Jump to content

IPBoard Styles©Fisana

Photo

It's only fair that we have a 'Christian Bashing thread'


  • Please log in to reply
288 replies to this topic

#241 arunma

arunma

    Physics and math maniac

  • Members
  • 3,615 posts
  • Location:University of Minnesota
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 August 2005 - 04:18 PM

Arunma, this is what i am talking about. If you beleive by the visions of, Saint John, the prophecy is fullfilled, then there is nothing else to wait for, unless you beleive in a 'third-coming'.


Hold on, you're talking about two different things here. The Gospel is littered with prophecies about the Second Advent. This, however, is not one of them. It is a prophecy that some people who were with Jesus would see the Second Advent. And Saint John saw it. But since he saw it through a vision of the future, this doesn't fulfill the prophecies about the Second Advent.

#242 Reflectionist

Reflectionist

    Follow the smoke; find the fire.

  • Banned
  • 2,165 posts
  • Location:Missouri
  • Gender:Male
  • World

Posted 11 August 2005 - 08:07 PM

Okay, sorry i was gone, i was in kansas city.. harry, i edited my post so you could see what i was talking about that made you just now look like a retard, my apologies. I don't do well when people accuse me whenever they don't even know what I'm talking about.

#243 dcLx

dcLx

    I'm so cool

  • Members
  • 1,472 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 August 2005 - 08:36 PM

I'm sure that Christian/God is real. I mean i get my prayers answered, and it makes sense. What I mean by that is that it ahh how can i put it....it was all in history.....damn that came out wrong

#244 Korhend

Korhend

    The world is a better place with Pickelhaubens!

  • Members
  • 2,213 posts

Posted 11 August 2005 - 09:35 PM

As much as Emperor Jimmu's descent from Ameterasu was...

#245 Goose

Goose

    Squirtle of the Living Dead

  • Members
  • 5,174 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 August 2005 - 10:17 PM

Entertaining thread. I needed a laugh. I love how people get into the specifics of scripture.

Harry, what are you trying to prove? I"m thinking that you want to prove all of cristianity wrong by saying that Jesus didn't die.

But then you state that the deciples wrapped him up in clothes with spices and left him in a tomb for three days, after being horribly wounded by that spear. So how did he survive in their for three days without being able to breath, because the tomb was closed off, and air couldn't get through?

If your theory about the sheep is true, that he wanted only the isralites to be saved, and not the gentiles, do you think the apostles just decided to ignore the man and preach to everybody, because they thought him daft? These people gave their lives to follow this man, and then they go and ignore his commands? Seriously.

I just love threads like these.

#246 Guest_Harry-Hermoine_*

Guest_Harry-Hermoine_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 August 2005 - 04:59 AM

arunma:

It is a prophecy that 'some' people who were with Jesus would see the Second Advent. And 'Saint John' saw it. But since he saw it through a vision of the future, this doesn't fulfill the prophecies about the Second Advent.


Thats what i am saying! :lmao:

#247 Guest_Harry-Hermoine_*

Guest_Harry-Hermoine_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 August 2005 - 05:13 AM

Harry, what are you trying to prove? I"m thinking that you want to prove all of cristianity wrong by saying that Jesus didn't die.


It is your misconception that the truth of christianity lies in the death upon cross. The Jews beleived (you should too) that the one who gets hanged upon a tree is an 'accursed' of God (old testament). Saint Paul then as i beleive made this new 'beleif' that he died on the cross and become ACCURSED for US (the the theory of atonement).

Never in the history of prophets has a such a 'weird' (fairty tale sort of) theory emerged, but it did then. And the concequence was simple, he was with the passage of time, taken to be a literal 'son of god'.

Now hold on, i have showed Jesus's mission was the Lost Sheep, he 'swooned' on the cross, his body was taken by Joseph and wrapped in SPICES (why is one trying to heal a DEAD body? ). But i have yet to write about the most important thing...and that is Jesus apointing Peter as the Khalifa (leader) much to the annoyance of Saint Paul, and from then on what what 'new' theories he put in 'christianity'.

#248 Reflectionist

Reflectionist

    Follow the smoke; find the fire.

  • Banned
  • 2,165 posts
  • Location:Missouri
  • Gender:Male
  • World

Posted 12 August 2005 - 09:58 AM

Well, thats just flat making stuff up. So what do you do with the verse where Jesus says "I and the Father are one?" I guess Jesus was lying, right? I seriously doubt it.

And you hold on, you have not shown anything to us, you've been proved wrong on all of those accounts, to which you just say "I proved it by saying it."

The reason nothing like this has come up in any of the prophets, is that the other "prophets" were simply men. Jesus wasn't just a man.

#249 Showsni

Showsni

    The Fallen

  • Members
  • 13,386 posts
  • Location:Gloucester
  • Gender:Male
  • England

Posted 12 August 2005 - 10:29 AM

Where can we buy these spices which, when left pasted on your bodies, heal such critical wounds? And why aren't they more widely available in chemists, etc?
If Jesus had swooned on the cross, he would then have died, since he wouldn't be able to breathe. In any case, the spear would kill him.

#250 SteveT

SteveT

    100% a Dick

  • Members
  • 5,060 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 August 2005 - 11:43 AM

But i have yet to write about the most important thing...and that is Jesus apointing Peter as the Khalifa (leader) much to the annoyance of Saint Paul, and from then on what what 'new' theories he put in 'christianity'.


No, Peter was the first Pope.

(*sigh* He was just...leader of the Church. Any title given to him was given in retrospect centuries later.)

More importantly, Paul had absolutely no grounds for jealousy or annoyance. Paul wasn't one of the original Twelve and converted after the resurrection. The arguments between Paul and Peter weren't a power struggle, but theological disagreements. This is just contemplation on my part, but it seems like Paul wanted Christianity to take off as its own religion and Peter wanted to keep it a subsect of Judaism.

(The title "Saint" is omitted because I'm Presbyterian.)

#251 Emiko

Emiko

    So real I don't need to fake it

  • Members
  • 3,573 posts
  • Location:under your bed
  • Gender:Female
  • Thailand

Posted 12 August 2005 - 02:11 PM

Well, thats just flat making stuff up. So what do you do with the verse where Jesus says "I and the Father are one?" I guess Jesus was lying, right? I seriously doubt it.  

And you hold on, you have not shown anything to us, you've been proved wrong on all of those accounts, to which you just say "I proved it by saying it."  

The reason nothing like this has come up in any of the prophets, is that the other "prophets" were simply men. Jesus wasn't just a man.


Jesus didn't mean that he was God with that scripture...he was saying that if people dont know him then they dont know God..Jesus is God's Son, and he was taught by God...if you read on in other scriptures where Jesus is talking it states otherwise...Even his name says otherwise.

Jesus in Hebrew is Ye-shu'a which means "Jehovah is Salvation" and if you read at Psalms 83: 18 in the King James Vesion (Because Christiadom has taken out God's name) that God's name is Jehovah or "YHWH" in Hebrew

#252 Reflectionist

Reflectionist

    Follow the smoke; find the fire.

  • Banned
  • 2,165 posts
  • Location:Missouri
  • Gender:Male
  • World

Posted 12 August 2005 - 03:13 PM

Because Hebrew didn't have any vowels, yes I know. But people just pronounce it Yahweh anyway.

So what you're telling me is that you think Jesus wasn't God? Well, I've said this before, so I'll say it again, if Jesus wasn't God, His resurrection meant nothing, His atonement meant nothing, therefore we are all still sinners and we're all going to hell, regardless of what scripture says. Is that what you believe?

#253 arunma

arunma

    Physics and math maniac

  • Members
  • 3,615 posts
  • Location:University of Minnesota
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 August 2005 - 03:27 PM

No, Peter was the first Pope.

(*sigh* He was just...leader of the Church. Any title given to him was given in retrospect centuries later.)

More importantly, Paul had absolutely no grounds for jealousy or annoyance. Paul wasn't one of the original Twelve and converted after the resurrection. The arguments between Paul and Peter weren't a power struggle, but theological disagreements. This is just contemplation on my part, but it seems like Paul wanted Christianity to take off as its own religion and Peter wanted to keep it a subsect of Judaism.

(The title "Saint" is omitted because I'm Presbyterian.)


Well actually, Paul opposed Peter at Antioch over more than just a theological dispute. Peter was behaving in a racist manner towards Gentiles, so Paul rebuked him, because such behavior is not in step with the Gospel. As for Christianity being its own religion, it seems to me that the only people who wanted Christianity to be a subset of Judaism were certain Pharisees who had intruded into the church. It was Peter who baptized the first Gentile (without circumcizing him as a Jew first).

By the way Steve, Orthodox Christians (with a capital O) believe that James was the leader of the church, rather than Peter. So we're not even sure that Peter was ever seen as the leader. As Paul tells us in Galatians, the leadership of the early church consisted of James, Peter, and John. If any among these three was higher than the other two, then the Bible certainly doesn't say anything about it.

#254 SteveT

SteveT

    100% a Dick

  • Members
  • 5,060 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 August 2005 - 03:37 PM

Yeah, but the Orthodox Church doesn't count. Constantine and the Iron Curtain and all that.

And yeah, Paul definitely had a more global view of Christ's salvation. When I said the thing about Jews and whatnot, I meant that they debated a lot about whether you had to be a Jew before you were a Christian. I view that as more of a theological issue than a race one, but it has aspects of both. (And of course I'm simplifying for the sake of relevance.)

#255 Emiko

Emiko

    So real I don't need to fake it

  • Members
  • 3,573 posts
  • Location:under your bed
  • Gender:Female
  • Thailand

Posted 12 August 2005 - 05:07 PM

God sent his only begotten son so that everyone might not die, but have everlasting life...something like that...

The bible states that GOD sent Jesus to earth to be the "second adam" A perfect sin-less man to die for all man kind.Jesus infact reconized that by calling God "My father"

You can not be your own father can you?

#256 Korhend

Korhend

    The world is a better place with Pickelhaubens!

  • Members
  • 2,213 posts

Posted 12 August 2005 - 08:02 PM

If any among these three was higher than the other two, then the Bible certainly doesn't say anything about it.

"thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church"--Matthew 7:24-28

#257 Nevermind

Nevermind

    Building consensus...

  • Members
  • 9,417 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 13 August 2005 - 12:54 AM

Emiko, some believe He WAS God, others don't.

If you can create existence itself by just telling it to exist, I see no problem with being your own "son".

#258 arunma

arunma

    Physics and math maniac

  • Members
  • 3,615 posts
  • Location:University of Minnesota
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 August 2005 - 01:20 AM

"thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church"--Matthew 7:24-28


Heh, you don't even want to know how non-Catholics interpret that...do you?

#259 Guest_Harry-Hermoine_*

Guest_Harry-Hermoine_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 August 2005 - 04:31 AM

What amazes me, actually bewilders me is the fact an 'leader' appointed by Jesus himself has no credibility amongst you people than Saint Paul!!! Sheesh Kababs

Before you say anything agiasnt Peter the righteous, i want you to see what Jesus himself has to say regardin the matter:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.(Matthew 5: 17 - 18)



The first followers of Jesus, under James and Peter, founded the Jerusalem Church after Jesus' death. They were called the Nazarenes,...... The Nazarenes did not believe that Jesus had abrogated the Jewish religion, or Torah. Having known Jesus personally, they were aware that he had observed the Jewish religious law all his life ............ The Nazarenes were themselves very observant of Jewish religious law. They practiced circumcision, did not eat the forbidden foods and showed great respect to the Temple. The Nazarenes did not regard themselves as belonging to a new religion; their religion was Judaism. ....... The Nazarenes became suspicious of Paul when they heard that he was preaching that Jesus was the founder of a new religion and that he had abrogated the Torah. After an attempt to reach an understanding with Paul, the Nazarenes (i.e. the Jerusalem Church under James and Peter) broke irrevocably with Paul and disowned him. (The Mythmaker - Hyam Maccoby , Pages 15-16)


Jesus (you beleive him to be DIVINE right?) says something, his own APPOINTED apostles say something, but you peolpe end up listening to Saint Paul, splendid!

#260 Reflectionist

Reflectionist

    Follow the smoke; find the fire.

  • Banned
  • 2,165 posts
  • Location:Missouri
  • Gender:Male
  • World

Posted 13 August 2005 - 08:08 AM

paul wasn't around at this point, Jesus even appeared to paul, and, not to mention he wrote most of the new testament.

#261 Korhend

Korhend

    The world is a better place with Pickelhaubens!

  • Members
  • 2,213 posts

Posted 13 August 2005 - 09:58 AM

Heh, you don't even want to know how non-Catholics interpret that...do you?

I'd like to hear it.

#262 arunma

arunma

    Physics and math maniac

  • Members
  • 3,615 posts
  • Location:University of Minnesota
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 August 2005 - 02:33 PM

Harry, first of all, that large quote you posted is an editorial comment, not a scholarly synopsis of Biblical history. There's no evidence that any such group of Christians called the Nazarenes ever existed in Biblical times, or that James, Peter, and John would ever have founded such a group. Nor is there any evidence that the modern day Nazarenes can trace their spiritual roots back to James Peter and John.

Jesus (you beleive him to be DIVINE right?) says something, his own APPOINTED apostles say something, but you peolpe end up listening to Saint Paul, splendid!


Jesus did appoint Paul as an apostle. It's recorded in Acts 9:15, which is part of the canon no less than the Gospels. Since you yourself have omitted the Qur'an as a valid basis of argument for the purpose of this debate (because we Christians don't believe in it), you need to contend with the fact that the Christian Scriptures confirm that Paul is Christ's apostle. Thus far, you've repeatedly stated your disagreement with this doctrine, but you haven't done anything to debunk it.

#263 Nevermind

Nevermind

    Building consensus...

  • Members
  • 9,417 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 14 August 2005 - 10:57 PM

I thought the Nazarenes were people from Nazareth? You know, Israel - Israelites, Canaan - Canaanites, Nazareth - Nazarenes...

I never looked much into it really...

#264 Alakhriveion

Alakhriveion

    Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki

  • Members
  • 4,718 posts
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 14 August 2005 - 11:08 PM

A Nazarite or Nazirite, Nazir in Hebrew, was a Jew who took an ascetic vow described in the Book of Numbers at 6:1-21. The term Nazarite comes from the Hebrew word nazir meaning "consecrated" or "separated". The Nazarite is "holy unto the Lord" (Numbers 6:8) and must keep himself from becoming ritually unclean. The regulations which apply to him actually agree with those for the High Priest and for the priests during worship, as described in Leviticus and in Ezekiel. This vow required the man (and in the Hellenistic period the woman too) to observe the following:

   * Abstain from wine, vinegar (which was made from wine), grapes, raisins, and all intoxicants;
   * Refrain from cutting one's hair and beard;
   * To avoid corpses and graves, even those of a family member.

The vow was usually for a fixed period of time — 30, 90 or even 100 days. At the end of that time, the man would immerse in water and make an offering that included a lamb, an ewe, a ram, and a basket of bread and cakes. There are cases where a parent would make this vow for her or his child, which the child would observe for his entire life.


There is scriptural evidence that the word "Nazarene" was applied to the early followers of Jesus. In the New Testament book of Acts Paul is tried in Caesarea, and Tertullus is reported as saying:

   "We have, in fact, found this man a pestilent fellow, an agitator among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5, New Revised Standard Version).

According to the New Testament, "Christian" was not the earliest term for the followers of Jesus, since Acts 11:26 reports its first use, in Antioch - at a time and in a place at least 10 and possibly 20 or more years after the death of Jesus. Many authors have argued that "Nazarene" was not just one term that was used before "Christian" came into use, but the dominant term, and that it was also used to describe Jesus himself.

The chief argument for this claim rests on an interpretation of the way Jesus is referred to by the writers of the gospels. The original Greek forms of all four gospels call him, in places, "Iesou Nazarene" (e.g. Matthew 26:71; Mark 1:24, 10:47, 14:67; Luke 4:34; John 17:5; Acts 2:22). Translations of the Bible, from the fifth century Vulgate on, have generally rendered this into a form equivalent to "Jesus of Nazareth". This is a reasonable translation given that it is clear that all four evangelists did believe that Jesus came from Nazareth. However, it is not the only possible translation. Linguistically, "Jesus the Nazarene" would be at least as correct, and some critics have argued that it is more plausible, given that Nazareth seems to have been a place of no significance at the time; it is unmentioned in contemporary history, and there is no evidence outside the gospels that it even existed in Jesus' time. The Vulgate does use a form equivalent to "Nazarene" in one verse (Matthew 2:23), where its reading is Nazaroeus (Nazoraios), but here the original Greek has the word Nazarene on its own, without Iesou.

It is noteworthy that the name "Iesou Nazarene" is applied to Jesus in the Gospels only by those who are outside the circle of his intimate friends. In Acts, however, it is employed by Peter and Paul— and even attributed to the risen Christ himself, in Paul's account of his conversion that he gave to the multitude of angry Jews who had attacked him in the Temple (Acts 22:8).

However we translate these verses from the gospels, the evidence from Acts 24 does support the claim that "Nazarene" was an early outsiders' term for the followers of Jesus. But it does not appear to have been the term most used by those followers: the earliest Christian writings we have, the letters of Paul (which predate the gospels by ten to forty years), use the phrase "followers of the way" or, by far the most common, "the church" from the Greek ecclesia or assembly.



So there's that.

#265 SteveT

SteveT

    100% a Dick

  • Members
  • 5,060 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 August 2005 - 01:02 AM

The most famous Nazarite was probably Samson.

[/trivia]

#266 Nevermind

Nevermind

    Building consensus...

  • Members
  • 9,417 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 15 August 2005 - 03:19 AM

Yeah I was thinking it sounded like Samson's deal.

#267 Alakhriveion

Alakhriveion

    Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki

  • Members
  • 4,718 posts
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 15 August 2005 - 07:32 AM

The most famous Nazarite was probably Samson.

[/trivia]

Indeed. He was punished for breaking his vow.

#268 Nevermind

Nevermind

    Building consensus...

  • Members
  • 9,417 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 15 August 2005 - 08:20 AM

And then later redeemed...

#269 Emiko

Emiko

    So real I don't need to fake it

  • Members
  • 3,573 posts
  • Location:under your bed
  • Gender:Female
  • Thailand

Posted 15 August 2005 - 11:15 AM

How did Samson break his vow, last time I remember some slut girly girl cut his hair cause it was the source of his strenght...

#270 Alakhriveion

Alakhriveion

    Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki

  • Members
  • 4,718 posts
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 15 August 2005 - 11:24 AM

How did Samson break his vow, last time I remember some slut girly girl cut his hair cause it was the source of his strenght...

Samson was a Nazerite. Part of the vow is that you can "take no hair from the top of your head." His hair was cut so his strength was revoked. It wasn't actually the source.




Copyright © 2025 Zelda Legends