Total posts: 8,861
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nonetheless: One event or two?In my honest opinion.. .................More than likely the same possible event, variously interpreted.
Yes that is what I am beginning to believe. I would find the honest opinion of the faithful helpful. Its ether one even or two .
And that's assuming that all characters mentioned, including Jesus, are based upon real people....
Of course. But I do happen to believe that these characters did exist.
.The problem lies with inconsistent, latter-day interpretations and associated supernatural embellishment introduced therein.
I agree . As I have shown a few times. And when we have people such as Early Christian scholar, ascetic, and theologian Origen of Alexandria, admitting:
"The differences among the manuscripts have become so great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions", then one is given every reason to doubt the scriptures as they have come down to us, as I do.
That will be Origen that happens to agree with Greek philosopher and opponent of early Christianity, Celsus,
"Some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose and alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its characters to enable them to deny difficulties in the face of criticism".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As for "Anointing of Jesus"......Well, the biblical Jesus may have been based upon a real character, and anointing was an archaic practice similar to aromatherapy.
Again, it is the cost, as I mentioned to you above.#8
And I am pretty sure that aromatherapy was the last thing they had in mind at the anointing of Queen Elizabeth II at her coronation June 2nd 1953, Vic. This was the initiation rite performed on a British monarch - a Crowning, not to mention too that she is (High Priestess) Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
But one event or two separate events, is my concern here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
If you have 2 witnesses to an event, they will give contradictory details. Nobody takes the bible as being 100% accurate. Humans wrote it.
I haven't said that these two accounts are contradictory, only that they appear to be so. . Please read the op. I am suggesting that they could well be the same event. I have given one reason for believing they are reporting the same event.
Are you suggesting that they are the same account i.e as per my question in the op and that these two accounts relaying the same anointing event in your own opinion,
yes they are the same event, or no, they are not the same event?
And yes we all know how rumours work especially childish rumours. Although, in the case, we are not talking " a large number of children" but only four adults that appear to be able to read a write.... and translate Hebrew into GREEK!!!!
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Created:
Posted in:
"The differences among the manuscripts have become so great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions" : Early Christian scholar, ascetic, and theologian Origen of Alexandria, I believe
"Some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose and alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its characters to enable them to deny difficulties in the face of criticism": Greek philosopher and opponent of early Christianity, Celsus, I believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
But as foot washing and head oiling was a common pleasantry back in the day, it's probably best to not read to much into it.
Maybe so Vic. But it appears that this was no customary welcoming of a guest.
,,,,it's probably best to not read to much into it.
Indulge me if you will.
This was far too much of an expensive deal in this case and to perform this ritual twice would be doubly expensive.
The KJV tells us: " Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly [..............,}and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment."John 12:3. So, enough to stink the house out.
The ESV tells us: "Mary therefore took a pound of expensive ointment made from pure nard," John 12:3
So I don't think there is an argument as to the fact that this was no ordinary cheap oil that would be wasted on the next door neighbour just dropping in for a cuppa tea.
When we take another verse concerning this anointing we can read just how expensive this oil was, as one disciple complained:
“Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” John 12:5. And all bibles agree on the cost with one bible expanding and saying
"That perfume was worth a year’s wages." NLT
Just "a pound of ointment of spikenard" costing 300 denarii in todays money is around £80.00 - 100.00 .
So in my opinion , this is an indication that these two accounts are one and the same event, regardless if or not it was as you put it, " common pleasantry".
As an aside , the comment made about selling this expensive oil and giving it to the poor came from Judas Iscariot ,John 12:4-5 the irony being is that Judas was always stealing the funds.
" He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it." John 12:6
And it appears then that "Satan entered Judas" well before the last supper.John 13:26-27
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Even if it isn't dmt, it is something,
Melatonin. Which means "night worker", from the Greek melos: black, tosos: labour. It is also called "the hormone of darkness" being produced only at night or in the dark. When produced in great quantities it heightens the senses. The Egyptians knew about the pineal gland and used to "feed " it .
It may well be the reason that Jews wear skull caps? But this is not the thread to discuss this on.
I recommended a book to you recently which dedicates quite some time to this in great detail, Jane.
Created:
Posted in:
This is not a new debate on this particular story, however;
while atheist have come to expect many contradictions in the anomalous half stories that make up scriptures the telling of this particular event in the life of Christ seem to be an exception in that they don’t appear to be contradictory; but are these reported events the same story? If so, why is Luke’s account distinguishable from the other gospels?
Luke7:36-37
Jesus invited to the home of Simon the Pharisee.
“And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat. A woman in that town who lived a sinful life learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, so she came there with an alabaster jar of perfume. As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them”.
Jesus at the home of Simon the Leper
Matthew26:6-7 Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper,a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head as he reclined at table.
Mark14:3 And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper,as he was reclining at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head.
John12:3
“Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.”
Some believe these are different events while many other scholars agree that this is the same event told to varying degrees of detail.
One can pick over the detail of this story but they all do appear to amount to one thing; Jesus is undergoing an anointing ritual/s of sorts. But are these two separate anointings or one.?"
Side by side
(1) Sinner Woman . Mary of Bethany
(2) Luke 7. Matt 26, Mark 14, John 12
(3) In Nain. In Bethany.
(3) Simon the Pharisee’s house. Simon the leper’s house.
(4) Poured on His feet. Poured on His head and feet.
(5) Washed feet with her tears. No mention of washing feet with tears.
(6) Wiped feet with her hair. Wiped feet with her hair.
(7) Simon sees the woman as sinful . Judas sees it as a waste of money.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith.
Remove the " miracles and wonders" and we are left with a character involved in a typical political power struggle between the many factions of the time
Paul only describes his “Heavenly Jesus.”
Paul doesn’t mention the miraculous ascending into heaven event either, no empty tombs, no disappearance from the grave of the physical body,no physical resurrection, no physical appearances of a Christ who would eat and invite people to poke his wounds, or that Jesus was elevated physically into heaven after a given time. To Paul the body of Jesus who died was degradable,weak, and physical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
It has to do with the trinity in the case of it leading to incest. You seem to think no one was going to notice that is the Rabbi's issue, the incest.
If I didn't wish anyone to "notice" any part of the Rabbis' comment I would have simply have omitted it altogether, Witch.
And the Rabbis "issue" is the total ridiculousness of the WHOLE ideas - not to mention the impossibility - of the Trinity .
Don't get mad at me
Why would I get mad at you.? You have said nothing that has offended me, Witch. In fact you have been unusually pleasant and its nice that you haver taken to commenting many times on my "silly topic". Was it your interest in incest that drew you in, Witch?
your topic is silly and just to provoke Christians.
Well there seem to be a few that are interested in discussing my "silly"topic" , Witch, including yourself.
As for "provoking Christians" , I am going to assume that you mean thought provoking, because the Rabbi's comment should certainly give all Christians something to think about, as should the thought provoking comment in the same vein made by Brother D Thomas here>>#11 and a Christian himself, no less.
The Bible is full of say one thing do another.
It is , yet Christians like to gloss over these sort of contradictory double standards don't they? And they certainly do not like to be confronted with them or even have these biblical anomalies and contradictory double standards highlighted for everyone to see and examine for themselves.
God has little issue with incest it seems since those he chooses engage in it with little punishment. Jesus being no exception.
So you didn't read the link I offered you then, Witch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Why would I start a topic on incest in the Bible
Because Witch you are fixated on only one particular part of the Rabbi David Kimhi's conundrum , the incest part . You can't shut up about it.
The theme of this thread is to do with the Trinity, and not only the incest part, which going by your obsession with the subject , you should start your own thread on the matter or stick to the subject as a whole.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Can you point out these instances of incest for us,Witch?
And its forbidden by all accounts.
You should start a thread on the matter, Witch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You agreed earlier, backing down now
I still do agree, Witch, I am simply asking you how many biblical incest stories there are?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
How many incest biblical stories are there , Witch?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
We onlt refer to the Son as Christ, so it would be improper to call Christ The Father.
But Jesus here appears to be contradicting you, Mopac.
John 10:30 "for I and the Father are one".
But there again, Jesus also contradicts himself saying;
John 14:28 “ I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I" .
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
As is Catholicism
Which only came about as a result of the impending battle at Milvian Bridge between European leaders and not Jewish leaders. There well may have been some Jews"lost" to the early Paulian doctrine a hundred years or so after the crucifixion and before Milvian Bridge just as there were many "lost" Jews that began to worship Greek deities - gods or goddesses -a generation or so into the Greek conquest/occupation. << It was these "lost sheep" that Jesus said he had "only been sent to"Matthew 15:24. Which is something else Christians cannot seem to accept.
It is my own understanding that the very term - "Judeo Christian "- was also introduced by western leaders after WWII /cold war as some kind of attempt to show shared values between the Jewish and Christian religions.
As it turns out, according to some it appears to have had the opposite effect and Jews don't like or even recognise the term, Judeo-christian and I am not sure that Christians like or even use the term themselves? Christians call themselves Christians don`t they? I have never heard one asked to be addressed as or claim to be a "Judaeo-Christian..... yet.
But if they don't accept the term , I am not sure why it should bother them considering they have adopted an ancient god they understood nothing about. From a time they understood nothing about. And from a ancient superstitious culture that understand nothing about.
Created:
-->
@ronjs
and mainly ask questions that are not relevant to the subject of the proof (evidence) of Gods existence
In your opinion, is questioning the reliability of the bible relevant to the subject?
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Stephen,In reading your fine output regarding my serial killer Jesus, the more we delve into the scriptures without being "spoon fed" by the many divisions of the faith, it is becoming apparent that Jesus the Christ was a real SOB! :(
"spoon-fed" indeed Brother.
I have never hidden the fact that I believe Jesus was an historical figure that believed himself to be the rightful heir to throne of Kind David - aka A son of god - as Solomon was also known as A - son of god.
The difference is, is that Christians don't or refuse to understand that this didn't mean a biological relationship. The meaning is simply that God has a special relationship with his chosen king and nation, but the bond is not physical but emotional. The bible makes this perfectly clear many many times.
If Jesus' mission hadn't failed he too would maybe have been accepted king by all the tribes that made up all the nation of Israel and maybe also recognized as A - son of god.
I have found that Christians in my personal experience don't even realise that there were other human " sons of god" in the scriptures. Indeed , are not all of the 12 tribe nation of Israel called the "sons of god"?
Deuteronomy 14:1: "You [Israel] are sons to the Lord your God,". Exodus 4:22, where God tell Moses to tell Pharaoh "My son, My firstborn Israel" (Exodus 4:22).
And didn't Jesus promise his chosen twelve that they would be "judges of Israel". Well of course he did.
"you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" .Matthew 19:28. With king Jesus -son of god, at its head. And not a single word about Christians!
Christians need to face some cold hard facts that Jesus played no part in the creation of Christianity Brother, And he would have been absolutely appalled that a whole new religion had sprang up in his name.
But they won't accept these facts because as you mention above , they have been "spoon-fed" only what it is their Pastors, Preachers and Priest want them to hear and then, as one Pastor here informs me, they simply "pass it on". Bottom of page last two lines. #20
And as oromagi above indicates, Christianity is very much a western thing ,and not and never was a Jewish middle eastern thing.
Created:
-->
@ronjs
ronjs, wrote: we all have the same evidence, it's in how you interpret it that is the difference.So you are simply stuck for an explanation as to why it came about that we can find Satan just walking "to and fro " on the earth making wagers with god that cost the lives of 10 innocent children Job 2:2, and millennia later can be found again tempting Jesus in the wilderness? Mark 1:12-13 after we had been told that Satan had been sentenced to crawl on his belly eating dirt for all eternity for seducing and corrupting mankind? Genesis 3:14New International Version14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,“Cursed are you above all livestockand all wild animals!You will crawl on your bellyand you will eat dustall the days of your life.And you keep avoiding this too;ronjs, wrote: It seems that most skeptics are unwilling ............It seems that you are a little short on replies and answers, yourself. #24ronjs, wrote: The atheists and creationists have the same rocks, fossils , sediments etc. to interpret, usually based, in part on thier own biases.
Irrelevant. So you don't have an answer.No one is surprised.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Relative to Jesus and the poor,
Jesus surrounded himself with rich and influential people. Not once will you read of Jesus telling his secret rich disciples Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus to go sell all they have.
But you will read that Jesus had no problem about sponging and mooching off the rich women of substance in his "cult".
But keeping on topic. It is noticeable that Jesus was up in front of Pilate along with other insurrectionists , isn't it?
And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him,who had committed murder in the insurrection.” Mark 15:7 KJV.
“That had made insurrection with him”. Is Mark’s gospel is telling us that Jesus AND Barabbas had committed insurrection, i.e. Jesus committed insurrection with them and him;Barabbas?
I think yes.
Created:
You regularly post on the religion forum about religion and you are telling us that you have never heard of the battle of Milvian Bridge which began the creation of the Roman Church 300 years after the crucifixion?
What is that battle
See highlight in bold underlined above.
A quick summery
Created:
Why/how did Romans then end up founding one of the oldest forms of Catholicism?
Yes, 300 years after the crucifixion. Are you pretending that you have never heard or read about of the Battle of Milvian Bridge between the Roman Emperors Constantine I and Maxentius and Constantine's "vision". It all came about because of politics, as they all do.
It's interesting that Constantine didn't covert to "Christianity " until he was on his deathbed.
Created:
Of course he was.
He was crucified for sedition and les majesty and member's of his cult following were hunted down and also crucified.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
10/10
And Christians move in predicable ways once they have painted themselves into a corner.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
already debunked
Stop lying , Doc. You are just arguing for arguments sake and becoming just like those other cretins that start crying and lying and making shit up when caught on the backfoot. You haven't explained anything and certainly haven't "debunked " anything.
You have even admitted that Thomas did disbelieve but then failed miserably to explain to us why Jesus appeared to a disbeliever , and one that should have known better and not appear to believers and disbelievers today? Why no reprimand of Thomas for being "of little faith"?
You haven't explained how Thomas was allowed to "tempt the lord" against the strict command concerning tempting the lord? Deuteronomy 6:16 . Matthew 4:7
So when your ready.
Created:
-->
@rosends
All that does it show a deep problem with the claims in the gospels.
I couldn't agree more and that is my point. These unreliable and anomalous gospels are not what they appear to be on the surface, and something that I have been saying since I joined.
I believe the Jesus story can be explained easily once we do away with the "miracles" and look at this as the ancient power struggle of the time that it was. Once we recognise all the players for what they are then the whole story of Jesus and his failed mission can be understood.
A starting point is that Jesus believed that he was rightful heir to the throne of David (a son of god) and these gospel writers have gone to great lengths to prove and show that he was.
I have said many times that Jesus and his movement regarded anyone not in their circle as "the dead" and themselves "the living". Just understanding this explains the "raising from the dead" of Lazarus.John 11:43 The story of the long lost "dead son".Luke 15:11-32. The episode of Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira just dropping down dead (excommunication)Acts 5:1-11.
And it would perfectly explain that one enigmatic biblical verse -"let the dead bury the dead"Luke 9:60
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
many people showed support
I didn't take you for one of the few theist cretins here,Doc You are now simply following suit and arguing for arguments sake now Doc. Or you are lonely for attention.
You have now made a claim. Lets see you produce the proof that many people showed support at Jesus's trial by Pontius Pilate. Show us where the bible states that "many people" pleaded for Jesus the messiah to be released instead of Jesus Barabbas?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I'm not interested in being a part of your clown game.
You'er all the same. You all want to take your ball home once more goals have been scored against you with your own ball.
Once you have been slapped with your own stick and your biblical ignorance has been exposed and embarrassed you , you don't want to play anymore. If it is any consolation, Mopac, you certainly aren't the only one here that does as you often do.
Created:
-->
@rosends
I think this goes someway in explaining what is meant by "possessed by a demon" biblically.
Matthew12: 22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see.
We see here , the bible clearly says the man was "blind" and "mute" this on the face of it appears to be talking about physical impediments.
But considering the way in which Jesus and those at the time spoke and wrote, this could simply mean a person that refuses to see and hear what is being shown to them, ie regarded as "demon possessed".
I am of the opinion that is simply a ritual of performed by Jesus of raising someone into his movement, thereby making him understand (hear his message) and see it clearly. Jesus had simply raised this man from among those he considered "dead" and deaf and blind and mute to his movement of the living. I. E. he had exorcised this man of his demon , he had converted him.
Jesus had simply made the man a disciple and in turn the once blind mute was able to hear and see (understand) his message and go out and talk/preach about it to others
Jeremiah 5:21
New King James Version
21 ‘Hear this now, O foolish people,
Without understanding,
Who have eyes and see not,
And who have ears and hear not:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I forgot also to add Isaiah 44:6
This is what the Lord says—
Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I think it proves that Jesus wasn't as popular with the Jews as Christians like to imagine him to have been.He was extremely popular
Opinion . In fact , Doc,no one outside of Galilee even knew who he was.
Matthew 21: 10 When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, “Who is this?”
Yet we are told that thousands and thousands the people came from hundreds of miles around on foot or donkey just to here him. Mark 3:7-9. So where were they all in his hour of need, Doc?
No one showed a single ounce of support . They all shouted for the release of Jesus Barabbas.
So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, "Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?"
At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was Jesus Barabbas. So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor.
“Barabbas,” they answered.
Matthew 27:16-26
Well they didn't take much persuading, did they , Doc. Your boy wasn't as popular with the Jews as YOU and those biblical authors are so desperately trying to portray him to have been.
The whole story is bullshit.
There is absolutely no historical evidence that this kind of dispensation of freeing an enemy of Rome on the whim of the crowd. NONE!
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
you just went in circles about Thomas. No atheist is an apostle
That would be you Doc.
I haven't called Thomas an "atheists". At the time of his doubting and asking for proof the bible calls Thomas a disciple and that is clearly noted. Thomas is the worst type of disbeliever, yet Jesus offered him proof after Thomas RFUSED to believe " UNLESS".
Paul was a murderer of members of Jesus own flock yet gave Paul a one on one personal audience. he appeared to Paul after he had acceded.
You cannot square these biblical facts , Doc. You ran out of excuses pages ago. As all of you believers do.
Created:
-->
@ronjs
we all have the same evidence, it's in how you interpret it that is the difference.
So you are simply stuck for an explanation as to why it came about that we can find Satan just walking "to and fro " on the earth making wagers with god that cost the lives of 10 innocent children Job 2:2, and millennia later can be found again tempting Jesus in the wilderness? Mark 1:12-13 after we had been told that Satan had been sentenced to crawl on his belly eating dirt for all eternity for seducing and corrupting mankind? Genesis 3:14
New International Version
14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
And you keep avoiding this too;
It seems that most skeptics are unwilling ............
It seems that you are a little short on replies and answers, yourself. #24
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Since this Trinity proposition was posed to MOPAC in my godly post #11 above, and since we know that MOPAC is a run away pseudo-christian to such biblical truths, do you think that MOPAC will once again run away from this Trinity Doctrine Truth with yet another lame child like excuse?
Considering he hasn't even attempted to iron out the conundrum that Rabbi David Kimhi put forward, I am sure it is highly likely that Mopac will give your own conundrum a wider berth.
The irony is the fact that when the pseudo-christian like MOPAC runs away in this manner, they still want to be called a Christian, NOT! LOL!
And I would accept that Brother on the understanding that their title will be prefixed with the words coward, hypocrite or the bible ignorant.
Why is it that Christians accept the bible as the word of God as true and unalterable in one breath, but then in the next they don't accept the bible's words that clearly state that there is but one god and one mediator that also clearly states that Jesus is A MAN!?
1 Timothy 2:5
"FOR THERE IS ONE GOD AND ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MANKIND, THE MAN ( the anointed) JESUS".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Mary isn't the first story of incest in the Bible. Rabbi should realize that.
I am sure the Rabbi does realise that fact . But in this instance he is talking about Jesus "son of god " born of a virgin and sired by himself so he could be born.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You say that the Trinity is another way of saying Jesus is one with His word and spirit? So it is Jesus, His word, and His spirit, but nonetheless, there are also three divine persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Yet these three divine persons are distinct from one another: the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit. However, there is exactly one God (1 Timothy 2:5), therefore Christ is His own Father and His own Son. The Holy Ghost is neither Father nor Son, but both in spirit. The Son was begotten by the Father through Celestial impregnation through incest, but existed before He was begotten. Jesus is just as old as His Father, and the Father is just as young as His Son. The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but He is of the same age as the other two!
Jesus! That made my eyes water.
Good job there are no ` uncles` involved too,eh Brother.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Virgin Mary is...someone related to the two people possessing the consciousness we call God. That is my theory.
Indeed.Christians call her Jesus' very much human mother.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If you call yourself a Christian,
I don't. I was christened at birth without my knowledge or permission. Like millions of ` Christians `I had it foisted on me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
- I am no religious man...And neither am I , Intelligence_ 06What do you mean?The Christian belief is that god come unto the virgin Mary and there was an immaculate conception. She went on to give birth to Jesus - son of god - king of the Jews, that Christians claim is also god.Are you dismissing the biblical account of the virgin , the immaculate conception and the birth of Jesus the son of god that is also god and and Mary's alleged involvement in the whole story?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I am no religious man but my interpretation is that the father and the son shares the same mind. and the mind is what God is. Consiousness.The Holy Spirit is the consciousness that the father and the son shares. The father and the son do not share any physical mutuality, just spiritual.
And how or where does Mary the virgin "mother of god" feature in your interpretation?
Created:
Posted in:
"the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" said Rabbi David Kimhi - " therefore, with reference to this god whom you call Father, Son and Holy Spirit, - that part which you call the Father must be prior to that which you call Son, for if they were always coexistent would have to be called twin brothers.
More over, if the Son is the Father what of Mary getting pregnant? Is this not an incestuous congregation? The Father has sex with the mother to conceive the Son who is also the Father.....so technically the Son, who is also the father, had sex with his mother"...
It's all very - Oedipus, isn't it ?
Oedipus c 450 BC, was a mythical Greek king of Thebes. A tragic hero in Greek mythology, Oedipus is believed to have fulfilled a prophecy (accidentally) that he would end up killing his father and marrying his mother, thereby bringing disaster to his city and family.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
In reading your pathetic posts relative to your alleged faith, it is easily IMPLIED in who you are talking about without mentioning their name, understood Bible fool? As if every member is as dumbfounded of the Bible as you and can't figure out who you are addressing, NOT! If you used this type of reasoning in writing your book about the Constitution, then I pity the reader of your book!!!
He has posted to me directly and references to me often .
Here #3 Here #18. Here #90 . Here #8. Here #28.Here #33 . Here #35. Here #51. Here #51. and elsewhere and all the while he was on block.
And I am still trying to work out how anyone can forget that they were a student in the Greek language? Odd I thought it was that Fauxlaw in his forum biography freely offers us his very impressive academic credentials . And an interesting little bag of academic tricks it is, it is impressive, Brother.
A published author, Phds, History & English Lit. And being " Fluent in English, French, Italian, and Egyptian hieroglyphs."
But like you, I found it most odd that what he seems to have forgot to mention in his detailed biography is his knowledge and expertise in ancient Greek!?
"I am a student of Greek "#28 he tells us, but not a single mention about it in his public forum profile here at Debateart !?
Tell me Brother, do you think that it is at all possible for one to forget that one is " a student in Greek"? It would be like forgetting one's own name , surely?
Created:
-->
@rosends
I personally hold the idea that in those ancient times one "being possessed by a demon" is simply what we today would call a metaphor for someone suffering an illness such as the epileptic in Luke's gospel that I mention at #9.
Or a case of going against the grain and saying and doing unacceptable things as Jesus is said to have done many times. examples doing things on the sabbath and saying things the puppet priesthood din't like.
Created:
-->
@ronjs
Actually, the evidence ( or the interpretation of the evidence has been presented in this forum numerous times,
What evidence are yo talking about.?
And you have missed this query too
keeping with the theme of this thread, I am willing to accept that there is a god of the Christians if you the author, is willing to explain why and is willing to accept that "god" is willing to kill innocent children at the drop of an hat and for no other reason than a wager and with none other than Satan the great deceiver himself, and who "god" had sentenced to crawl on his belly to eat dirt for the rest of eternity!? Genesis 3:14
And you also has to explain to me what was Satan doing just walking about and going to and fro on the earth after such a severe sentence that was supposed to be for "eternity".?
" And the LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it."Job 2:2
It seems that most skeptics are unwilling
It seems that you are a little short on replies and answers, yourself. #24
It seems that most skeptics are unwilling to see the proof (evidence) of Gods existence.
[A] I have never seen a single piece of evidence for the existence of the god that Christians believe exists. Are you claiming such a god exists?
and mainly ask questions that are not relevant to the subject,
In your opinion, is questioning the reliability of the bible relevant to the subject?
because, i think, they really don't want an answer
Well that is where your totally wrong in my case. I would like all of the questions that I have concerning the bible, answered. Would you like a short list or a long one?
Also there is the problem of [A] above.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Re: Forum Etiquette: If I m not naming a receiver.................................................
Which you have done many times now on other of my threads while I have had you blocked : Here #18. Here #90 . Here #8. Here #28.Here #33 . Here #35. Here #51. Here #51.
I have asked you FOUR TIMES NOW!!! this is now targeted harassment. You have had many chances to be cordial and diplomatic.. You ignored all polite requests to address the topic and you didn't, but have chosen instead simply to disrupt and agitate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>am asking you again to leave me and my threads alone. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Created:
Created:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Is anyone just willing to have an honest discussion in the religion section without trolling?
Yes there is. But it appears that you are not one of them . In fact I created a whole thread dedicated to the very fact that CHRISTIANS want to discuss anything but the scriptures. Here>>https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4309-they-want-to-discuss-anything-but-the-bible
I have created nearly 90 threads about religious matters including biblical contradictions, biblical characters and many of the bible stories. See my profile HERE and pick one>> https://www.debateart.com/participants/Stephen/forum_topics How many have you started?
You joined this forum just 7 days ago. You have authored two threads. One concerning killing a cat and the other asking others to find a picture on the WWW!!! of Spartacus for you. Now that really is discussing religion isn't it.
There is nothing stopping you starting a thread of your own on any aspect of GOD, JESUS, or the BIBLE, is there?
I never made a claim as to whether the specific passages you provided are contradictions.
But I am. I have highlighted what I consider to be contradictions by Jesus himself and ask a question. But you have ignored it just like you all do when confronted with these biblical dilemmas. You have done what all theist do when these anomalous and ambiguous scriptures are highlighted and you are stuck for answerers so you, instead of addressing the content, you choose to attack. And here you are having the brass bollocks to accuse me of not " wanting a discuss in the religion section".. It is very rare I wonder from the religion forum!
by pointing out the obvious in context meanings.
But you haven't done that have you. Read post #13 again and try to address what is written.
or with issues in how literally or figuratively jesus spoke in separate areas.
Well it is refreshing to know that you have now volunteered to pinpoint for us in those contradictory verses that I have highlighted above at post #1 ..... where it is that Jesus is speaking "figuratively" and where Jesus is speaking "literally" and without them contradicting one another?
And then explain to us how you know?
I look forward to your own thread on any subject of the scriptures you wish to discuss. I imagine you are working on such a thread of your own right now aren't you? If not, why not?
Created:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Stephen is a christian in disguise.
I was christened at birth , I have admitted it many times. I am not a practicing Christian and never have been. I don't believe the scriptures as they have come down to us.
There are actual contradictions in the bible but instead of pointing to actual contradictions he is focusing on contradictions that only exist based on issues with translation..
That makes no sense. You say I focus on contradictions and then say I don't focus on "actual contradictions". Where I come from a contradiction is what it is, a contradiction.
or with issues in how literally or figuratively jesus spoke in separate areas.
Well it is refreshing to know that you have now volunteered to pinpoint for us in those contradictory verses that I have highlighted above at post #1 ..... where it is that Jesus is speaking "figuratively" and where Jesus is speaking "literally" and without them contradicting one another?
And then explain to us how you know?
Ask yourself why stephen would focus on non contradictions
Where have I highlighted and focused on a "non contradiction"?
instead of the real ones showing different accounts of Jesus's birth for example.
Well besides the fact that the birth accounts contradiction has been debated to death over hundreds of years, I have raised the matter of the contradictory bloodlines myself on a few threads.
There is at least ten year difference between Mathews account and that of Luke's account. And the bloodlines contradict on another. If you would like to straighten that little contradiction out for us on a thread of your own? Please feel free. But a better question concerning the point that you raised would be to ask, as once I did :
- why it is that neither Mark and John make no mention of Jesus’ bloodline at all?. But please do so on YOUR OWN thread -
As it is , this thread, my thread, is all to do with Jesus contradicting himself SEE post #1
The only explanation is that he is a christian trying to make atheists look dumb.
You couldn't be more wrong. Atheists seem to appear to be more knowledgeable of the scriptures than most theist I have met.
Now, I created this thread not to discuss me. I created it to discuss Jesus' own contradictions as shown above and if or not they were indeed Jesus' own words or have the gospel writers put words into his mouth?
If you don't know, just say so. And anything that YOU believe that I "should be" discussing, can I suggest AGAIN that you discuss them on a thread of your own creation and not on my thread . Or don't you have a mind of your own?
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Fauxlaw's additional biography states "I find debate to be a valuable method of learning. I approach that subject from that perspective, and thus learn from any with whom I engage in debate, as well as in commentary and forums. HUH?
Fake, in other words.
Which brings his Curriculum Vitae into serious doubt and dispute.
He, like few others here assume they can come to this religion forum and use it as there own pulpit and go unchallenged. When it dawns on them that this is a religion and NOT a religious forum they fall at the first fence and choose a path of denial, disruption and abuse.
It is the same old pattern.
Created: