or meaningless as any other book.

/If I write something, then surely it expresses my opinion. Is it obvious that I write what I believe on a message board?

You are entitled to your opinion. If you post it on a message board I am entitled to illustrate to you what I consider to be your unbridled arrogance and stupidity. You are entitled to do the same. Fun huh?

/But as it pertains to this topic, were arguing about God portrayed in the bible, which limits the attributes of God.

I'm not. I'm arguing that for you to make a goddamn claim as to what god does or does not is hypocritical by your own standards, and fundamentally assenine by mine. I have ignored the broader context. Pardon.

/In fact, the God in the bible has to be rational because he admits to rational several times.

Man you may be a great guy, but regardles you are also a meme infected sheep.

Medicine*Woman

11-19-03, 12:57 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quantum Quack
[B]In his life Jesus stumbled on to the psychic ability to use the third eye which gave him the ability to perform all those miracles.
But because he was not able to control his ability and because of the hostility of the Jewish community to Jesus etc they executed him.

When What's his name wanted Jesus to defend himself and Jesus kept silent this was because he could prove nothing and wanted to die. His suffering being so intense because of his inability to contain his enormous psychic abiliies that he sort suicide on the cross as a way to die. He couldn't do it to himself but let the Jews do it for him.
----------
M*W: I understand portions of what you are saying. It is quite understandable (if Jesus were a real person), that he realized the power of God within him (i.e. the power of positive thinking; soul-centered thinking) and utilized it when he felt the need. I don't think he "stumbled upon it," because one doesn't accidently "stumble" upon the higher mind. It can be realized, but it must be developed. I agree that he was unique in his abilities using his higher mind, so his immediate community probably felt that his philosophy was probably too "new age" to fit into the conservative role of Rabbi.
----------
The religious environment generated the Christian belief and not Jesus himself.
----------
M*W: I agree with you that Jesus did not generate Christian thought, if anything, he would be adamantly opposed to it! He didn't preach Christianity! That culprit was Paul and HIS followers. Paul knew the Jews were waiting for a coming messiah, so he created one. If Jesus really lived, and if Jesus really died on the cross, (which I don't believe), it was because of his being "different" for the time in which he lived. Perhaps Jesus was a victim of a preverbial "witch-hunt." In any event, much research has been done on the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, so it doesn't appear to be plausible. Why did it take 2000 years to expose the truth? The preverbial "witch-hunt!" The only ones left to conceal the truth now are those that don't want to know the truth.

okinrus

11-19-03, 02:51 PM

Well and you conveniently ignored the rest of my logical objections, ASS. You are wrong and you refuse to face it because your entire mental well-being relies on your correctness and your faith in your BULLSHIT.

Anyone can find logical contradictions if they define omnipotence to be able to create logical contradictions? I explained what the vast majority of christian theologians mean when they use omnipotence. If logic is an attribute of God, then God by definition is logical. Similarly, if goodness is an attribute of God then God cannot do evil. Your unable to differentiate between logical statements and plausible statements. While what I said was entirely logical, definining omnipotence to be the ability to do all non-contradicting actions, it may not be plausible to you.

wesmorris

11-19-03, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by okinrus
Anyone can find logical contradictions if they define omnipotence to be able to create logical contradictions?

You can't help it can you?

"a self-causal or eternal being is logically contradictory simply based on either fact. As such your "god" is necessarily unrestrained by logic."

Can you refute this?

okinrus

11-19-03, 03:40 PM

"a self-causal or eternal being is logically contradictory simply based on either fact. As such your "god" is necessarily unrestrained by logic."

No, I'm sorry. As soon as you say there exists something that as always existed, you have admitted that logic has always existed because existance is a logical primative only defined in logical systems. Furthermore, there's no reason to assume that logic isn't an attribute of God. Jesus said, "I AM the Truth, the Way and the Life". Now Jesus wasn't the Truth at sometime but has always been the Truth. So Truth has existed eternally thus logic has always existed. Similarly, God must create "creation", which cannot be done unless if there existed the firstborn of God's creation his Son who has always existed with the Father. So God's attribute of creation, his Life through which all has been created, has always existed eternally begotten from the Father.

wesmorris

11-19-03, 04:00 PM

/No, I'm sorry.

Don't be.

/As soon as you say there exists something that as always existed, you have admitted that logic has always existed because existance is a logical primative only defined in logical systems.

It might be worthy to ask if logic actually exists. If not, then how is it subject to time? It exists only as an abstract.

/Furthermore, there's no reason to assume that logic isn't an attribute of God.

You mean there's no reason to assume that it is? Do you see the logical fallacy in your premise? There is no reason to assume god, yet you throw it into the mix because of your meme.

/Jesus said, "I AM the Truth, the Way and the Life".

Why do I care what a character in some stupid book said?

/Now Jesus wasn't the Truth at sometime but has always been the Truth.

I asked that you refrain from jibberish. I don't care what you think "jesus" said. Argue something rational or admit you are not rational.

/So Truth has existed eternally thus logic has always existed.

I already covered this. I must add though, that drawing a conclusion like that based on what some character in a book said is the weakest possible logic/reasoning. Your argument completely blows.

/Similarly, God must create "creation", which cannot be done unless if there existed the firstborn of God's creation his Son who has always existed with the Father.

GIBBERISH. ACK you are freakin hopeless.

/So God's attribute of creation, his Life through which all has been created, has always existed eternally begotten from the Father.

:rolleyes:

blah blah blah.

*hurl*

what a load of authoritative crap.

okinrus

11-19-03, 04:21 PM

It might be worthy to ask if logic actually exists. If not, then how is it subject to time? It exists only as an abstract.
If logic does not exist, then you will have to redefine existance. As of yet, I've never seen atheist say God does not exist because existance does not exist. If you go that route, all I'm going to say is "Have a happy illogical non-existance". We have no way of determining whether logic exists or not because the only way we can proof something is by using logic.


You mean there's no reason to assume that it is? Do you see the logical fallacy in your premise? There is no reason to assume god, yet you throw it into the mix because of your meme.
Truth must always exist because it is contained in the definition of existance. In order to find if something is true, we see if it matches up with existance inside the world. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to assume that Truth is part of the nature of God because a God who has always existed must also have a true existance.

Why do I care what a character in some stupid book said?
Your forgetting that the topic of this thread is "Is Jesus the Antichrist".

wesmorris

11-19-03, 04:48 PM

/If logic does not exist, then you will have to redefine existance.

There are two fundamental modes of existance that I am aware of: 'the physical' and 'the abstract'. Abstracts exist, but not physically. This conversation is reasonable evidence of its existence, as all meaning inferred from this exchange of words has no physical existence.

/As of yet, I've never seen atheist say God does not exist because existance does not exist.

Good for you and the atheirst you've seen say stuff. I don't know what that has to do with what I said.

/If you go that route, all I'm going to say is "Have a happy illogical non-existance".

LOL. As if you are qualified? You spew gibberish and claim it logical. Of course it might be valid within your humongously ridiculous set of assumptions, but I don't care for them as I've illustrated, as they themselves are fundamentally flawed. This is true JUST from epistemological arguments alone, but of course no good christian could agree.

/We have no way of determining whether logic exists or not because the only way we can proof something is by using logic.

True enough, but I have faith that it exists and I can demonstrate it for you directly.

/Truth must always exist because it is contained in the definition of existance. In order to find if something is true, we see if it matches up with existance inside the world. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to assume that Truth is part of the nature of God because a God who has always existed must also have a true existance.

Gibberish crap. You present this as reasonable? Horrifically muddled. You just went in a circle. Read it close. You define existence circularly and inclusive of a whole shitload of bogus crap and you can spew interally validated gibberish all day long. Wow, seems that most of the planet is capable of gibberish. Can you provide evidence that you can think more clearly than gibberish?

/Your forgetting that the topic of this thread is "Is Jesus the Antichrist".

You're forgetting that I already apologized for my emotional reaction and forgoing the larger context to nitpick this issue, as I believe it directly shows your flawed thinking but you just heap it back into your massive circular BS definitions and claim yourself justified. Maybe I should play the same game with you?

Shall I write a book, claim it the word of god, claim my god is purple, horny and has five tits. Then you can feel how retarded it is to claim stupid books as assumptions of existence.

Sorry MW. I'll stop polluting your thread with my garbage.

okinrus

11-19-03, 05:37 PM

Gibberish crap. You present this as reasonable? Horrifically muddled. You just went in a circle. Read it close. You define existence circularly and inclusive of a whole shitload of bogus crap and you can spew interally validated gibberish all day long. Wow, seems that most of the planet is capable of gibberish. Can you provide evidence that you can think more clearly than gibberish?
Truth is defined by webster as 3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality Therefore, something that exists in the universe, our reality, must also be accord with fact, namely that it exists. On the otherhand, if something is accord with fact in our universe, then that fact must exist. Thus, claiming that existance exists in the universe is equivalent to claiming that truth exists.

Quantum Quack

11-19-03, 06:52 PM

Hey Wes, I have just been reading your diatribe on the art of verbal self defense and offense.

You truelly have a gift in that your reactions to arguement border of being truelly poetic.

You have taken the art to the highest form enjoying with relish the way insult and self esteem destruction roll out of your head and through your keyboard.

If this wasn't the internet and face to face I think you would quickly create a fan club of similar minded persons.

Definition and semantics are really what it's about, verbal bun fighting and oportunism. Find a weakness a go in for the kill sort of thing....

It makes for interesting reading I must admit but in the end it is just a way of having fun in an otherwise boring existance ( life)

None of any of this stuff means much to the real world, the internet being an imaginary construct with it's own self justification and self perpetuating industries.

Keeping it all in perspective is not easy as we all tend to get carried away with our ability to strike with anonimity.

But I ask what is the value in what we do here, are we here to learn or here to fight or just play games?

Nehushta

11-19-03, 07:05 PM

Hey Wes - don't be so bashful! Just come right on out and say what's on your mind. ;)

Nehushta

11-19-03, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by okinrus
Infalliable is used by the Church in a theological sense. We accept that what is taught in the bible under the proper guidance of the Church is infalliable.

Ah yes, under the proper guidance of the Church, of course. We can't have people running around thinking for themselves, can we? It would be utter pandemonium! Unthinkable!

We believe that the faith and doctrin contained in our faith are infalliable with respect to faith and morals. If Luke copied a record of Mary that was partially wrong then it's no concern to us. Similarly, when Peter first heard the news of Judah's death, it was different than the one taken down by Mathew. The key thing here is that how Judah's died has no bearing on the teachings of faith and morals.

I don't recall having said anything about the death of Judah - or Judas either, for that matter. We were discussing the genealogy of Jesus, which you refuse to accept as valid because it doesn't fit in with your preconceived notions about who or what Jesus was. In a way, what you're saying is that it doesn't matter one whit to you or your Church if, according to the scriptures, there's no way that Jesus could be the Jewish Messiah. If that's the case, then what is the foundation for the rest of your beliefs? There are a lot of people who have good ideas about how you should live your life - why not go out and worship one of them as God and go around spreading the "good news" to all your friends, relatives, neighbors and Internet acquaintances?