Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Suetonius was a prolific writer in both Latin and Greek but many of his works have been lost. His masterpiece is the work known as the Lives of the Twelve Caesars. The earliest extant manuscript of the work dates from the sixth century AD.https://classicalwisdom.com/people/suetonius-the-twelve-caesars/
Dio Cassius doesn't have any extant books earlier than 5th Century and most not until the end of the 9th century. .https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/dio_cassius.htm
Really, it is quite puzzling that not only Josephus is difficult to actually see a historical figure but those that seem to mention him - themselves do not have anything more recently than the 5th century.
History it seems is full of holes -and if the documents are not available until centuries later - how can we have any confidence that they are not fake, copies, simply using someone' else's legendary name?
the fact that 4th century Christians were relying on a person whom we don't even have any serious evidence he was a real figure 400 years later is simply incredible. Surely that means he was a myth.
don't we have any evidence from any person living back then with documents from their own time?
Created:
Posted in:
The oldest manuscripts of the works of Josephus in their original language of Greek date to the tenth and eleventh centuries. Portions of the works are also quoted in earlier manuscripts by other authors, particularly Eusebius (fourth century). There are also versions in other languages, notably a Latin translation made about the fifth century. These are all codexes, bound books, not scrolls.https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/16970/are-there-any-extant-original-first-century-manuscripts-of-any-of-josephus-work
Given that the oldest record of any alleged work of Josephus is not found until the 4th century and then only in portion - we obviously have no eyewitness accounts that he is a real historical figure. He's probably a legend someone dreamed up.
Since he apparently is the main source for many ancient legends we can probably dismiss most of his work as made up.
Perhaps it was just one of many people in the 4th century who wanted to use a famous legend's name to give some credibility to their work. We know many did this sort of thing.
What do you reckon and what evidence would you give to refute the fact that he is just a myth?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Here you are admitting you are not particularly interested in pursuing a conversation which has gone down so many rabbits holes. But you make no attempt to address your depravity and gender dysphoria.
As I said rabbit holes.
You also appear very judgemental despite links and evidence that confirm your depravity and gender dysphoria.
No judgmental bones in my body.
Everyone appears to you like they don't have anything better to do. But you are the only one obsessed with your depravity and gender dysphoria.
There are always people wanting to jump in and have a discussion, nevertheless, it is you and Stephen who are being the model litigants. Not.
Let us help you Reverend so you can continue your mission to help others discover the historical and biblical Jesus,
What size is that paper bag again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You'd like that wouldn't you? And you think I have problems!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
But even that gets up your nose doesn't it Stephen. Mind you - the only thing worse than being mentioned is not being mentioned. that's what they say isn't it?
As for defending him, it's not my job to do so one or the other. He still has more integrity than you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I am not entirely sure why you tagged me in your congratulaterly letter to Stephen. I suppose there was a reason - but I couldn't find it.
Have a nice day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Excellent another post devoted to how wonderful I am. Oh I have missed you brother.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Maybe if you followed the topic in each thread instead of making it all about your depravity and gender dysphoria you might get your views across as a Reverend and not what you are perceived as to the members.
I'm not particularly interested in pursuing a conversation which has gone down so many rabbits holes by those involved - and without any particular parameters in which to make a point. To me it looks primarily like you and Stephen are measuring each other up. the rest of those involved are along for the ride and obviously don't have anything better to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@BrotherD.Thomas
@Shila
Brother
Oh yes I remember that well.
You showed me didn't you. Brother D Thomas - superior in all that he purports.
And yet for whatever reason, I continue to return.
One might think that whatever blows you feel you have given me were not sufficient enough to send me running for the hills.
Of course, and indeed - EVERY TIME I return and respond is sadly for you - EVIDENCE of your failure.
Wait, what. Did I say your failure? Hmmm - affirmative. that means yes if you didn't know.
the number one fake on this site is Brother Thomas. He can't even fake his religiosity. Or his atheism.
Me on the other hand - just do what I do and all the lies and dogmatic assertions that you make well - as I continue to be quoted so lovingly by your only friend in the world - is like "water of a duck's back".
Oh that I can disappear and be quoted by all of my friends. It's amazing really. Yet, you know what? I don't recall too many people quoting or referring to Stephen or Brother or even Harikrish when they disappear. There are occasional exceptions to the rule. Even our friend - you know the permanently banned friend - Ethan gets more mentions than the rest of you together - when you are not around.
Hence - it is clear who are the ones who are missed because of their substance. but hey, you keep on dragging me back here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Tradesecret learned the hard way, https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8091/post-links/351103
Hello Brother, it seems your memory is fading.
The only one around here who seems to have learned the hard way is you.
Not once have you succeeded in any of you dumb attempts at foiling the God of the Bible. I expect you don't even know what the word foil means.
Ha.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
the supreme fraud and author of foolishness on this site is Brother D Thomas. no one compares to you. Even harikrish runs rings around you. And he doesn't have a compass.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
whatever dear Shila, it seems you too failed logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The only one doing any whining around here is you. You just don't have the integrity to admit you were stalking. And you don't have the humility to do anything about it - EXCEPT - continue to whine on about how righteous you think you are - and how self - defeating you think I am.
care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Shila or Harikrish,
If you had taken the time to read my posts - which your comment seems to refute.
I have never changed genders. My gender remains the same as it was the day I was born.https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2106/post-links/351132
I did indicate however that my profile page has changed a lot. And the reason I changed that was due in part to external pressures inter alia.
My depravity -which incidentally is COMMON to all people is total depravity. It is what flows from the original sin, the fall of man.
In that sense, you and I and Stephen are all born depraved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You may deny it - but you did stalk me. You can give whatever explanation you want. Yet the fact remains - you copied and pasted hundreds of my posts in some database of your own so that you could quote me back whenever you were given the opportunity. That is the very definition of stalking. So deny it all you like - that is my explanation for why I changed my profile.
As for whatever Harikrish - aka Shila - alleged about me in another forum which no longer exists, I also provided explanation for my words.
What you fail to understand or choose to ignore is that any alleged conduct I confessed to was in a time when I was an atheist. It was not in my current condition.
In fact the very fact that such alleged conduct - experimental conduct - took place during an atheistic timeframe - only contrasts even more so where I am now. It demonstrates the Spirit of God working in my heart. In other words - your silly little statement about me being a pastor and a chaplain were not even on the table at that particular depraved time of my life.
In relation to God calling me. That is the point. I did not choose God - he chose me. I would never have chosen God - since I was totally depraved. Total does not mean so evil I was evil - but so totally depraved that I could not save myself. There was no deceit in what I said.
Yes, I did say those mean and nasty things about you. I have apologised and admitted my regret in doing so. I ought not to have said those things - and I have already indicated that on numerous occasions.
It is quite surprising you continue to bring it up - since the rest of the forum has already read and heard my comments previously. It is not like I am hiding it. so the only reason you wish to bring it up is because YOU can't deal with it. That dear Stephen is on your head. I have already made my peace about it. A long time ago.
Tis sad however that for you - it is such a big thing. and for the record. it wasn't just a matter of few weeks - it was quite a long time after you arrived - and only after several conversations in which you were baiting. I eventually bit - and went off. that was my mistake and I admit it. But I won't be sucked into your version of the events - given that you continue to not even grasp the mere wonderment of what happened.
I wish you all the best - but I am not playing your games.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I have never changed genders. My gender remains the same as it was the day I was born.
Of course on the forum page for profiles - the characteristics I have identified have changed numerous times.
I have offered as an explanation for this several factors:
1. I was being stalked by both Brother Thomas and Stephen.
2. I may have been hacked.
3. I felt like changing it because I can.
4. It is actually a similar tactic that Brother Thomas used - since his profile is a fake profile.
Any and All of these factors are individually or taken together sufficient explanation for the change on my profile.
And honestly, the repeated attacks - and defamatory abuse by Brother, Stephen and now Shila or harikrish whatever its name is now - demonstrates reasonable and overwhelming excuse for my behaviour.
In any event, au revoir
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
-->@ShilaWe have you admission you are not looking for truth anymore. You looked for truth and never found it. And like also admit you haven't found what you are looking for yet - or else you wouldn't be here.I know that English is not your first language so I just want you to know I won't hold that against you in your interpretation of what I have written.I am not looking for truth anymore - why? Because it found me. Why would I keep looking if I have now been found my truth?And as for me being here - I am an exception to the rule. I know that sounds weak and probably is. but its true. I also like to talk with people who are looking for the truth - and hopefully I can assist them in some way. Either by leading them to the truth or by helping them to see the truth more clearly. I admit I don't always do a good job.You said the same thing in another post but quite differently.Tradesecret: I don't need to search for truth anymore. Truth found me. As someone once said - if you can't take Muhammed to the mountain - you bring the mountain to Muhammed. There are more than one way to skin a cat. The interesting thing about Christianity - is truth is not a concept - it is a personIf truth in Christianity is not a concept, it is a person and the person is Jesus.Then truth in Christianity was crucified. Jesus was mocked, beaten and crucified.
Yes I did. and you can read my response there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
-> @ShilaI don't need to search for truth anymore. Truth found me. As someone once said - if you can't take Muhammed to the mountain - you bring the mountain to Muhammed. There are more than one way to skin a cat. The interesting thing about Christianity - is truth is not a concept - it is a personIf truth in Christianity is not a concept, it is a person and the person is Jesus.Then truth in Christianity was crucified. Jesus was mocked, beaten and crucified.
You know Harikrish, that is probably more insightful than you know. Jesus was crucified. He was mocked and beaten. And that is what the world really thinks about truth. It is not interested in the truth. It just wants its own way. And that is why it reflects you. You don't want to know the truth. Truth in your worldview is subjective anyway. And it is the same in secular - humanism and atheism. Truth - in the 21st century has become post modern. It has been thrown out the window. Lost to the ages.
Yet, what you omitted about Christianity, is that in its teachings is that truth was resurrected. And all that know the truth - will be set free. their condemnation will be cast aside. Their lives will rejoice. And I for one am happy about this. I am the way the truth and the life. Those are the words of Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Oh how precious.
A mirror I suggest and up you put - a picture of me.
Stephen, I know you are the jealous type but even that is bit creepy.
that when you think of what you look like - you can only think of me? wow I am flattered.
Thanks for the compliment though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
We have you admission you are not looking for truth anymore. You looked for truth and never found it. And like also admit you haven't found what you are looking for yet - or else you wouldn't be here.
I know that English is not your first language so I just want you to know I won't hold that against you in your interpretation of what I have written.
I am not looking for truth anymore - why? Because it found me. Why would I keep looking if I have now been found my truth?
And as for me being here - I am an exception to the rule. I know that sounds weak and probably is. but its true. I also like to talk with people who are looking for the truth - and hopefully I can assist them in some way. Either by leading them to the truth or by helping them to see the truth more clearly. I admit I don't always do a good job.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I don't need to search for truth anymore. Truth found me. As someone once said - if you can't take Muhammed to the mountain - you bring the mountain to Muhammed. There are more than one way to skin a cat. The interesting thing about Christianity - is truth is not a concept - it is a person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
It was then that truth found me. And it didn't try and prove that it was the truth and nor did it try and demonstrate that it was the truth and it did not validate itself and it didn't even task me to believe it was the truth.We believe something because we have become convinced. We can be convinced by good or bad reasons, but there is a reason for belief nonetheless. It sounds to me you became convinced for no good reason. This may work for you, but it has no persuasive power for those who are not starting with belief and working backwards.
I never said I was unconvinced. Nor that I was convinced for no good reason. My point was that people are looking for truth - but they don't actually know what they are looking for. and that is one of the significant reasons people NEVER find the truth.
You are on that journey. that is one reason you visit this site and others probably. You might not call it a journey for truth or perhaps you do. but you haven't found what you are looking for yet - or else you wouldn't be hereI am on a journey - on that we agree. However, I passed the part of the path you see as the ultimate destination. I moved on because, well, for many reasons, but generally because I found the picture painted by Christianity was flawed: People aren't born broken, sex isnt 'dirty', absolute certainty isnt reasonable, etc.
I passed the path of Christianity as well. I went onto other pastures and other possible destinations. Nevertheless, I met others on the journey going the other way. I met many many atheists and skeptics. I met many Buddhists and Hindus. This is part of the problem I raised in my last post. What is truth? How do you know if you see it?
I agree that some of the picture of Christianity that is painted is flawed. And that is what I discovered as well. Yet, that is part of the puzzle as well. Adam Smith's vision of economy was brilliant because it captured the nature of humanity and its self interest. What appears to be a flaw was actually the piece of the puzzle that makes it make sense. Not all Christians think sex is dirty. Absolutes do exist - what are they is a different question? It does strike me as ironic that you can detect what is flawed if you do not yet know what truth is.
Enjoy the scenery, but don't look too closely, my friend - it's illusory.
Illusory - sounds like you have been listening to Harikrish far too much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I went looking for the truth and I did not find it. Like everyone else on the same journey, I soon discovered there many hurdles and problems - of definition of validity, of recognising it when and if I did happen to luck onto it. But I kept looking - and looking. It was only when I stopped looking - because I wasn't particularly looking for the truth as whatever I thought the truth might be. Or what others had told me the truth was and I didn't have a better idea. Finally, I stopped.
It was then that truth found me. And it didn't try and prove that it was the truth and nor did it try and demonstrate that it was the truth and it did not validate itself and it didn't even task me to believe it was the truth. Yet it surprised me as to its simplicity and its complexity. To its rawness and to its maturity. To its completeness and its warmth and the immediate insight that it knew me better than I knew myself. And it didn't have an issue with me. And it was then that truth as it were "dawned on me".
My journey is now quite different to that one. I am not looking for truth anymore. That is a journey that others will walk until they realise that they won't ever find it. I have a feeling most people on this site are on that journey - whether they admit it or not. They might call it something different. They might recognise it or not. Yet like many other countless sites all over the internet and countless churches, and synagogues, and temples, and mosques, and little clubs, atheistic as well, these people will keep searching, and every now and then someone will find something that they recognise as truth - for a while and then they will move on - on the same old journey.
You are on that journey. that is one reason you visit this site and others probably. You might not call it a journey for truth or perhaps you do. but you haven't found what you are looking for yet - or else you wouldn't be here.
All the best for your journey. you know where I am.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Easy peasy. Take a look in the mirror.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Especially one that claims a congregation of over 300 worshipers, speaks many languages and tutors students in all the theological that's just to name a few of his many, many alleged accolades.I am still waiting to see the legislation that supports his claim. Thos links offer nothing in the way of evidence. But I am not surprised.
If you were ever surprised then you would have to stop worshiping yourself. Gods know everything don't they.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
no semantics. Shila asked specifically about whether I was confused about gender. I responded to her in kind. Seriously? What point is there to play semantics in this site and what probable reason do I need to do so. I am not hiding anything. I merely pointed out the situation here in Victoria.
It appears that your little break did nothing for your ability to confuse all issues.
In any event - I have no desire to enter the conversation further since the only people who seem desirous to interact are you and harikrish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Yes it should. I find it strange that s/he has chosen to point out that it is in Victoria that it is a crime and not his/her home state of Melbourne. S/he's probably forgot where s/he actually lives this week.
I assume you realise that Melbourne is the capital city of the State of Victoria. Or are you just having a lend of Shila?
As for the legislation - go to the Victorian State Site. It is easy to find. All you need to do is google - how Victoria in the most progressive state in Australia in relation to gender legislation. https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au or if find that too difficult to navigate try https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/vic/ The first one is more authoritative in Victoria. The second one more comprehensive. you might learn something.
and by the way - I never said it was a criminal offence to talk about gender. I was talking about it being illegal to talk to someone about whether they are confused about their gender. you may not appreciate the difference but the legislation does.
As for finding the specific piece of legislation and its penalties for breaking such laws - you are the wise and noble one - the one who knows their capital cities from their states. You go and do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
[...] Well, what is the alternative? That God created everything - but then left us to muddle on our own.Which alternative is that? There are many definitions for god. And, I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning here - you accept the Bible because it is internally consistent (not necessarily an indication of truth) and not accepting it is irrational (I disagree - explained in more detail below).
I asked the question because there does not seem to be an alternative. not one that makes any sense. You can't beat something with nothing.
It is totally unreasonable and implausible that everything that exists in all of its myriads of ways simple came from nowhere and without purpose.Why limit the options to the Biblical God or 'we came from nowhere'? The former is one supernatural option among thousands, and the latter does not accurately characterize the prevailing scientific theories as I understand them. Plus, there is at least one more option: "I don't know". Why do we have to settle on unfalsifiable or incomplete?
I don't know is not an alternative. It is nothing. And a copout. I have explained why I am able to limit it to the Biblical god. The other so called options don't actually make sense or provide reason. They may well exist - I doubt it - but there purpose is so vague that its unhelpful.
I mean, why should I accept the Bible as authoritative regarding god?Another good question. I think in the first place - that you are an intelligent person - that is a good reason to accept it.Thanks for the compliment, but my intelliengence is not in any way indicative of the truth of Biblical claims.
Not suggesting it is. Yet an intelligent person is able to grasp the truth - even the vibe of it at times. Truth of course can become lost otherwise.
Secondly, you can't beat something with nothing.As pointed out above, the alternative is not necessarily 'nothing'.
Well it is - until it can be articulated. It is nothing but nothing.
Thirdly, it will change your life. And respectfully, I think that is what you are hoping some one can provide you with.There are many things which might change a life (for better or worse), but this does nothing to bolster the validity, truthfulness, or in this case, the authoritativeness of these things.
True, changing your life is not necessarily evidence it is truth. Yet if the changes in your life are positive and beneficial then this is consistent with it being a good thing, even if it not demonstrably true. For the truth to ring - then you would need to provide some kind of objective measuring stick to know whether it is true or not.
At the end of the day though, it's not just about being smart enough to understand the gospel, or wise enough to make a good decision, it's about regeneration.It is not clear to me what you mean.
Yes that is understandable. It means that all of us understand that being dirty on the outside requires having a bath or a shower. Water to cleanse us. It is the inside which we are talking about here. our hearts simply tell us that we know best - and yet at the same time - we know that's not necessarily true. The Bible says we need to have a heart change. Or transplant. Jesus tells us we need to be washed by the Spirit of God.
And the bible provides the reason why we need to do this. We know that we are at odds with the universe and we can't figure it out - even though we are smart, have studied logic, think we understand the world, have everything going for us - and yet we know - especially when we are alone - or even sometimes when we are in a party with people all around, that something is wrong. And we can't put our finger on it. And sometimes we drink too much - and sometimes we cry - and sometimes we just think we ought to end it - yet it's there. And I suggest this thing - this being at odds with the universe is actually - being unreconciled with God. And not knowing why or how to fix it. And not sure whether you can trust anyone because there are so many quacks in the world - who just want your soul or your money or something else. And not sure how to reconcile this with the evil in the world, and with the modern view that God is impossible. And not sure how to reconcile this with all the errors we see in the bible and all the pedophiles in the church.
Some of us - think - well it's rather arrogant to think that the West has the right religion. Or that anyone has the right God. If there is a god. And yet, this gnawing knowledge is there - whenever you really don't want it to be there. It's the thing that drives people to sites like this one and challenging all of the best theists about. and finding that many of them have their own doubts. And yet many of them really are sure and confident. And you can see their lives - that reflect this - even when disaster happens to them.
I am sure that none of this resonates with you - but I am simply reflecting on my own journey.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
One reason I believe (not the only one) in God is because the alternative is simply irrational. It is totally unreasonable and implausible that everything that exists in all of its myriads of ways simple came from nowhere and without purpose. None of the theories that anyone has put up has really provides a satisfactory response or answer to that.This belief in God of course does not necessarily extend to believing in the God of the Bible. Of course the God of the bible is one of the few gods who actually makes the claim of making everything. Most gods in most religions are very specific in their deity status and what they represent and don't claim to be the creator of the universe.The God of the Bible also is one of the very few gods who provides a transparent and objective communication with humanity. It is one which specifically states it is his word. Not every religious book does that. Not that necessarily proves anything except I suppose he is not hiding anything.The Bible presents God in ways that are both mysterious and simplistic. It provides a purpose for the world, and a plan. It explains the problems of humanity and a solution. It doesn't pretend to be book that that is easy to read - and nor does it necessarily fit with out concepts of what God ought to be like. It answers many questions and leaves many unanswered.Respectfully, I don't see the other religious books doing this. And I don't see the other gods doing this either. Most are simply about appeasing the gods and doing their will. The biblical God has some of that - but much more as well.The Bible doesn't pretend that its heroes are perfect - save and except Jesus. No one else in the entire bible is seen as exemplary in that manner. In fact most of its heroes are downright - scumbags. David had troubles- Jacob was deceitful. Adam - the first man stuffed up the entire world and his son was the first murderer.After Jesus, Paul and Peter and James etc - none of these are portrayed as perfect. There is no pretence - it gives the book credibility.Of course there are the miracle stories and the creation and the Noah's flood. And Jesus rising from the dead. Yet the interesting about the bible is that these things are rare. They are special events. Not the norm.so my answer to your question about how can I know it got it right?Well, what is the alternative? That God created everything - but then left us to muddle on our own. To leave us without communication with him. That he made life for a purpose and then never told us about it.I suppose - he could have done that. Yet it really makes no sense that God would create and then just leave us alone.
Here you give your reasons for accepting the God of the Bible as a compromise after comparing the Bible with other religious scriptures.But the God of the Bible is portrayed differently between the Old Testament and New Testament. So a further compromised is required.
No. You are incorrect. There is no compromise here whatsoever. The reasons above are not ALL of my reasons for accepting the God of the Bible. It is not a comprehensive list. They contain just some of my reasoning to explain that my reason for accepting God of the Bible as true is not limited only to the fact that the Bible itself declares it to be the case.
I also reject your notion that the God of the OT and the NT is portrayed differently. In my view the God of the OT, namely the Trinity is the same as the God of the NT, namely the Trinity. In the NT we are introduced more personally to one of the persons of the Trinity. That is not a different God, it is simply focusing our attention on one particular member of the Godhead in a particular time. In some ways this member is possibly revealed in the OT in forms - known as the pre-incarnate Christ.
The Bible concludes with the crucifixion ofJesus who is worshipped as God. So a third compromise is needed.
You might need to articulate your argument a little more. The Christian understanding of Jesus is that he is FULLY GOD and FULLY MAN. He did die on a cross and he was raised from the dead. Yet God did not die. The Christ died. This was not a compromise. It was planned from before the beginning of the world. 1 Peter 2:19-20. It was not a mistake. It was not an accident. It was not a plan B. It was the plan. and it was perfectly executed - pardon the pun.
Finally Judaism which is the original source of the Abrahamic God rejects your conclusions in the New Testament. So another compromise is required.
How does Judaism rejecting the conclusions of the NT bring about a compromise? Israel was prophesied to reject the messiah. This is the reason why Israel lost its temple and lost its nationhood. Historically, whenever Israel lost its temple and was invaded, it was due to it sin against God by idolatry, by evil, and by taking on false gods. When this occurred - the covenant God put in place came into effect. And Israel was devastated and became as nothing. It was only after they were judged, and then repented, that eventually they came back to the land.
The question that the Jewish nation needs to ask itself, is what was the crime against God that was so heinous that it's temple was destroyed and its people scattered around the globe - without a place to call home for over 2000 years? If it wasn't the killing of the messiah, then what other event within that generation was so significant that God would judge the nation so harshly.
Why do you follow such a compromised version of God?
The answer is I don't. As far as I can tell it is you who follows a compromised god. A god who would prefer its people starve rather than eat its cows and a god who would prefer its people to starve rather than destroy the vermin of rats that live in the wharves in Mumbai. That is where compromise is happening. Your god is a turd and one who cares more for itself than for people. It is the one whose values are compromised.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Question: do you think that the esteemed moderators of DEBATEART are joking around with us in letting the Bible dunderhead Shila be a part of this religion forum? Or, are they allowing Shila to stay here to show what NOT to be like if you want to call yourself a Christian? As we easily agree, as if ethang5 and Tradesecret weren't obtuse enough relative to the JUDEO-Christian Bible, then comes along Shila waving the flag of their Bible stupidity as well!
Shila is your best friend BrotherD.Thomas.
I hardly attend this site anymore - but from time to time find a moment to catch up.
I am pleased you managed to find your tongue again. am I obtuse?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Are you really confused about your gender?
In Australia, and in Victoria, for you to ask that question unless you are a qualified GP and counsellor, is a criminal offence. Isn't that interesting. And for me to answer in the positive or the negative might well be construed as assisting you in your criminal offence. Huge fines and even prison time is possible for the breach of this offence.
Hence, whilst I might like to answer you, given that I live in Australia, and in Victoria in particular, I am afraid I am not permitted to answer your question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
So you accept this definition of god because the Bible says so?
I accept this definition of God because the Bible says so. I provided this outline from the WCF and its supporting verses since I take the view that learned academics over a long period of time debated these particular meanings and put them together. People from various backgrounds and different views.
How do you know the Bible got it right?
Great question. Perhaps it got it wrong. But at least it is consistent and makes sense to me.
One reason I believe (not the only one) in God is because the alternative is simply irrational. It is totally unreasonable and implausible that everything that exists in all of its myriads of ways simple came from nowhere and without purpose. None of the theories that anyone has put up has really provides a satisfactory response or answer to that.
This belief in God of course does not necessarily extend to believing in the God of the Bible. Of course the God of the bible is one of the few gods who actually makes the claim of making everything. Most gods in most religions are very specific in their deity status and what they represent and don't claim to be the creator of the universe.
The God of the Bible also is one of the very few gods who provides a transparent and objective communication with humanity. It is one which specifically states it is his word. Not every religious book does that. Not that necessarily proves anything except I suppose he is not hiding anything.
The Bible presents God in ways that are both mysterious and simplistic. It provides a purpose for the world, and a plan. It explains the problems of humanity and a solution. It doesn't pretend to be book that that is easy to read - and nor does it necessarily fit with out concepts of what God ought to be like. It answers many questions and leaves many unanswered.
Respectfully, I don't see the other religious books doing this. And I don't see the other gods doing this either. Most are simply about appeasing the gods and doing their will. The biblical God has some of that - but much more as well.
The Bible doesn't pretend that its heroes are perfect - save and except Jesus. No one else in the entire bible is seen as exemplary in that manner. In fact most of its heroes are downright - scumbags. David had troubles- Jacob was deceitful. Adam - the first man stuffed up the entire world and his son was the first murderer.
After Jesus, Paul and Peter and James etc - none of these are portrayed as perfect. There is no pretence - it gives the book credibility.
Of course there are the miracle stories and the creation and the Noah's flood. And Jesus rising from the dead. Yet the interesting about the bible is that these things are rare. They are special events. Not the norm.
so my answer to your question about how can I know it got it right?
Well, what is the alternative? That God created everything - but then left us to muddle on our own. To leave us without communication with him. That he made life for a purpose and then never told us about it.
I suppose - he could have done that. Yet it really makes no sense that God would create and then just leave us alone.
I mean, why should I accept the Bible as authoritative regarding god?
Another good question. I think in the first place - that you are an intelligent person - that is a good reason to accept it. Intelligent people make good decisions.
Secondly, you can't beat something with nothing. If you have a better alternative go and do that - don't waste your time on religious forums waiting for someone to give you an answer.
Thirdly, it will change your life. And respectfully, I think that is what you are hoping some one can provide you with.
At the end of the day though, it's not just about being smart enough to understand the gospel, or wise enough to make a good decision, it's about regeneration.
And I am happy to talk to you about that if you ask.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
There is but one only,1 living, and true God:2 who is infinite in being and perfection,3 a most pure spirit,4 invisible,5 without body, parts,6 or passions,7 immutable,8 immense,9 eternal,10 incomprehensible,11 almighty,12 most wise,13 most holy,14 most free,15 most absolute,16 working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will,17 for His own glory;18 most loving,19 gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin;20 the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him;21 and withal, most just and terrible in His judgments,22 hating all sin,23 and who will by no means clear the guilty.24
God hath all life,25 glory,26 goodness,27 blessedness,28 in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He hath made,29 nor deriving any glory from them,30 but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them: He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things;31 and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleaseth.32 In His sight all things are open and manifest;33 His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature,34 so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain.35 He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands.36 To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.37
In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.38 The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father:39 the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.40
God hath all life,25 glory,26 goodness,27 blessedness,28 in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He hath made,29 nor deriving any glory from them,30 but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them: He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things;31 and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleaseth.32 In His sight all things are open and manifest;33 His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature,34 so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain.35 He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands.36 To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.37
In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.38 The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father:39 the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.40
1 11 25 37
Deut. 6:4; I Cor. 8:4, 6. 2 I Thess. 1:9; Jer. 10:10.
16; John 4:24, with Luke 24:39. 7
16; John 4:24, with Luke 24:39. 7
3 Job 11:7, 8, 9; Job 26:14. 4 John 4:24. 5 I Tim. 1:17. 6 Deut. 4:15, 8 James 1:17; Mal. 3:6. 9 I Kings 8:27; Jer. 23:23, 24. 10 Ps. 90:2; I Tim. 1:17.
Acts 14:11, 15. 13 Rom. 16:27.
Ps. 145:3. 12
Rom. 11:36.
John 5:26. 26
I Tim. 6:15; Dan. 4:25, 35. 33 Heb. 4:13. 34 Rom. 11:33, 34; Ps. 147:5. 35 Acts 15:18; Ezek. 11:5.
Rev. 5:12, 13, 14. 38 I John 5:7; Matt. 3:16, 17; Matt. 28:19; II Cor. 13:14. 39 John 1:14, 18. 40 John 15:26; Gal. 4:6.
Rom. 11:36.
John 5:26. 26
I Tim. 6:15; Dan. 4:25, 35. 33 Heb. 4:13. 34 Rom. 11:33, 34; Ps. 147:5. 35 Acts 15:18; Ezek. 11:5.
Rev. 5:12, 13, 14. 38 I John 5:7; Matt. 3:16, 17; Matt. 28:19; II Cor. 13:14. 39 John 1:14, 18. 40 John 15:26; Gal. 4:6.
Gen. 17:1; Rev. 4:8. 19 I John 4:8, 16.
14 Isa. 6:3; Rev. 4:8. 15 Ps. 115:3. 21 Heb. 11:6. 22 Neh. 9:32, 33.
16 Exod. 3:14.
17 Eph. 1:11. 18 Prov. 16:4; 24 Nah. 1:2, 3; Exod. 34:7.
20 Exod. 34:6, 7.
Acts 7:2. 27 Ps. 119:68. 28 I Tim. 6:15; Rom. 9:5. 29 Acts 17:24, 25.
Acts 7:2. 27 Ps. 119:68. 28 I Tim. 6:15; Rom. 9:5. 29 Acts 17:24, 25.
23 Ps. 5:5, 6. 30 Job 22:2, 3.
31 Rom. 11:36. 32 Rev. 4:11; 36 Ps. 145:17; Rom. 7:12.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Actually, in the Bible the sabbath is just another term for holiday. It is a holy day. And was more than just the 7th day of the week.
In the week of Jesus death for instance - there was the passover. It was a holiday - a high sabbath. And it was not on the 7th day of the week - but dependent upon the moon.
Created:
-->
@Athias
I've shown you two images of the Vatican's Audience Hall: (1) one of its interior design, and (2) one of its exterior design. Both look like the head of a serpent. Where is the distortion? I do believe that Catholics like an overwhelming majority of Christian denominations are being coaxed into accepting Luciferian rituals, because the Pope and the Catholic elite, I suspect, ARE LUCIFIERIANS--the pope himself being Lucifer's vicar.
I have seen other images since you raised this picture which reveal it in a completely different light. I don't hold to the view that catholic church are luciferians. Sorry, that is a rabbit hole, I think is unhelpful. I am reformed and I hold to the WCF. We even think the pope is the anti-christ. go and look it up. Presbyterians - are even on the heretic list put out by the catholics. Yet I think that it is nonsense to suggest it is satan worship.
I am not Catholic - so my views on his mistakes would be biased. I think he stuffed up in relation to the handling of child sex matters. I think he was probably corrup.
We don't know this. Pure speculation based on nothing except hatred for the guy.
Yes, he did.
No, he didn't. And you yourself have set the premise as to the reason a Sunday (morning) resurrection was not the case.
The bible - NT clearly says Jesus rose on the first day of the week.
The NT clearly says he rose early on the first day of the week. I also think he prob died on Wednesday -
Note that in John 20, it states that Mary Magdeline went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, to discover that not only the stone covering the tomb had been moved but also the tomb was empty. It's also important to note that because of Sabbath, she with Mary, mother of James, and Salome would have been forbidden from performing any labors as in gathering aromatic spices and moving the Stone which entombed Jesus's body. The Bible does not state that Jesus resurrects upon discovery of his empty tomb. Jesus himself stated when he would resurrect. And by all rational counts, that would exclude a "Sunday Morning" resurrection as we understand it. So why do Catholics observe the resurrection on Sunday--our Sundays (Sunday morning-Sunday evening)?
Matthew 28:1-4 reveals the women went to the grave on the first day of the week. Dawn. So half way through the first day.
Mark 16:9 "when Jesus rose early on the first day of the week".
Luke 24:1 "on the first day of the week the woman went early in the morning. " Again halfway through the first day.
John 20:1 early on the first day of the week, the woman arrived at the empty tomb.
so the gospels indicate the woman went early on the first day of the week. Mark indicates Jesus rose on that day. It is the day that the apostles and the Christians met and worshiped. I think it is pretty clear.
So you understand then. good.
I do understand. I'm not quite confident that you do. Hebrews points out that Jesus's sacrifice does not provide a substitute for keeping faith with God. I don't know from where you've gleaned this notion that the chapters somehow expresses the elimination or re-designation of the weekly Sabbath.
I' not sure you do. the Sabbath is not eliminated. It is ongoing. the sabbath has not been redesignated. the sabbath is the sabbath. We are in a new age since Christ arrived and died and rose again. We worship Christ on Sunday the first day of the week - the 8th day of the week. we rest in Christ continually as we await for his return.
Because Christ is our sabbath.
That does not answer anything. Because Catholics have still particularized and designated a "Sabbath day," which is Sunday. Since you've assumed their proxy, I'm asking, "why?"
It does actually. You don't like the answer. I can see that. What Catholics do is on them. But it is not just the Catholics who hold to this view. What day do the Orthodox celebrate church? Every major denomination in the world agrees. Yes there are some who don't. It has been the way since the beginning of the church. It can't be put on the Roman Catholics.
The only real answer is "sin." Probably due to the fact that the Catholic church wanted to preserve the integrity of the priesthood. Wanted to believe its priests were above reproach. Maybe - the focus on single priests only had a bit to do with it as well. Maybe there was just too many opportunities and not enough accountability.
Why do you think that is?
Sin? From Adam and Eve. People in power often have opportunities.
It certainly has existed for just as long in the other institutions in society - from Boy Scouts, schools, orphanages, sports clubs, political clubs, university clubs, bikie clubs, brothels, etc.
No, much longer. But yes, the institutions you mentioned have issues with pederasty.
I don't agree. It is human sin. And sin is universal.
It sadly is part of humanity in all of its institutions - Saying that other institutions do it as well does not mitigate that the Catholic Church has an issue with institutionalized pederasty.
I am not saying otherwise. Yet, by looking at the Catholic Church without recognizing the prevalence in the society universally - means it won't actually be addressed. It's like looking for the murderer on a different planet. Sin is the issue. It is universal. By focusing on the church, it actually is likely to make things worse. Since - the real culprit will get off. And the one institution which is purpose designed to deal with that culprit is demonised. It's like saying - don't get the vaccine - it's evil - when it's really the only likely solution to the problem.
As long as you're assuming the proxy of Catholics, I have a few more questions:
1. Why do (Catholics) celebrate the date of Jesus's birth on Christmas, December 25th
I like the explanation that says God would often start and finish events on the same date. For instance the passover in Exodus and the crossing into the land of Israel over the river Jordan 40 days to the day later. A common occurrence in Jewish history.
Applying that Jesus' birth is quite simple really. If we don't know specifically when he was born. We find out when he died. Easy. Passover in a particular year. That just happens to be in that particular year March 25. Jesus died on March 25. If he was conceived on the same date - March 25 - move forward 9 months - December 25. not that difficult really. And it makes sense.
Why hasn't the Pope ordered the destruction of the Obelisk located in St. Peter's Square or the Statue of Moloch in the Colosseum?
Good question and I wish he would.
Why is the observance of the resurrection named "Easter"?
the obvious answer is easter is the name of a pagan deity. And thence it is following after a festival held on the same day. And probably there is truth to this. That a crossover of events - led many to call it Easter.
I'm not really sure what the problem is. It is vey likely in a world where people exist - that nations and groups of people celebrate events on the same day.
I have a birthday next week - which I am sure others - probably millions of people will also be celebrating their birthday. Does that make mine any less true or significant?
Easter is a name. What is the day of the week wherever you are? I am pretty sure - that everyone in the world uses the similar names - perhaps not the Jews. But Wednesday is named after Woden. Thursday is named after Thor. Friday named after Frida. I wonder whether you refuse to use the names of the days of the week. And if you do - use them - does that make you a suspicious character - a luciferian for instance. Personally, I think we can jump down rabbit holes. But we can also appreciate that names such as Easter, or the days of the week - are actually about unity rather than trying to worship some kind of false god.
Created:
-->
@Athias
How do you pray "on behalf" of someone when the only mediator between a person and God is Jesus? (This is explicitly stated in the Bible.)
Because the mediator which is spoken about in Hebrews is the atonement - the cross. Not prayer. Only Jesus could make that sacrifice on the cross - since only he was perfect in himself - without sin. No one else can be the mediator.
It is not talking about prayer. The bible clearly says Jesus prays for us. It also says the Holy Spirit prays for us. the Spirit of God is not Jesus. So how does the Spirit of God intercede for us?
We are commanded to pray for and on behalf of other people. This is called intercession. Intercessionary prayer is normal in every church I have ever seen. We pray that God will heal someone. Or pray that God will comfort someone. We pray that God will forgive people for their sins.
Catholics hold to the view that Mary is not dead.This is an assumption based on a misinterpreted premise, i.e. Mary is the "mother of God." Mary is not the mother of God; she's the mother of Jesus's corporeal/human body, whereas God created Jesus soul/spirit.
Athias, I am not Catholic. I don't pray to Mary. I think Mary is dead. I think the Catholics misinterpret lots of things. I was providing a reason for why they hold to this view. Not saying I agree with it.
Having said that - the creeds call her the Mother of God. God created a body - and breathed into it - and it became a living soul. Jesus is fully God and fully man. Mary was clearly the mother of Jesus.
Where does it state that? Wasn't it the martyrs who petitioned God?
Read the verses and find it yourself. The martyrs - those under the altar, petitioned God - and said how much longer - before you will avenge us? Clearly if this is a picture of heaven, then it leads to the conclusion that people in heaven know what is going on in earth and pray or petition God to assist.
My purpose was to look at the substanceThe "substance" is explicitly stated, "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Not having graven images of Mary, or even Jesus himself, would convince me that they're not items of worship.
Again, I am protestant. I hold to the Regulative Principle. I don't think we need to make images. or pray to images.
Yet, the substance of the commandment is about worship. Don't worship anything except God. What it doesn't say is - don't make anything at all.
Catholics hold to the view - that what they do is not worship. They don't even see prayer as worship. Merely as communication. Again, I would n't do it myself as I consider it nonsense. Nevertheless, they distinguish between worship and reverence. Even as Sarah in 1 Peter is said to have worshiped Abraham as Lord - yet this would not be considered "worship" as the same as directed towards God.
Again, you would need to define worship as you understand it. I consider people going to the football and watching the game as very religious - even worship. I think many people in our nation worship the State. I think many people worship the environment - others call them greenies. What the Catholics are doing is in the same vein. the fact that it is in an overtly religious manner doesn't change the substance. Footy watchers don't think it is worship. Greenies don't consider it worship. Catholics don't consider it worship.
The bible forbids such items -No, the Bible expresses God's condemnation of such items straight out. In fact, when God commands that these items are not to worshiped, it's because God states jealousy as the reason. God provides NO CAVEAT when it comes to creating and possessing these items.
I disagree. You still need to define what worship is. And what it is not.
For example. Peter in the book of Acts -Where in ACTS does it specify that Peter had to eat pig? Is the chapter to which you're referring really about Peter/Simon eating "bacon" or "ham," or his questioning God's authority, and segregating himself from those who he considered "common" and "unclean"?
Its contained within the whole story of the vision he had - with respect to the Gentiles. The point was clear. What God calls clean is clean. Pig was unclean in the OT and something happened when Jesus came - that changed it from being unclean to clean. the same with the Gentiles. they were unclean in the OT and yet something happened which made them clean. The principle of interpretation is that Jesus is the intervening event. How did his coming fulfil the law so that Gentiles could become part of the family of God?
Yet in the NT - since Christ fulfilled all things including the sacrificesWhere does it state this?
In the NT. Read the book of Hebrews again. Read the letters that Paul wrote. Christ came to fulfil the law - not to destroy it. It remains in place - since it is of the character of God which is immutable. Yet, while the substance does not change, the form may. The substance of the sacrifices remains - since Christ is eternal. Never to be repeated. Yet the form of the sacrifice is no longer animals but Christ.
In relation to the Sabbath, Christ is our rest. Again read the book of Hebrews. Read Paul's writings where he says - no one particular day is more sacred than another. We celebrate Sunday because that is the day that Christ rose from the dead - on the first day of the week. It is the day the Christians met to worship. How do we know that they weren't meeting on the Jewish Sabbath? Because they were collecting money. Something which was forbidden on the Sabbath.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Sabbath definition: a day of religious observance and abstinence from work, kept by Jewish people from Friday evening to Saturday evening, and by most Christians on Sunday.You reduced Christ to a Sunday. When Christians are expected to believe Jesus is God.You must belong to one of those cult denominations.
Interestingly, it is the cults which consider the Sabbath still Saturday. Let me make an exception for the Jewish religion. Yet, it is not Christian in any event. the church has celebrated Sunday as its day of worship since the beginning of the church.
Christians don't actually celebrate the Sabbath. Yes, many Christians at times equate the Sabbath with the day of rest - and since Sunday is the day we now worship and a day of traditional rest - there has been a crossover in people's minds. Yet, Christians get their definitions of the Sabbath and of the Lord's Day from the Scriptures, not from the dictionary like those who don't understand the religion.
I never reduced Christ to a Sunday. What a nonsense.
Created:
-->
@Athias
One does not pray "on behalf" of other people; one prays "for" other people since the communication between God and humanity has neither been disrupted nor interrupted. Let's analyze the Hail Mary prayer:
We pray on behalf of people and we pray for people. In our worship services - a presbyterian service - we have praise and confession prayer.
"Hail, Mary, full of grace,the Lord is with thee.Blessed art thou amongst womenand blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.Holy Mary, Mother of God,pray for us sinners,now and at the hour of our death.Amen."Why would one ask the dead to pray for them? Why would one need the dead to pray for them? Why would one create a buffer between communications with a mediator, who himself is a buffer to God?
Catholics hold to the view that Mary is not dead. But rather alive, having ascended like Jesus.
Others would hold to the view as in Revelation 6:9-11 that those in heaven know what is going on earth and petition on behalf of those on earth is not just a future thing but ongoing now.
Catholics do not see the images as items to worship. Rather they represent in their minds and in their service - the God who is behind the image. This is in contrast to the pagan times in the OT where such items were actually worshiped as real gods.You haven't answered the question. I didn't ask whether they saw them as items of worship, though I'm not convinced that they're not.
My purpose was to look at the substance behind the commandment not to have icons and images and to differentiate between the two. What would convince you that they don't see them as items of worship?
It is well known that many very early statues of Mary were actually rededicated statues of the Great Mother in the Forms in which She was worshipped in the late Classical world. The eclectic spiritual attitudes found among many Hindu and Buddhist populations today were not uncommon in the ancient West, and the Christian Church did not always discourage them too much, especially when they were struggling to win over a "pagan" population.I asked the reason they purchase and possess statues of Mary when the Bible expressly forbids it.
The bible forbids such items - if they are to be used as items of worship. That is the point of the law. Also many would see this as an OT law - for Israelites not for the entire globe. The NT has an interpretation of scripture that is to understand all things through Christ. For example. Peter in the book of Acts - was instructed by God to eat bacon and ham. This was forbidden in the OT. Yet in the NT - since Christ fulfilled all things including the sacrifices - and this also applies to the Sabbath.
Laws in the OT has numerous purposes. Some were for the nation of Israel - some were global. some were for just the Levites. Some were called seed laws - for the land.
It isn't. It is rectangular, longer than it is wide. Take a photo with a telephoto lense and the visual field is distorted.It's your argument that it does not look like a serpent's head because the pictures are taken with a telephoto lens which distorts the field? It's not rectangular; it's a trapezoid (at best, an isosceles trapezoid.) Here's a picture from the outside. Look at the curvature. Would you still maintain that it's not shaped like a serpent's head? Are you sure that it's a "distortion," and not just the adjacent walls connecting with the back wall at obtuse angles?
I had never heard of this until you raised it. I have never been to the Vatican and probably never will. I did do a google search and it was interesting read. Nevertheless, it does seem pretty clear that there are those who would like to paint the Catholic Church as a satan serving church and do distort images to make it appear to be that way. Other photos - pain a completely different view.
Unusual but not necessarily unprecedented. It's happened before and it will happen again. He was getting old. He had made a mess of a few things. It's better to retire than simply go on making mistakes until you die.I know it's not unprecedented (thus my stating, "first pope to retire in 600 years.") Would you mind elaborating on these mistakes? And why did these mistakes compel his retirement?
I am not Catholic - so my views on his mistakes would be biased. I think he stuffed up in relation to the handling of child sex matters. I think he was probably corrupt. I think he was forced to resign by some of his cardinals and others who wanted the papacy to try and restore some of its lost reputation.
It's what the early church did. It's quite biblical. It commemorates the day Jesus rose from the dead.Jesus did not resurrect on a Sunday, even if you consider the ancient Hebrew calendar. How does Jesus die on Good Friday and resurrect on the following Sunday?
Yes, he did. The NT clearly says he rose early on the first day of the week. I also think he prob died on Wednesday -
Read the book of Hebrews.I have.
So you understand then. good.
Hence, all Christians are now in a perpetual rest from sin.What does this have to do with observing the Sabbath?
If you read the book of Hebrews you would understand? We are now resting in Christ. That was the purpose of the Sabbath.
Yet since the Sabbath is eternally being celebrated - we have not somehow replaced it with Sunday.Why?
Because Christ is our sabbath.
It is an abomination and ought not be tolerated. the perpetrators ought to be arrested put in prison and the keys thrown away. They ought to be derobed and sanctioned. Parishes condoning such behaviour should be flushed out - and leadership removed - with new people put in.What are your opinions on the reasons it has continued for so long?
The only real answer is "sin." Probably due to the fact that the Catholic church wanted to preserve the integrity of the priesthood. Wanted to believe its priests were above reproach. Maybe - the focus on single priests only had a bit to do with it as well. Maybe there was just too many opportunities and not enough accountability.
I don't know how long it has gone on. It certainly has existed for just as long in the other institutions in society - from Boy Scouts, schools, orphanages, sports clubs, political clubs, university clubs, bikie clubs, brothels, etc. It sadly is part of humanity in all of its institutions -
Created:
-->
@Oldschoolpancakedummy
Newly confirmed Catholic. Would love any questions from anyone.
So what did you convert from? And why? Was it to do with marriage? Or from conviction?
Created:
-->
@Athias
I'm not a Catholic. And I am not sure whether the author is coming back or has left for good. But I will take a stab at what Catholics are likely to say in respect of your questions:
1. How do you justify a "Hail Mary" prayer when in 1st Timothy Chapter Two, Verse Five, it states: "for, There is one God and one mediator who can reconcile God and Humanity—the man Christ Jesus"?
Catholics would refer to prayer as communication between God and humanity. Yet they would see - interestingly enough - not unlike the protestants that prayer is something we can do on behalf of other people. The Bible commands the people of God to make intercession on behalf of others to God. Every minister - whether protestant or Catholic makes intercession on behalf of their congregations and yet this intercession is not seen as somehow interfering with the fact that there is one mediator between God and man.
It is not prayer that is the mediator and it is not even the person we pray to who must be the mediator. Catholics have no issue with Jesus being the mediator. Mary is in that sense - not a mediator when people pray to her - Catholics and even the Orthodox would see Mary as merely another intercessor - who will speak and pray to the mediator.
2. Why do Catholics purchase and possess statues of Mary when in Exodus Chapter 20, Verses Four and Five, it states: "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"?
Catholics do not see the images as items to worship. Rather they represent in their minds and in their service - the God who is behind the image. This is in contrast to the pagan times in the OT where such items were actually worshiped as real gods.
3. What are your thoughts about the Audience Hall in the Vatican uncannily resembling a serpent's head?
It isn't. It is rectangular, longer than it is wide. Take a photo with a telephoto lense and the visual field is distorted.
4. What are your thoughts on Pope Ratzinger's (Pope Benedict XVI) retirement--i.e. being the first pope to retire in 600 years?
Unusual but not necessarily unprecedented. It's happened before and it will happen again. He was getting old. He had made a mess of a few things. It's better to retire than simply go on making mistakes until you die.
5. How do you reconcile observing Sabbath on Sundays?
It's what the early church did. It's quite biblical. It commemorates the day Jesus rose from the dead. And moreover - it isn't the Sabbath. In the OT the sabbath was on the 7th day of the week. Sunday is the first day of the week.
Christians understand that when they become Christians they enter into the rest of Christ. Read the book of Hebrews. Hence, all Christians are now in a perpetual rest from sin. And are in Christ. The Lord's Day is not the Sabbath. Yes, we tend to take things easier. Yet since the Sabbath is eternally being celebrated - we have not somehow replaced it with Sunday. Sunday is the LORD's Day. The first day - or better still the 8th day.
6. What are your thoughts on the institutionalized pederasty plaguing numerous parishes?
It is an abomination and ought not be tolerated. the perpetrators ought to be arrested put in prison and the keys thrown away. They ought to be derobed and sanctioned. Parishes condoning such behaviour should be flushed out - and leadership removed - with new people put in.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Have we resorted to talking to ourselves now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Harikrish
@Shila
So the answer is JWs don't believe Jesus is God therefore they are not Christians. Thanks Harikrish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Polytheist-Witch: The mods know it too and they simply allow him to keep spewing his hatred because you know it's directed at us.How am I spewing hatred by quoting scriptures? Tradesecret as a preached does it all the time even though he knows Jesus was crucified for what he claimed and preached.John 10:33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
Poly never said you spewed hatred by quoting the scriptures. It is your commentary and interpretation that permeates hatred.
Jesus was crucified but thankfully, and praise God, he rose from the dead. He is alive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I assume you think that because he destroyed the world - that this means he did not love the world. Perhaps it might mean that. Or perhaps it might mean that he did not love what humans had become - so he decided to wash the world clean with water?
It is not unimportant that God waited patiently for them to repent - according to 1 Peter 3:20. Even in their hatred of God, God still waited for them to stop being disobedient. 120 years is a long time.
In any event, Jesus did not miscalculate in any of his dealings on earth. Nor did he speak differently in the NT than he did in the OT. God judges in the NT and in the OT. He loved in the OT and in the NT. IT is the same God in the OT and the NT.
The only who seems to be incorrect or in error is you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Harikrish
@Shila
It seems you must have reincarnated. Is this the 5th. 6th. or 7th time.
In any event, your arguments have not evolved any.
The Christian view is Jesus is not God the Father. They are separate persons. Hence most of your arguments are actually "arguments of straw".
The Christian understanding of God is that God is ONE. He is Trinity. ONE God, yet THREE persons. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Furthermore, I have explained to you before that Jesus NEVER blamed God for his crucifixion. In fact the Crucifixion was planned before the beginning of the world and the THREE persons of the TRINITY were in agreement with it.
Psalm 22 is a reasonably long Psalm and has several sections within it - that must be understood together, not isolated out as one verse by itself. If you read the Psalm, which previously you have indicated that you have - then you would see the parallel in that Psalm with much of Jesus' life, his humiliation and his exaltation.
It is conceded that many Christians within mainstream Christianity - at least in the Protestant arm and moreso within the dissenter and Charismatic movements understand that the Father turned his face away from Jesus on the cross. Their basis for this view is God cannot look on sin - and therefore when Jesus himself became sin for the world, God turned his eye away from God. At this point Christ cries out - why did you forsake me? And the answer although silent in the story itself - is justification that Christ's death did in fact achieve what he was sent to earth to accomplish.
Reformed Folk tend to hold a different understanding. We say God could never be divided. That means that we hold the view that God was in agreement. Even in the garden of Gethsemane where Jesus sweats tears of blood - asking the Father - if it were possible to remove this cup. "nevertheless, Jesus says not my will but yours be done." Two things here - firstly was Jesus asking God the Father as the Son of Man or as the Son of God? Secondly, was Jesus speaking from the human perspective not a divine one? Very similar questions - but also substantially different.
Nowhere does the story show that God turned away from his son. Jesus expresses his thoughts on the cross. But is he speaking words of prophecy in accord with Psalm 22 - demonstrating he is the Lamb of God, or is he expressing sentiments that he is blaming God? Given his history of speaking words of prophecy it is more plausible that it is the former rather than the latter. Also we know that Jesus knows the Scriptures. Hence, he knows God will never leave nor forsake him. God doesn't break his promises. Jesus knows this. He is too much a creature of the Scriptures to think otherwise. And the fact that Jesus quotes Psalm 22 - clearly - at least in my view - illustrates he knows he is an instrument of prophecy - and is expressly declaring that even as he died on the cross.
For me - it points to his validity. It points to his divinity and to his humanity. It reveals he is a student not only of the Scriptures - but knows them intimately.
Hence - your words - much repeated words are simply more of the historical nonsense of another forum long ago which has died.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
1. The Jews who created the concept of the Messiah demanded that Jesus be crucified.Luke 23:20 Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. 21 But they kept shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”22 For the third time he spoke to them: “Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him.”23 But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. 24 So Pilate decided to grant their demand. 25 He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus to their will.
Yes totally agrees with me that it was the religious leaders which stirred up some of the Jews in the community. It doesn't refute that the early church was made up of entirely Jewish believers.
2. The Romans who crucified Jesus went on to form the Roman Catholic Church.The Roman Catholic Church was started duringJesus’s time and with the help of his apostlesAccording to Catholic tradition, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. The New Testament records Jesus' activities and teaching, his appointment of the twelve Apostles, and his instructions to them to continue his work.
Nope. Jesus may have started the church. But the Roman Catholic Church did not start for hundreds of years later.
3. The people who seek forgiveness are Christians who believe that a dead Jew can forgive sins.Forgiveness of sin in every dispensation has always been based on Jesus’ death on the cross (see Hebrews 9:15). In the Old Testament, sins were forgiven on the basis of Jesus’ death on the cross, of which the animal sacrifices were but a foreshadowing. During the life of Christ, sins were forgiven on the basis of His yet-future death on the cross—the benefits of that sacrifice were granted to those who had faith in Jesus. Now, by faith, we look back on the death and resurrection of Christ and receive God’s forgiveness. The good news is as Paul preached, “My friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you” (Acts 13:38). When we trust Christ, the word to us is the same as that spoken to the forgiven woman in Simon’s house: “Your faith has saved you; go in peace” (Luke 7:50).
Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead. We don't believe in a dead christ. We leave that for hindus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The Jews who created the concept of the Messiah demanded that Jesus be crucified.The Romans who crucified Jesus went on to form the Roman Catholic Church.The people who seek forgiveness are Christians who believe that a dead Jew can forgive sins.How can atheists top this delusion?
Hello Shila, or is it another? My favourite food is Indian. But that is probably my secrete martyr or like name. Or perhaps that might be vici vica?
Nevertheless, your first sentence is incorrect. The Jews never created the concept of Messiah. It goes back far further than Jacob. Did the Jews demand that Jesus be crucified? Some did and some didn't. The first thousands of Christians were Jewish. Go and have a look at Acts and the time of Pentecost. Clearly thousands of Jews became Christians. Mostly, as I understand the Gospels, it was the religious leaders - who were threatened and wanted Jesus out of the way.
Your second sentence is also incorrect. The Romans who killed Jesus were soldiers acting on the instructions of Pilate who was trying to stop a revolt by the Jewish people. The Roman Catholic Church really did not become a thing for hundreds of years afterwards. In fact the Christian church was initially a Jewish sect that then ingrafted Gentiles and was spread around the then Israel, Africa and Turkey. It also drifted across to Greece and Rome and Spain and even into Britain. Plus there were many Christians heading East towards Arabia and China.
Yes, eventually the Roman church split from the East and became its own church. But these people did not have any connection to those who crucified Christ, save and except that they were human and some of them came - perhaps from Rome. Please remember that many Roman Soldiers were in fact slaves who had be conscripted into the Roman army and came from captured lands, like Gaul and Spain and many other places. Your sentence is so bad it is laughable.
Your third sentence is also incorrect. Christians do believe in forgiveness but not from a dead Jew. Jesus not only died but rose from the dead. The fact that a small Jewish cult started in the backwaters of the world to become the largest religion in the world didn't happen in a vacuum. Christians worship God - Jesus who is alive.
Atheists by and large are reasonable people. As are Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other religious persons. Like any group - most are reasonable and a few are extremists and zealots. Even some atheists are complete nutters and irrational. And delusional.
Nevertheless, this topic was never about Atheists being delusional - it was about - some and not all - who would expect others to answer questions and yet never do the same themselves - since Atheists have no doctrine save - there is no god. The responses of many atheists on this topic have demonstrated that not all atheists are cowards. I affirm that. Some are - but not all. When someone is prepared to address the issues and not pretend to be on some kind of moral superior ground - and then refuse to answer to answer because we don't believe anything - then that person is not a coward.
As for delusions - to believe that "in the beginning there was nothing and then that for no particular reason, something happened, without cause obviously, and suddenly or over a long period of time that nothing to which something happened, became something, which then evolved into everything that we see and hear and taste and understand today" is a bit silly. Like a fairy tale. To believe such - I think is perhaps not delusional so far as desperate. Yet, if one chooses not to believe in a god, then this is really the only alternative. I certainly haven't heard of any alternatives.
It's much more plausible that God has existed in eternity - and caused all things in whatever way that might be - rather than - nothing and then something. For me it is more rational to believe that cause and effect are real rather than just totally random events happen without a cause.
Created: