ARCHIVE: I believe religion to be obsolete

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by prodigal

Jesus was just a man. A teacher. He was not the son of god, nor did he ever intend to teach that he was the son of god. I believe this because to the extent of my knowledge, the Maschiach (the messiah) of the Jewish old testament was never supposed to be the son of god in the first place, so why would he have taught that he was?

He taught that He was (is and always will be) The Maschiach because to do otherwise would be a lie.

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

He wasn't telling Peter that he would be made into stone, or that the faith that he had was any different than anyone else's faith; but that the 'rock' of revealed knowledge, knowledge that God gives, down on the inside, of The Truth, is what His Church would be built upon.

Jesus was killed, in my opinion, probably by the Jews for blasphemy. The Jewish Talmud makes references to the death of jesus at the hands of the Jews, but those references mention him being either stoned or hanged, so it doesn't really corroborate the bible story.

Why would the Talmud be expected to corroborate The One Most Accurate Historic Document in Antiquity, The Bible?

Jesus did not rise from the dead. He stayed there like humans have a tendancy to do. Since you are unable to offer up any proof as to the divinity of jesus, and since you are unable to offer me any indication that it is in fact possible for the dead to come back to life, I must continue to believe that Jesus met his fate like every other human.

If He is not risen, then our faith in Him is in vain. He was dead, and is alive, thank God, forevermore, seated at The Right Hand of God, being given all Power and Authority, both in Heaven and earth.

It is my contention that in conjunction with Paul, the apostles were able to perpetuate the stories of jesus but with little to no supernatural elements in those stories.

Really? His virgin birth? Healing those born blind? Raising dead? Walking on water? Arising from the dead? Appearing in a room, after it is locked? Ascending into Heaven? Please explain these things with 'natural' means.

This is true also for the gospels. This wouldn't have been a problem then because people would have understood the thrust of the message, they would have understood it to be mythological, the point of the story not being the substance but the moral.

People understood because of the large number of eyewitnesses to the events that were described by the Apostles. That's one reason the church grew so rapidly. The things they saw were recorded, and the corroboration of the church was passed to the next generation.

It was a myth that the church decided to teach literally.

The Truth has been kept intact, and the revelation of Jesus as Messiah will dispel the doubt of many Jews, in an instant, when they see the sign of His coming in the sky.

The traditional jewish profile of the messiah was something quite different than what the NT claims he was.

They've mis-interpreted many scriptures. The Bible says that He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.

 

[prodigal]

Aimiel,

He taught that He was (is and always will be) The Maschiach because to do otherwise would be a lie.

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

That’s a nice scripture reference, but my contention is based on the premise that scripture was doctored and written with the specific purpose of you believing it in a literal sense. My contention is that it wasn’t originally meant to be taken literally like this, thus, you are quoting that which is not literal, true or valid.

Why would the Talmud be expected to corroborate The One Most Accurate Historic Document in Antiquity, The Bible?

Because I believe the validity of the bible rests in the corroboration of other sources. The Talmud makes reference to jesus, but in an unpleasant and according to the bible, and inaccurate light. And as for the bible being the most historically accurate document inantiquity, well, that’s very open for debate.

If He is not risen, then our faith in Him is in vain. He was dead, and is alive, thank God, forevermore, seated at The Right Hand of God, being given all Power and Authority, both in Heaven and earth.

Aimiel, it is stated as a matter of faith, never fact. Paul never makes a literal reference to the life, death and physical resurrection of jesus literally. It is always either metaphorical, or something that even Paul admits cannot be proven.

If Paul could not state beyond a shadow of a doubt that jesus was physically risen, how can we be expected to believe it?

Really? His virgin birth? Healing those born blind? Raising dead? Walking on water? Arising from the dead? Appearing in a room, after it is locked? Ascending into Heaven? Please explain these things with 'natural' means.

Aimiel, I was talking about the epistles. The gospels are a completely different story. The gospels were written after the epistles and in my opinion were doctored to make that which was meant to be metaphorical, literal. This was done in an effort to unify a church that was fragmented (all you have to do is read the epistles to see this). Jesus was a device Paul used mythologically to hammer home a point, the church used jesus as the epicenter of their new religion in an effort to bring conformity to the satellite churches.

People understood because of the large number of eyewitnesses to the events that were described by the Apostles. That's one reason the church grew so rapidly. The things they saw were recorded, and the corroboration of the church was passed to the next generation.

Once again, I believe you’re referring to the stories of the gospels, not the epistles. The epistles were earlier than the gospels. The gospels didn’t begin to spread fully until they began to be referenced in second century writings and letters of the church fathers. The gospels were used as a means to an end, the end being the unification of the church.

The Truth has been kept intact, and the revelation of Jesus as Messiah will dispel the doubt of many Jews, in an instant, when they see the sign of His coming in the sky.

See, Aimiel, even you are speaking in mythological terms here. There is nothing in this statement that makes sense in the real world, there is nothing in this statement that can realistically be taken literally. It’s metaphorical language, it’s mythological, you, and your fellow Christians take it literally.

They've mis-interpreted many scriptures. The Bible says that He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.

Trying to tell a well read Jew what the OT says is like pulling a knife on a Filipino. You don’t wanna do it. A well read Jew will school a Christian on the meaning of the OT any day of the week. They wrote it, it was their tradition for 3000 years before Christ. Christianity hijacked their religion, they hijacked their book, they added their own myths to it, they added their own meaning, they claimed the messiah had returned when jesus clearly does not fit the bill.

It’s a bold claim to say the Jews misinterpreted the OT, a bold claim indeed. They wrote it, they had been waiting, and they are still waiting. Like I said, they have many reasons to believe that jesus wasn’t what they were waiting for. The messiah was supposed to be a general, a leader of men who wasn’t supposed to save anyone from sin, but to lead the Jews in a physical war against their enemies, and then conquer the planet in the name of god. He wasn’t supposed to be killed, and as far as I know, he wasn’t even supposed to be the son of god.

Jesus was not the messiah. The Jews then and now have interpreted the OT correctly, in my opinion, it is their book, they had been studying it for 3000 years before Christ, they do know what they are talking about. It is my contention that it is far more likely that Christians have misinterpreted the OT.

Let me know why I shouldn’t believe this according to an extra-biblical source.

Yours truly,

Prodigal

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by prodigal

Lighthouse,



I’m sorry, you know better than theologians who have been sculpting their doctrines for hundreds of years? I think you think too much of yourself at times, LH.

I never said that. But I really don't think any theologian developed their ideas over hundreds of years. They all died before they could have done that. And they weren't born Christians, so...

Anyway, what I meant was that there are a lot of denominations who have no Biblical support for many of their doctrines. And even the ones who can point to scripture fail when the scripture is actually looked at.

In light of what the bible says about your god’s completel foreknowledge and pre-ordaination of the events of the universe, I would venture a guess to say that you have no idea what you’re talking about, and, you’re just making your doctrine up as you go along.

First, I didn't come up with Open Theism. Secondly, the Bible does not say that God has complete foreknowledge of the future. It doesn't say that anywhere.

I don’t care about your doctrine, LH. Frankly, I don’t even care about the gory details of your faith. What your book says is meaningless to me because it’s validity is in doubt from the get go. You can’t defend your book’s veracity. Rolf can barely do it. Clete couldn’t do it, and Hilston got sick of me.

If you think it's not valid then why are you trying to argue with me about what it says? I say that the Bible shows God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge, and that He doesn't predestine anyone for hell. Why do you have to argue that with me, if you don't even believe the book to begin with?

Paul had a vision of Christ and recounted his vision in 1 Cor. 15 side by side with the “appearances” of the risen jesus to the 500 and various others. Paul’s vision of Christ was no different than the “appearances” he made to everyone else. It wasn’t a physical resurrection. When they killed jesus, that was the end of the story. He died, and is still dead.

Then where is His body? And why do the gospels say it was physical? There are even instances of the Pharisees wanting to know what happened to His body. Why do you insist on standing on sinking sand?

The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You To Read. That’s what it’s called.

Who is it by?

I like your cowardly attempt at not answering my points. Calling me a tool is how you answer my points. How charmingly yellow-bellied.

So, now I'm a coward?

You see, LH, this isn’t an answer. This is what a cowardly child says. How old are you? Why don’t you know how to talk to people like a civilized human being with manners and decency? Why do you not have class?

A cowardly child tells you you're a poser?

Class is overrated.

I told you to read Matthew and Luke in comparison to Mark to see just how much Matthew and Luke copped from the original gospel. Up to 80 percent. Now, read the resurrection accounts, there’s where you’ll see the inconsistencies, because of my contention.

:yawn:

My contention is this: Jesus died on the cross, was dead, was buried and stayed there. That’s why all these post-crucifixion “appearance” stories are so varied. The authors of the gospels were just making them up. Get it? That’s why there are contradictions in the post-death story of Christ. They had nothing factual to base it on, they had to make it up, hence the inconsistencies.

What inconcistencies? Give me a list.

Than you need to be a little more clear about what you’re saying when you post. Please don’t call me a moron.

If you don't want me to call you a moron, stop being one.

And thanks for making my point.

So you admit that there is no Paul reference to the testimony of Peter? Wonderful.

And this matters because?

That might be true, but that still isn’t an answer to the point I made. I made, what I believe to be a very good point, but instead of fearlessly defending it with what your favorite theologian says about the bible, or with scripture that would silence me, you fall back onto immature name calling.

Favorite theologian? You make it quite clear you don't know me.

Anyway, what was your point, if you think it was so good?

You’re a loser LH, a loser. Every word you write testifies to how big of a loser you are. I post valid, food-for-thought ideas and all you can do is reply to them with insults?

And you say I have self-esteem issues?

You’re a waste of my time.

You're just a waste.

I’m not going to, loser. You’re a fat, pathetic, powerless waste of flesh working behind the counter of a crappy ice cream restaurant. I’m young, sleek, good looking and have a great job. Your Christianity has done nothing for you but make you into an even more miserable person than you were without it.

I was three when I became a Christian. And the only time I've ever been miserable is during my dad's second marriage. And that was because of her, and nothing else.

I see you conveniently left out the rest of my self-description list. Did I make LH jealous? Does he hate his life?

Jealous of what?

[Jesus]"He that loveth his life shall lose it: and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto eternal life."[/Jesus]
-Jesus [John 12:25]

I wouldn’t trade lives with you for a million dollars, or with a gun in my mouth. I would rather be dead or poor for the rest of my life than have your life, or whatever it is that deludes you into thinking you have something worth being jealous of.

Christ is Life. He is the only Life worth having. And He is my Life.

You’re fat, pathetic loser with no clue.

You're a hypocrite. You get pissed when I call you arrogant, and a fool, so you resort to personal attacks? And I'm the pathetic loser? I know I'm fat. I'm over it.

LH, my time is worth thousands and thousands of dollars. That’s what people pay me, thousands and thousands of dollars, just for what I know, the expertise I bring to the table, and just helping them.

How does this matter? Do you need to make yourself look good to make up for your shortcoming?

Your time is worthless.

Time is nothing to me.

Christians and dairy queens like yourself come a dime a dozen, there’s only one Prodigal.

There are a million people like you. Just as smug and arrogant. And just as inadequate in their manhood.

Don’t hate god, I dislike Christians like LH.

Seems like I'm the only person you hate. You can't even find someone else to insult. You've earned me a lot of respect among my friends.

This thread is over seven hundred posts deep. I’ve exhibited nothing but the ability to take it, but maybe you wouldn’t know, I understand, it would be tiring to actually go back and read all of this crap. LH is the one dragging this thread through the mud, what with his brazen use of the words, “idiot”, “moron”, “tool” and his utterly nauseating “buy a mirror” catch phrase.

:yawn:

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by prodigal

Lighthouse,

Listen, I've said some things I'm not entirely happy about. I apologize. Even if the things I said are the things I actually think, I shouldn't have said them. I should have kept them to myself and taken the high road, but I didn't, so I'm sorry.

Listen, can you give me a good reason to not believe this:

Jesus was just a man. A teacher. He was not the son of god, nor did he ever intend to teach that he was the son of god. I believe this because to the extent of my knowledge, the Maschiach (the messiah) of the Jewish old testament was never supposed to be the son of god in the first place, so why would he have taught that he was?

There are verses that say Jesus taught that He was the Son of God. There were even verses that show He taught He was God.

Jesus was killed, in my opinion, probably by the Jews for blasphemy. The Jewish Talmud makes references to the death of jesus at the hands of the Jews, but those references mention him being either stoned or hanged, so it doesn't really corroborate the bible story.

The Bible says that is why they had Him killed. What references in the Talmud are you speaking of?

Jesus did not rise from the dead. He stayed there like humans have a tendancy to do. Since you are unable to offer up any proof as to the divinity of jesus, and since you are unable to offer me any indication that it is in fact possible for the dead to come back to life, I must continue to believe that Jesus met his fate like every other human.

Do you not believe that doctor's have brought people back from the dead? Why would God not be able to do this? And can you find the body of Christ?

It is my contention that in conjunction with Paul, the apostles were able to perpetuate the stories of jesus but with little to no supernatural elements in those stories. It wasn't until Paul began writing that jesus began to take on a more mythological persona. All you have to do is read the bible to ascertain this. The gospels were written years after the epistles, the epistles make no mention of jesus' physical life, or physical resurrection. They make mention of his death and they make mention of a spiritual resurrection but there are no clear references to a physical resurrection of the dead. Any references are clearly stated to be a matter of faith, not fact. Even Paul was in the dark as to whether or not it actually happened.

You have nothing to back this up. Nothing to validate that Paul's references to the resurrection were not about a physical resurrection. Nothing. When someone has faith in something it is not something they don't believe to be fact. And the idea that Paul would just switch over to the other side for something he didn't even beleive to be true makes no sense.

Paul used common mythological elements in his writing to depict jesus in a light familiar to the culture. This has been done throughout history with epics and myths, and at the time, fiction was written in order to teach a moral lesson. It would have only made sense to embellish the story in order to hammer a point home. This is true also for the gospels. This wouldn't have been a problem then because people would have understood the thrust of the message, they would have understood it to be mythological, the point of the story not being the substance but the moral.

Is this why Christianity has always believed it to be true? You're not losing ground, you have none to stand on at all.

The gospel writers, and the gospels had a politcal/religious agenda that far exceeded the simple story telling of Paul. The gospels are not mentioned in any supporting texts until the second century which gives us a pretty guess at when they began to circulate.

And?

The gospel of Mark was written first, it was nothing more than Mark having taken dictation from Peter. This dictation was not in chronological order, it was a collection of sayings and stories that ended at 16:8. Later an editor added past 16:8 and revised the collection of stories.

Who? Who is this editor you speak of?

The authors of Matthew and Luke borrowed up to 80% of Mark in order to write their versions of the story. This is obvious enough to find on your own if you were to read Matthew and Luke side by side with Mark. Embellishments were made in Matthew and Luke in order to better tell the story according to the theological agenda of the writers. These writers were probably motivated by the need to organize the new "christian" church, a church that was fragmented and in dire need of unity. Evidence for this can be found in the epistles, Paul is constantly chiding the churches for their wrong teachings, he is constantly discipling them for this that and the other thing.

Do you think John differs from the rest of the gospels more than the first three differ from each other?

The apparent fragmentation of the christian church necessitated unity. Unity was found in the writing of the gospels. The gospels took the metaphorical, mythological stories of Paul, stories that were never meant to convey a literal message, and conveyed the myth as reality. This now literally written myth was the means by which the christian church was unified. Counsels were held, such as the counsel of nicea, to further cement the foundation of a church that was based on a mythologically embellished character who claimed to be the messiah and wasn't.

Then why was Paul persecuting and killing followers of Jesus? What were Peter and John and the other nine, plus who knows how may others, preaching that got the Pharisees riled up? They were preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, and that He rose from the dead. When do your books tell you that Acts was written?

It was a myth that the church decided to teach literally. They wrote stories based on mythological teachings of Paul and some first hand, but certainly not supernatural, experiences that some had of jesus. It was a new religion that needed an epicenter to give it both unity and legitimacy, jesus fit the bill of the epicenter. I think I'm using that word correctly.

I think you'r diluded.

Lighthouse, I would suggest you look to what the Jews teach about their messiah. I think you'll find that they make an incredibly strong case for why jesus did not fit the bill of the messiah. The traditional jewish profile of the messiah was something quite different than what the NT claims he was.

Well, anytime I ask a Jew about it they run and hide.:think:

It was a story, a myth, and christians have been taught to take the substance literally. What was originally taught to be the main focal point of the story was not the substance but the moral. The substance, until the mass circulation of the gospel and the unification of the church, was commonly understood to be mythological and to be taken as a fictitious story to hammer home a point.

By who? Who thought of it as only a myth.

This is my contention. I would like some form of extra-biblical support for why this contention cannot be correct.

Can anyone find Jesus' body? Have you sought God for yourself?

 

[prodigal]

Lighthouse,

Why do you have to argue that with me, if you don't even believe the book to begin with?

You know what? You’re right. I guess I just want to see if you can defend your bible using extra-biblical sources.

Then where is His body? And why do the gospels say it was physical? There are even instances of the Pharisees wanting to know what happened to His body. Why do you insist on standing on sinking sand?

I haven’t been talking about the gospels. I’ve been talking about the epistles. The epistles were written first, the agenda: retelling mythological stories with jesus as the epicenter. The gospels were written later with a religious agenda: to unify a fragmented church using metaphorical stories of jesus literally.

There is evidence for this if you only read the epistles before you read the gospels, instead of the other way around. Read letters by the church fathers, do some research to find out when the gospels first began to circulate.

There isn’t any sinking sand to stand on here, LH.

There are verses that say Jesus taught that He was the Son of God. There were even verses that show He taught He was God.

Once again, that is from the gospels. The epistles are a different story, literally.

What references in the Talmud are you speaking of?

That’s something called “public domain”. If you wanna know, why don’t you try looking? I found them, so can you.

This is a test, LH.

Do you not believe that doctor's have brought people back from the dead? Why would God not be able to do this?

That’s slightly different, wouldn’t you agree? And I’m not sure if there are any accounts of doctors bringing people back from the dead after three days. Do you know of any?

And can you find the body of Christ?

Personally, no, I can’t. I haven’t the money, training or resources to undergo an archaeological expedition such as that.

You have nothing to back this up. Nothing to validate that Paul's references to the resurrection were not about a physical resurrection.

You need to do some reading, LH.

Is this why Christianity has always believed it to be true?

Christians believe Christianity to be true because that is what they’re supposed to think. Remember when I said that the gospels were formed and canonized to bring unity to a church that according to the epistles was fragmented? The church needed unity, of course they would teach that it was true. You don’t even know how to go online and do some objective research, how would you expect second or third century Christians to know better?

Who is this editor you speak of?

We don’t know, LH. Kinda scary, isn’t it? Your gospel of Mark was chopped up and reserved by someone whose name you can never discover. Now you not only have to have faith in jesus, but the editor as well.

Do you think John differs from the rest of the gospels more than the first three differ from each other?

Have you ever read John? Of course it differs. I’ve read it, I’ve also read what scholars have said about it. There’s a general consensus in a field of critical thought that can tell just by looking at it that John had his own separate agenda when writing his gospel.

They were preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, and that He rose from the dead. When do your books tell you that Acts was written?

And the Jews have plenty of reason to believe that jesus was not the messiah. Have you ever studied the Jewish criterion for the messiah? And as for when Acts was written, it escapes me right now. I’ll get back to you on that.

I think you'r diluded.

But you thinking I’m deluded isn’t a good enough reason for me not to believe this. It makes far more sense than water into wine, feeding the five thousand, walking on water, a resurrection, angels, demons, heaven, hell, etc. Those are all mythological elements, there’s nothing there that is grounded in science or fact, they’re just myths. Stories like that have been told since the beginning of time, but intelligent people have always known that they were meant to be taken as metaphors and lessons, not literally. Pagans believed Apollo dragged the sun across the sky, the high priests knew that that wasn’t so.

LH, you believe in myths.

Well, anytime I ask a Jew about it they run and hide.

Well then go online, LH. Jesus, how long did your dad have to hold your hand when you were crossing the street?

Who thought of it as only a myth.

Their contemporary culture. Everyone around them. Their society, the society of other countries, had all grown up surrounded by myths. They had grown to accept them as part of their cultures, some of the peasants/pagans actually believed the myths, but anyone with half a brain knew that they were only embellished stories, possibly based on fact, but probably not, meant to teach a lesson.

They were stories. These stories had been borrowed and built upon for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years, and Christianity was no different. You just take it seriously, like the pagans back then. That’s why I think you’re a barbarian. You believe in that which normal people are able to see to be obviously mythological.

Can anyone find Jesus' body? Have you sought God for yourself?

Many people can make a strong case for jesus not existing in the first place, so not finding his body is just as strong evidence for his not existing than it is for his physical resurrection. At least I include an actual jesus in my contention, but I’m mostly doing that to humor you and give up ground.

As for seeking god, I’ll do that when I’m good and ready. I’m too busy doing my own thing to worry about god.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Granite1010 and Prodigal-- The issue between LH and me is not any of your business. We are discussing doctrine, which is far outside your area of understanding or interest, so neither of us expect you to contribute anything. What is it about unbelievers that makes them thiunk they have a right to involve themselves in matters of which they know nothing?

Granite--You claim to be prolife, but I notice that you have no trouble of mind over the babies killed, or by those multiplied millions killed by atheistic regimes in your own lifetime. Your morality (if such a term can be used in relation to someone such as yourself) is very selective. It shapes up to mean basically, that if an atheist, any other God hater, or Christian hater wants to end a life, that's okay. Granite won't lose any sleep over it.

You can label those who trasnsgress God's command as Christians, but that doesn't make it so. Surprise for you, Granite: you are not the one who defines what a Christian is, and your definition is contrary to God's definiotion. You domn't like that? That it up with Him. He will yank you from the grave and bring you before Him for judgement. Discuss it then.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by prodigal

Lighthouse,



You know what? You’re right. I guess I just want to see if you can defend your bible using extra-biblical sources.

Then why do you complain that I don't use scripture?

I haven’t been talking about the gospels. I’ve been talking about the epistles. The epistles were written first, the agenda: retelling mythological stories with jesus as the epicenter. The gospels were written later with a religious agenda: to unify a fragmented church using metaphorical stories of jesus literally.

:yawn:

There is evidence for this if you only read the epistles before you read the gospels, instead of the other way around. Read letters by the church fathers, do some research to find out when the gospels first began to circulate.

:yawn:

There isn’t any sinking sand to stand on here, LH.

:duh:

You can't stand on sinking sand, you just sink. And that's all you've been doing.

Once again, that is from the gospels. The epistles are a different story, literally.

:yawn:

That’s something called “public domain”. If you wanna know, why don’t you try looking? I found them, so can you.

So, you can't tell me where to look in the Talmud?:think:

This is a test, LH.

Beeeeeeeeeep.

That’s slightly different, wouldn’t you agree? And I’m not sure if there are any accounts of doctors bringing people back from the dead after three days. Do you know of any?

Personally, no, I can’t. I haven’t the money, training or resources to undergo an archaeological expedition such as that.

Go ahead. Run away.

You need to do some reading, LH.

I read a lot. You'd be surprised.

Christians believe Christianity to be true because that is what they’re supposed to think. Remember when I said that the gospels were formed and canonized to bring unity to a church that according to the epistles was fragmented? The church needed unity, of course they would teach that it was true. You don’t even know how to go online and do some objective research, how would you expect second or third century Christians to know better?

I'm talking about what Peter and the rest were preaching, before Paul's conversion.:doh:

We don’t know, LH. Kinda scary, isn’t it? Your gospel of Mark was chopped up and reserved by someone whose name you can never discover. Now you not only have to have faith in jesus, but the editor as well.

See. You have no proof for your claims. You can't back them up, not even to yourself.

Have you ever read John? Of course it differs. I’ve read it, I’ve also read what scholars have said about it. There’s a general consensus in a field of critical thought that can tell just by looking at it that John had his own separate agenda when writing his gospel.

Well, the account of the crucifixion, in John, follows with Matthew and Mark. Luke differs. So, what were you saying about Luke being copied from Mark?

And the Jews have plenty of reason to believe that jesus was not the messiah.

Such as?

Have you ever studied the Jewish criterion for the messiah?

How does Jesus not meet it?

And as for when Acts was written, it escapes me right now. I’ll get back to you on that.

Sure you will.

But you thinking I’m deluded isn’t a good enough reason for me not to believe this.

I retract my earlier statement. I don't think you're deluded. I know you are.

It makes far more sense than water into wine, feeding the five thousand, walking on water, a resurrection, angels, demons, heaven, hell, etc. Those are all mythological elements, there’s nothing there that is grounded in science or fact, they’re just myths. Stories like that have been told since the beginning of time, but intelligent people have always known that they were meant to be taken as metaphors and lessons, not literally. Pagans believed Apollo dragged the sun across the sky, the high priests knew that that wasn’t so.

LH, you believe in myths.

:yawn:

Well then go online, LH.

Any suggestions?

Their contemporary culture. Everyone around them. Their society, the society of other countries, had all grown up surrounded by myths. They had grown to accept them as part of their cultures, some of the peasants/pagans actually believed the myths, but anyone with half a brain knew that they were only embellished stories, possibly based on fact, but probably not, meant to teach a lesson.

If I hadn't actually met God, you might have a point. As it stands, you've only got the one on top of your head.:dunce:

They were stories. These stories had been borrowed and built upon for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years, and Christianity was no different. You just take it seriously, like the pagans back then. That’s why I think you’re a barbarian. You believe in that which normal people are able to see to be obviously mythological.

Until you can see how Paul taking the resurrection on faith measn that he believed it actually happened, you're not going to get anywhere.

Many people can make a strong case for jesus not existing in the first place, so not finding his body is just as strong evidence for his not existing than it is for his physical resurrection. At least I include an actual jesus in my contention, but I’m mostly doing that to humor you and give up ground.

What ground? You didn't have any to begin with.

As for seeking god, I’ll do that when I’m good and ready. I’m too busy doing my own thing to worry about god.

Famous last words.

 

[Pepper]

Alrighty, I'm really tired, so I'm not going to get too much into it. But here goes:


*The Moshiach will be a great political leader descended from King David*

If Jesus was born of a virgin, than he was not a descendent from David. Joseph was a descendent from David, but if Mary was a virgin than Joseph wasn't his father.

*He will be well-versed in Jewish law and observant of its commandments*

Okay, I'm sure Jesus fits this one, I didn't know the guy, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

*He will be a charismatic leader*

I'll give him this one too, because only someone with a lot of charisma and charm could make that many people believe what they believe and for that long.

*He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel*

This one he loses. I can't recall any account of any battles that Jesus participated in. If there are, than I apologize, but I believe he was pretty much just kinda the peaceful, sit around a talk our problems through type.

*He will be a fair and righteous judge*

He can have this one, not that I can think of anything specific right now.

*He will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being*

And again, no dice. If Jesus was human and divine, he loses out here. Although, that is questionable, but I'll get into that later.


In Judaism, the Moshiach is the one who will be annointed as King in the End of Days. They don't believe he will be a "savior" or a sacrifice. They believe he will come when the world is so sinful he is needed or when the world is so good he is deserved. It's been said that in every generation a person is born with the potential to be the Moshiach. There have been people who have claimed to be the moshiach, as well as people whose followers claim this. But they have all died before accomplishing the mission of the Moshiach.

The Moshiach will:

- Bring the Jewish people back to Israel and restore Jerusalem

- Establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government

- rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship

- Restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land.

If you want to look up any of these points, they are scattered throughout Isaiah and Jeremiah mostly, as well as a few other old testament books. I could give you a list of verses, but I just don't feel like it right now.

As for the divinity of Christ and the validity of the new testament in general, not that I necessarily believe in divine inspiration behind the writting of the bible, but even if that was so, there was so much more written. Constantine comissioned the new testament in AD 325 when he called together the first council of nicaea. Even if the new testament was written in the time of Christ (as for your question Lighthouse, Act is commonly believed to have been written between 80-90, although some believe it was written as early as 60-62 or as late as into the second century), it wasn't until 325 that it was put together. Constatine called together 300 religious leaders who went through these writings and decided which ones were scripture and burned the rest. Who were these people who decided what was truth and what wasn't 300 years after the fact? And why was the new testament put together? Because Constantine wanted his people to agree on a belief and at the time, there was a split in the church over whether Jesus was Divine or human. Constantine said he would make Christianity the official state of religion if people would settle they're differences. So instead of arguing over whether jesus was human OR divine, they decided to go with human AND divine.

So basically, there were hundreds and hundreds of different accounts and scrolls read by these leaders, and they got to decide which ones we get to read? And there's, what, 27 books in the new testament? Also, whether or not the people that wrote these books were around Christ, the people who compiled them certainly were not, so how do they know which ones are accurate?

It's one thing to have faith in god. I believe in a higher power, I don't know what it's actually called, but I pray and believe it protects me, and I would even go so far as to say that I've had things happen to me that have really made me believe that something's out there. But the Bible? Forget about it. Especially the new testament which was written purely for political reasons. To have faith in god is one thing, but to believe the bible, you have to have faith in the writers, the editors, the council of nicaea, Constantine, translators, that the writting was still legible when the books were found, that nothing had gone missing, general human error, forgetfulness, word of mouth (which, if you've ever played the game telephone, you know never comes back how it started), as well as countless other things. And that's just bull.

Alright, I need a nap now. I just wanted to say what I had to say.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Granite1010 and Prodigal-- The issue between LH and me is not any of your business. We are discussing doctrine, which is far outside your area of understanding or interest, so neither of us expect you to contribute anything. What is it about unbelievers that makes them thiunk they have a right to involve themselves in matters of which they know nothing?

Granite--You claim to be prolife, but I notice that you have no trouble of mind over the babies killed, or by those multiplied millions killed by atheistic regimes in your own lifetime. Your morality (if such a term can be used in relation to someone such as yourself) is very selective. It shapes up to mean basically, that if an atheist, any other God hater, or Christian hater wants to end a life, that's okay. Granite won't lose any sleep over it.

You can label those who trasnsgress God's command as Christians, but that doesn't make it so. Surprise for you, Granite: you are not the one who defines what a Christian is, and your definition is contrary to God's definiotion. You domn't like that? That it up with Him. He will yank you from the grave and bring you before Him for judgement. Discuss it then.

Rolf: doctrine is something I'm interested in and understand. So you can keep your pompous stuffed shirt comments to yourself.

As far me being somehow disinterested in the murder of the unborn...I don't know where you get the idea, but it's inaccurate.

 

[prodigal]

Rolf,

The issue between LH and me is not any of your business. We are discussing doctrine, which is far outside your area of understanding or interest, so neither of us expect you to contribute anything.

Well, your discussion is on a thread I started, and your discussion also has nothing to do with the thrust of the thread. But I also believe that your discussion serves as a perfect example of why Christianity does not work. The in-fighting that has plagued Christianity on an epic scale is being presented perfectly between the two of you on a minute scale here. There is no unity in your religion among the members.

Rolf, you claim that the points crucial to salvation are all agreed upon by Christians. Is that really so? You and LH cannot agree on how one even comes to salvation, so that being the case, how are we to believe that salvation exists in the first place?

Lighthouse,

you can't tell me where to look in the Talmud?

What I’m saying is that I won’t tell you where the look in the Talmud. These are things that are apparent and accessible to all. If you won’t do any objective research into the origins or holes in your religion than I have to assume I am dealing with a fellow to whom objectivity and reason are meaningless.

Go ahead. Run away

LH, you gave me a challenge that you yourself, and any other normal person wouldn’t be able to fulfill. Why call that running away?

I'm talking about what Peter and the rest were preaching, before Paul's conversion.

Well then you’re gunna hafta be a little less vague when you post. That, and all you have to do is read Paul’s condemnations of the satellite churches’ doctrines to find that there was no unity by the time he came on the scene. Whatever Peter was teaching was not being adhered to, and if it was, it wasn’t in accordance with what Paul would later teach.

There was no unity in the early Christian church.

My contention makes perfect sense.

You have been unable to refute it.

See. You have no proof for your claims. You can't back them up, not even to yourself.

Once again, go online, do some research. It’s there for you to find, all you hafta do is grab it.

Well, the account of the crucifixion, in John, follows with Matthew and Mark. Luke differs. So, what were you saying about Luke being copied from Mark?

I don’t always have a bible in front of me LH. For a change, why don’t you try being specific?

And the Jews have plenty of reason to believe that jesus was not the messiah.


Such as?

You know, I think I’ve already listed off a bunch of stuff, and seeing as how it’s out there for you to find on your own, I’m not gunna hold your hand on this. If you can’t go and find out for yourself, than it’s not worth trying to tell you. Don’t you get that? Why should I try to explain that which is in your power to discover for yourself?

And you call me blind.

Acts was written between the first and second centuries.

I retract my earlier statement. I don't think you're deluded. I know you are.

What makes you say this? I’d like a specific answer with a detailed explanation for why you are so sure that I’m deluded.

This is what I said:

It makes far more sense than water into wine, feeding the five thousand, walking on water, a resurrection, angels, demons, heaven, hell, etc. Those are all mythological elements, there’s nothing there that is grounded in science or fact, they’re just myths. Stories like that have been told since the beginning of time, but intelligent people have always known that they were meant to be taken as metaphors and lessons, not literally. Pagans believed Apollo dragged the sun across the sky, the high priests knew that that wasn’t so.

LH, you believe in myths.

This is how you refuted it:


All right, LH. What do you expect from me? Do you expect me to see the light because of this? Aren’t you supposed to be a witness to your god? You’re a miserable failure of a Christian, I’ve met much, MUCH better than you.

If this is your response to a clear, concise, detailed explanation, than I’m done. You suck dude. You suck big time.

Once again, this is what I said:

Their contemporary culture. Everyone around them. Their society, the society of other countries, had all grown up surrounded by myths. They had grown to accept them as part of their cultures, some of the peasants/pagans actually believed the myths, but anyone with half a brain knew that they were only embellished stories, possibly based on fact, but probably not, meant to teach a lesson.

This is what you said to refute it:

If I hadn't actually met God, you might have a point. As it stands, you've only got the one on top of your head.

What is this? This is how you refute a clear, concise, detailed explanation with scholarly studies at your fingertips to back it up? LH, I always knew you were a loser, but I’m beginning to think that maybe you suck even worse than I initially thought.

Until you can see how Paul taking the resurrection on faith measn that he believed it actually happened, you're not going to get anywhere.

The problem with that is this: There’s too much in reality that is contrary to that contention. There’s a precedent of religion evolving and being borrowed from one culture to another, there’s a strong historical precedent which dictates that Christianity was susceptible and did in fact become part of the religious evolution.

There is not enough for any clear thinking, reasonable individual to believe what the bible says in the light of evidence that shows Christianity to be just one more level in the evolution of god worship.

All the smiley faces, catch phrases, insults and frustration in the world won’t change that, LH.

What ground? You didn't have any to begin with.

It’s all well and good to say that, but you haven’t refuted any of my contentions, you haven’t presented any of your own, your theology makes no sense to anyone but yourself, you’re insulting, you’re vague, you have exhibited a lack of knowledge external to the bible, even accounts that corroborate the existence of jesus.

You haven’t done anything Lighthouse.

You claim that you have “met” god, but pagans for thousands of years have believed that, what can you say that makes your god any more unique than the myriad gods that came before him? There are savior god stories, there are death and resurrection stories, etc. It’s a myth that you take seriously, it’s a myth that has been in the making for thousands of years, and is still evolving and will continue to evolve long after you and I are dead.

You just take it seriously.

Now, I have laid out clear explanations of what is going on, there are hundreds of scholars out there whom you could look to to corroborate my contention. I’m not going to hold your hand. This is something you have to do on your own, like I said before, this is a test. If you can’t do it, than you’re not worth talking to, because the only person you’re interested in listening to is yourself.

Oh yeah, LH, Pepper just clobbered you. She just clobbered you BIG TIME, fat boy.

Pepper,

You’re quickly turning into one of my favorite people. Of course LH will go on about how you haven’t quoted your sources, this that and the other thing, will probably say, “buy a mirror” in between bites of a handful of oreo double stuff cookies, but it’s out there for him to find. You found it, I’ve found it, so can he, right?

I like you a lot.

Rolf is still fuming, it’s funny. Every time I read his posts I think of Vizzini now.

Yours truly,

Prodigal

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Pepper

Alrighty, I'm really tired, so I'm not going to get too much into it. But here goes:


*The Moshiach will be a great political leader descended from King David*

If Jesus was born of a virgin, than he was not a descendent from David. Joseph was a descendent from David, but if Mary was a virgin than Joseph wasn't his father.

Mary was descended from David.

*He will be well-versed in Jewish law and observant of its commandments*

Okay, I'm sure Jesus fits this one, I didn't know the guy, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Okay.

*He will be a charismatic leader*

I'll give him this one too, because only someone with a lot of charisma and charm could make that many people believe what they believe and for that long.

Okay.

*He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel*

This one he loses. I can't recall any account of any battles that Jesus participated in. If there are, than I apologize, but I believe he was pretty much just kinda the peaceful, sit around a talk our problems through type.

And this is where the problems start, eh? Why is this the belief? Where does it come from? Was it one of the prophecies?

*He will be a fair and righteous judge*

He can have this one, not that I can think of anything specific right now.

Uh huh.

*He will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being*

And again, no dice. If Jesus was human and divine, he loses out here. Although, that is questionable, but I'll get into that later.

Why is that the belief? Where does it come from? Why would the Messiah not be divine?

In Judaism, the Moshiach is the one who will be annointed as King in the End of Days. They don't believe he will be a "savior" or a sacrifice. They believe he will come when the world is so sinful he is needed or when the world is so good he is deserved. It's been said that in every generation a person is born with the potential to be the Moshiach. There have been people who have claimed to be the moshiach, as well as people whose followers claim this. But they have all died before accomplishing the mission of the Moshiach.

And when is the end of days? And why do they not believe he would be a sacrafice? Aren't the prophecies clear enough that he would die?

The Moshiach will:

- Bring the Jewish people back to Israel and restore Jerusalem

- Establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government

- rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship

- Restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land.

Are you saying that since Jesus has yet to do these things he must not be the Messiah? And are these things actually in the Tanakh? Do you believe it is possibel that the Anti-Christ will do some of these, in an attempt to mislead people?

If you want to look up any of these points, they are scattered throughout Isaiah and Jeremiah mostly, as well as a few other old testament books. I could give you a list of verses, but I just don't feel like it right now.

Uh huh.

Admit it. You can't back up what you've said.

(as for your question Lighthouse, Act is commonly believed to have been written between 80-90, although some believe it was written as early as 60-62 or as late as into the second century)

Actually, I was curious whether it was written before or after Paul's epistles.

 

[Granite]

"And when is the end of days? And why do they not believe he would be a sacrafice? Aren't the prophecies clear enough that he would die?"

No, they are not. Even Isaiah 53 cannot be construed as talking about the coming Messiah--Jews have never believed the messiah will die for the sins of mankind. The idea is absolutely foreign to Judaism...which makes sense, because Judaism does not believe in any kind of "original sin" doctrine.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by prodigal

Lighthouse,



What I’m saying is that I won’t tell you where the look in the Talmud. These are things that are apparent and accessible to all. If you won’t do any objective research into the origins or holes in your religion than I have to assume I am dealing with a fellow to whom objectivity and reason are meaningless.

Coward. You claim that you can, but you won't.:nono:

LH, you gave me a challenge that you yourself, and any other normal person wouldn’t be able to fulfill. Why call that running away?

No, I didn't. If you had an ounce of brains you would have known that I wasn't asking you to go looking for it.

Well then you’re gunna hafta be a little less vague when you post. That, and all you have to do is read Paul’s condemnations of the satellite churches’ doctrines to find that there was no unity by the time he came on the scene. Whatever Peter was teaching was not being adhered to, and if it was, it wasn’t in accordance with what Paul would later teach.

1] Paul and Peter did not preach all the same things. That is known. Acts gives evidence of that.
2] I'm talking about when Paul was persecuting the church.
3] The churches Paul wrote to were not churches that Peter had gone to. They were churches that Paul had started.

There was no unity in the early Christian church.

:darwinsm:

How early is early?

My contention makes perfect sense.

It may make sense to you, but it doesn't stand.

You have been unable to refute it.

That's all I've ever done.

Once again, go online, do some research. It’s there for you to find, all you hafta do is grab it.

And you still can't do it.:doh: Coward.

I don’t always have a bible in front of me LH. For a change, why don’t you try being specific?

You should, when coming to TOL. Especially if you want to argue what the Bible says. One thing I know is the account of what the thief said is only found in Luke.

You know, I think I’ve already listed off a bunch of stuff, and seeing as how it’s out there for you to find on your own, I’m not gunna hold your hand on this. If you can’t go and find out for yourself, than it’s not worth trying to tell you. Don’t you get that? Why should I try to explain that which is in your power to discover for yourself?

Well, you ask me to do it for you. I thought you were all about common courtesy. Wouldn't that dictate that you do for me, that which you ask me to do for you?

And you call me blind.

I call it as I see it.

Acts was written between the first and second centuries.

Not what I was asking. Was it written before or after Paul's epistles?

What makes you say this? I’d like a specific answer with a detailed explanation for why you are so sure that I’m deluded.

Your posts. But you don't see it that way, so I don't have anything you're going to listen to.

[qutoe]This is what I said:



This is how you refuted it:[/quote]
How did I refute it?

If I recall correctly, I yawned.:yawn:

All right, LH. What do you expect from me? Do you expect me to see the light because of this? Aren’t you supposed to be a witness to your god? You’re a miserable failure of a Christian, I’ve met much, MUCH better than you.

I yawned because your rhetoric is tiring. You keep repeating it over and over.

If this is your response to a clear, concise, detailed explanation, than I’m done. You suck dude. You suck big time.

:baby:

P.S.
It was my response to your myth rhetoric. You keep spewing it and it bores me.

Once again, this is what I said:



This is what you said to refute it:



What is this? This is how you refute a clear, concise, detailed explanation with scholarly studies at your fingertips to back it up? LH, I always knew you were a loser, but I’m beginning to think that maybe you suck even worse than I initially thought.

Why? Because I know Christ, and you don't?

The problem with that is this: There’s too much in reality that is contrary to that contention. There’s a precedent of religion evolving and being borrowed from one culture to another, there’s a strong historical precedent which dictates that Christianity was susceptible and did in fact become part of the religious evolution.

Well, it evolved from Judaism. So I'll give you that much.

There is not enough for any clear thinking, reasonable individual to believe what the bible says in the light of evidence that shows Christianity to be just one more level in the evolution of god worship.

:yawn:

All the smiley faces, catch phrases, insults and frustration in the world won’t change that, LH.

Who says I'm frustrated? Is this because I'm frustrating you? Awww, it's gonna be okay. There, there.

It’s all well and good to say that, but you haven’t refuted any of my contentions, you haven’t presented any of your own, your theology makes no sense to anyone but yourself, you’re insulting, you’re vague, you have exhibited a lack of knowledge external to the bible, even accounts that corroborate the existence of jesus.

1] I've refuted plenty.
2] I have presented plenty of my own contentions.
3] My theology makes sense to anyone who's willing to listen. And plenty of people do.
4] I know plenty of things that are outside of the Bible. But we're talking about the Bible, here.

You haven’t done anything Lighthouse.

You claim that you have “met” god, but pagans for thousands of years have believed that, what can you say that makes your god any more unique than the myriad gods that came before him? There are savior god stories, there are death and resurrection stories, etc. It’s a myth that you take seriously, it’s a myth that has been in the making for thousands of years, and is still evolving and will continue to evolve long after you and I are dead.

Then why fight it?

Can I convince you that my God is any different? No. Why? Because you don't care. And you've already decided anything I have isn't going to prove it to you.

You just take it seriously.

I'm not the only one.

Now, I have laid out clear explanations of what is going on, there are hundreds of scholars out there whom you could look to to corroborate my contention. I’m not going to hold your hand. This is something you have to do on your own, like I said before, this is a test. If you can’t do it, than you’re not worth talking to, because the only person you’re interested in listening to is yourself.

Now that is projection if ever I heard it! You can't even give me some names to start with. And when I challenged you to seek God on your own, you refused. Now you're pissed that I won't turn around and do the same thing for you. That's rich!:crackup:

Oh yeah, LH, Pepper just clobbered you. She just clobbered you BIG TIME, fat boy.

Did she? Did you read my rebuttal of saltless' post?

Did you get the Christmas present I got you?

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by granite1010

"And when is the end of days? And why do they not believe he would be a sacrafice? Aren't the prophecies clear enough that he would die?"

No, they are not. Even Isaiah 53 cannot be construed as talking about the coming Messiah--Jews have never believed the messiah will die for the sins of mankind. The idea is absolutely foreign to Judaism...which makes sense, because Judaism does not believe in any kind of "original sin" doctrine.

Christ's dying for the sins of the world does not rely on original sin. Only on the propensity towards sin.

 

[Pepper]

Lighthouse,

the following is a list of biblical passages referring to the moshiach:

Isaiah 2,11,42; 59:20
Jeremiah 23,30,33; 48:47; 49:39
Ezekiel 38:16
Hosea 3:4-3:5
Micah 4
Zephaniah 3:9
Zechariah 14:9
Daniel 10:14

But whatever, because frankly Lighthouse, it's pointless to back up what I say because you don't hear it anyway. You're a self righteous little prick. You're biggest problem is you lack respect for other people's beliefs. To tell you the truth, I don't care if the bible says that Jesus is or isn't the messiah. I don't care what Judaism says the moshiach is. I don't believe any of it anyway. I've already laid out my beliefs. I believe that religion is a highly dangerous thing that people use as a shield and as an excuse. But I do believe in a higher power, a "god" I suppose. I also believe that without being a christian, I'm a better person than you. And if there is a heaven, I'd still get in before you. I don't put myself on a pedestal. I'm hear because comparative religions is kind of a hobby of mine. I went to protestant christian schools up until high school when I went to a catholic school. I'm one of the most spiritual people you will ever meet. The difference between you and me, lighthouse, is that I RESPECT other people's opinions. I may disagree, and I may debate with them, but you will never ever hear me say that someone is stupid because of what they believe. That's just disrepectful. I've tried to keep things between you and prodigal civil. We're not here to fight like children. I came here for a reason and that's because of my hobby. I'm always willing to hear what people believe and i find it to be very interesting. I will also take the opposite side, in order to find out more and provoke a reaction from them. But the people I have encountered in this forum are petty and childish and not at all what I was always taught a christian should be like. I'm not trying to insult you lighthouse, because that's not the kind of person I am. I'm asking you to stop and think for a minute. Look at the way you talk to other people and ask yourself if it's the way you want to be talked to. In any debate, the conversation should be kept clear and concise. Get to your point and stop talking like you think you're better than everyone else. Maybe you don't really think that way, or maybe it's a defense mechanism, but that's how you come off. I'm not saying you're the rudest person in here, because there's no way I could possibly know. But think about the way you present yourself. You will get a more positive reaction if you show yourself in a better light. There will always be prodigals in this world. And I told prodigal this same thing. If you want people to hear what you have to say, don't name call, don't patronize, just say what you have to say. Admit that you can't always agree with everyone. Just say what you have to say, but remember, you can't change everyone's mind. It's about respect, lighthouse, and you don't seem to know the meaning of that word. I thought I would enjoy this forum...but I don't. I don't like the people here. No one knows the meaning of respect.

Granite1010 and Prodigal....you my boys!

Peace...I'm out.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Saltless

Lighthouse,

the following is a list of biblical passages referring to the moshiach:

Isaiah 2,11,42; 59:20
Jeremiah 23,30,33; 48:47; 49:39
Ezekiel 38:16
Hosea 3:4-3:5
Micah 4
Zephaniah 3:9
Zechariah 14:9
Daniel 10:14

But whatever, because frankly Lighthouse, it's pointless to back up what I say because you don't hear it anyway.

I heard you. That's why I asked questions. And now you're trying to paint me with your brush, because you want to believe that everyone is just like you.

You're a self righteous little prick.

Yeah, I'm the rude one.

You're biggest problem is you lack respect for other people's beliefs.

:duh:

To tell you the truth, I don't care if the bible says that Jesus is or isn't the messiah. I don't care what Judaism says the moshiach is. I don't believe any of it anyway. I've already laid out my beliefs. I believe that religion is a highly dangerous thing that people use as a shield and as an excuse. But I do believe in a higher power, a "god" I suppose.

Then why are you here?

I also believe that without being a christian, I'm a better person than you. And if there is a heaven, I'd still get in before you.

Right. Because getting into heaven has everything to do with what kind of person you are.

I don't put myself on a pedestal.

And you think I do?:crackup:

I'm hear because comparative religions is kind of a hobby of mine. I went to protestant christian schools up until high school when I went to a catholic school. I'm one of the most spiritual people you will ever meet. The difference between you and me, lighthouse, is that I RESPECT other people's opinions.

I respect people's opinions, if they're not arrogant and baseless.

I may disagree, and I may debate with them, but you will never ever hear me say that someone is stupid because of what they believe.

And you'll never hear me say that either.

That's just disrepectful.

If people don't deserve respect, they don't get respect.

I've tried to keep things between you and prodigal civil.

Well, that was pointless, wasn't it?

We're not here to fight like children.

Look up in the right top corner of the page. It says "TruthSmack.com." I have a shirt that says that. And on the back, it says "Where truth hurts!" This is a place to fight.:box: Because it comes to that, quite often. Except for a certain week, in the middle of the year.

I came here for a reason and that's because of my hobby. I'm always willing to hear what people believe and i find it to be very interesting. I will also take the opposite side, in order to find out more and provoke a reaction from them. But the people I have encountered in this forum are petty and childish and not at all what I was always taught a christian should be like.

Is it because you were taught that God was like this?

I'm not trying to insult you lighthouse, because that's not the kind of person I am. I'm asking you to stop and think for a minute. Look at the way you talk to other people and ask yourself if it's the way you want to be talked to.

I get talked to like that, all the time. It doesn't bother me. In fact, it was by being talked to like this that I learned some new things, and my life was changed. Thanks, Sozo!:thumb:

In any debate, the conversation should be kept clear and concise. Get to your point and stop talking like you think you're better than everyone else.

1] I got to the point.
2] I'm not better than everybody else.

Maybe you don't really think that way, or maybe it's a defense mechanism, but that's how you come off.

I'm better than some people. Get over it.

I'm not saying you're the rudest person in here, because there's no way I could possibly know. But think about the way you present yourself. You will get a more positive reaction if you show yourself in a better light.

I get plenty of positive response. And respect, too.

There will always be prodigals in this world. And I told prodigal this same thing. If you want people to hear what you have to say, don't name call, don't patronize, just say what you have to say. Admit that you can't always agree with everyone. Just say what you have to say, but remember, you can't change everyone's mind. It's about respect, lighthouse, and you don't seem to know the meaning of that word. I thought I would enjoy this forum...but I don't. I don't like the people here. No one knows the meaning of respect.

I know about respect. And I know when certain people don't deserve it, Saltless.

Granite1010 and Prodigal....you my boys!

No surprise there.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Christ's dying for the sins of the world does not rely on original sin. Only on the propensity towards sin.

Brandon: first off, hope you had a good Christmas.

Second...the Jewish idea of a messiah was not fulfilled in Jesus, and attempts to cobble together messianic "prophecies" that correspond with Jesus' "life" are not convincing--instead they're inconsistent and arbitrary. Anyway, the purpose of the atonement isn't the purpose of this thread, my point was that what Christians claim is in the Jewish prophecies is completely outlandish to a Jew.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by granite1010

Brandon: first off, hope you had a good Christmas.

Second...the Jewish idea of a messiah was not fulfilled in Jesus, and attempts to cobble together messianic "prophecies" that correspond with Jesus' "life" are not convincing--instead they're inconsistent and arbitrary. Anyway, the purpose of the atonement isn't the purpose of this thread, my point was that what Christians claim is in the Jewish prophecies is completely outlandish to a Jew.

To wit:

Rabbi Singer Answers Your Questions Includes "Could Jesus' Death Atone for Any Kind of Sins?" and one I submitted myself "Does Judaism Believe in Original Sin? What Does the Bible Really Say?"

Was Jesus the Messiah

 

[Lighthouse]

Cornerstone=stumbling block. What else do you want?

 

[Granite]

:doh: