Jesus Christ Is Lord And Savior

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:40 am

Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. He shed His blood so that we may be forgiven our sins. So that we may have a way to the Father. I no longer consider myself Gnostic Christian I just consider myself Christian now although I do believe that some of the texts outside of the Bible are valid. But I think the Holy Bible is the most valid book related to Christianity and God.

Decided I'll change my symbol after all. =)

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:48 am

TruthBringer;1360751 wrote: Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. He shed His blood so that we may be forgiven our sins. So that we may have a way to the Father. I no longer consider myself Gnostic Christian I just consider myself Christian now although I do believe that some of the texts outside of the Bible are valid. But I think the Holy Bible is the most valid book related to Christianity and God.

Decided I'll change my symbol after all. =)

Any thoughts on the book of "Mormon"?

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:51 am

Some of the stuff in the book of Mormon might be valid too. Or perhaps all of it. I'm not sure I don't read it. But....I do believe that the Holy Bible is the most important Book for all of Christianity. It is the main reason we all know about Christ. Every other Christian text is more of a confirmation of the Bible than anything else.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Jun 01, 2011 9:26 am

TruthBringer;1360755 wrote: Some of the stuff in the book of Mormon might be valid too. Or perhaps all of it. I'm not sure I don't read it. But....I do believe that the Holy Bible is the most important Book for all of Christianity. It is the main reason we all know about Christ. Every other Christian text is more of a confirmation of the Bible than anything else.

Which Bible-----version?

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Wed Jun 01, 2011 10:57 am

Lon;1360758 wrote: Which Bible-----version?

I'd say all of them are better than none of them. Some of them are easier to read than others. And make more sense in todays languages. I actually used to like the King James version best. But it is too painstaking more me to read. So I went with one of the newer versions which matches up with the words we use today.

By the way I've read alot of books in my lifetime. And I have to say that this Bible I have been reading as of late, the opening part of Genesis is the most beautiful opener of a book I have ever read in my Life.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Jun 01, 2011 11:40 am

TruthBringer;1360761 wrote: I'd say all of them are better than none of them. Some of them are easier to read than others. And make more sense in todays languages. I actually used to like the King James version best. But it is too painstaking more me to read. So I went with one of the newer versions which matches up with the words we use today.

By the way I've read alot of books in my lifetime. And I have to say that this Bible I have been reading as of late, the opening part of Genesis is the most beautiful opener of a book I have ever read in my Life.

And as you read do you literally believe everything you read?

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Lon;1360765 wrote: And as you read do you literally believe everything you read?

Why is that always the question folks ask a Christian?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:05 pm

LarsMac;1360839 wrote: Why is that always the question folks ask a Christian?It's a segue to the next question. Or, it may be rhetorical.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:18 pm

LarsMac;1360839 wrote: Why is that always the question folks ask a Christian?

I'm not prejudiced, I would ask non Christians the same thing, even a atheist.

Richard Bell · Post by **Richard Bell** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:23 pm

LarsMac;1360839 wrote: Why is that always the question folks ask a Christian?

Perhaps it's because many Christians claim it is the literal word of God, even the bits about smiting, enslaving, raping, and the infamous mixed fibres nonsense.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 5:35 am

Richard Bell;1360854 wrote: Perhaps it's because many Christians claim it is the literal word of God, even the bits about smiting, enslaving, raping, and the infamous mixed fibres nonsense.
Have the plenteous corrections of these falsehoods not yet reached the frozen north? It surely cannot be stubbornness.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:02 am

Richard Bell;1360854 wrote: and the infamous mixed fibres nonsense.

huh?

care to expand on that?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:02 am

LarsMac;1360872 wrote: huh?

care to expand on that?

I believe he is referring too: Dueteronomy 22:11.

Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:27 am

YZGI;1360883 wrote: I believe he is referring too: Dueteronomy 22:11.

Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together.
Would it be as easy to cope with if written in modern English?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:17 am

xyz;1360887 wrote: Would it be as easy to cope with if written in modern English?

Cope with what? I am wearing denim over cotton as we speak.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 10:08 am

YZGI;1360889 wrote: Cope with what?
Deuteronomy 22:11.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:00 pm

Last time I wore denim and a cotton shirt and wool socks I kept getting zapped from "static electricity"

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:54 pm

Surprisingly enough, a majority of Christians don't actually take, literally, ever word they red in the Bible.

Of course a majority of Christians don't seem to really take seriously the teachings the savior gave is, either.

Even more odd, these two majorities are not mutually inclusive.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 1:14 am

LarsMac;1360898 wrote: Surprisingly enough, a majority of Christians don't actually take, literally, ever word they red in the Bible.
They would be very strange people if they did. There is probably no other series of writings so full of figurative language. It's true, though, that the number of people who claim to be Christians who fail to take the Bible seriously vastly outnumber those who do. But it's those who do take the Bible seriously who are the sticking point with those opposed to Christianity, so those who don't are effectively not thought to be Christians.

The fact is that the Bible is not something of which casual readers can get a sensible understanding; neither can steadier readers who use antiquated translations, or even modern translations, though the most modern may help. Understanding the Bible requires a lot of detailed study, and the more it is studied, the more it makes compelling sense, every part of it, even to those who set out to undermine its message and authority. The Bible got to be the dominant religious text of the West because it survived all of the assaults on it made by those of the highest intellectual and educational achivements.

Those most vociferously opposed to Christianity today are usually homosexuals, because there are still legal restrictions on homosexuality in Western countries, and it is perceived that Christianity is responsible for this legal inheritance (which, indirectly, is true). The question has been that, if Christians wear mixed fibres, or eat prawns, as they do, why do they insist on opposing homosexuality? This question has been answered many times, but the fact that it is still asked is significant.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 2:25 am

posted by xyz

Those most vociferously opposed to Christianity today are usually homosexuals, because there are still legal restrictions on homosexuality in Western countries, and it is perceived that Christianity is responsible for this legal inheritance (which, indirectly, is true). The question has been that, if Christians wear mixed fibres, or eat prawns, as they do, why do they insist on opposing homosexuality? This question has been answered many times, but the fact that it is still asked is significant.

That's got to be one of the funniest things you have said on this forum. You're not actually a christian are you? at least you have never come out of the closet about it. It's a sad tactic, if you can't win the argument try making things personal, If yo're not a christian you must be gay takes the biscuit though.

What did jesus ever say on the subject? Given his last act before arrest was to snog Judas you have to wonder. Some of the attacks on mary magdalene by the other disciples do smack of jealousy.

Those most vociferous about homosexuality are usually closet gays. Dare I suggest Ted Haggard as an example or J Edgar Hoover who was blackmailed for years by the mafia.

Why are fundamentalists so obsessed by homosexuality, could it be because society will no longer accept them being openly mysoginistic or racist and they need somone to hate so badly?

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 2:51 am

gmc;1360902 wrote: What did jesus ever say on the subject?

'"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."' Matt 10:14-15 NIV

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 5:08 am

Matthew 19:11-12

New International Version (NIV)

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 12:54 pm

gmc;1360905 wrote: Matthew 19:11-12
Matt 19:3-12:

'Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female', and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."' NIV

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 4:36 pm

Skimwords is to be prosecuted.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:48 am

xyz;1360913 wrote: Skimwords is to be prosecuted.

Gosh that's interesting. That the best you can do just repeat the same passage? You're obviously not a christian does that mean you are homosexual? You might be opne by your own lights but there will be plebty "christians" who will argue you can't be because you donl;t believe as they do, or worship as they do.

In Western countries most of the restrictions have actually been removed and it is no longer a criminal offence to be homosexual. Realistically the polive have more serious problems to worry about that what people do in the privacy of their own homes between consenting adults. Widely socially acceptable is another issue but most people take the sensible view so long as it's not in your face no one really bothers, after all you donlt have to go to a gay bar unless you want to. I remember when drinking Lager meant you were gay to some people. If anyone bring the subject up it does beg the question why and the assumoption is they arer trying to find who might be prospective bum chums. It's a big issue in the states, it seems but I refuse to draw any concluscions from that.

Infinite light · Post by **Infinite light** » Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:27 pm

Do you consider it even a remote possibility that Jesus was nothing more than a fanatical Jew that got busted for being a treasonous trouble maker? Do you not consider it somewhat contradictory that a just and loving God would demand the death of a purely innocent "man" for the crimes and sins of others? Must god murder a man on a cross before that loving God can forgive us for our sins? In other words, God loves us so much that "He" is willing to murder his own "son," so he can forgive me, let's say, of shoplifting or sexual impurity?

I have to be honest and say, that kind of God scares me. Can such a god be trusted?

By the way, hello.

Adstar · Post by **Adstar** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:02 am

hello.

Infinite light;1374192 wrote: Do you consider it even a remote possibility that Jesus was nothing more than a fanatical Jew that got busted for being a treasonous trouble maker?

No. His teachings did however offend a lot of people who had power and they organised His execution.

Do you not consider it somewhat contradictory that a just and loving God would demand the death of a purely innocent "man" for the crimes and sins of others? Must god murder a man on a cross before that loving God can forgive us for our sins?

Jesus was executed by men.

Jesus is not just a man. He is the Word of God made flesh. Jesus God and the Holy Spirit are One.

I have to be honest and say, that kind of God scares me.

You fear what you do not understand. It is a common phenomenon.

Can such a god be trusted?

He is the only one that exists. So trusting him or not He is the only one we can deal with.

All Praise The Ancient of Days

Infinite light · Post by **Infinite light** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:34 am

Adstar;1374288 wrote: hello.

No. His teachings did however offend a lot of people who had power and they organised His execution.

But how are you able to ignore all the N.T. indicators that clearly portray Jesus as a man fighting Roman oppression and religious hypocrisy? not as God made flesh (as you say), but simply as a man--albeit an extraordinary man--who assumed a leadership role for a radical faction, just as so many others had done before and after Jesus' death. You as a believer might say that Christ died for our sins, but I say that he died as a result of Roman justice, for crimes against the state. Somehow you are able to look past historical reality and see a supernatural cause, whereas I see real-life politics and rebellion as the cause.

Jesus was executed by men.

Jesus is not just a man. He is the Word of God made flesh. Jesus God and the Holy Spirit are One.

I find that response meaningless. It's simply a statement of belief, and is about as useful for discussion as me saying that I know God doesn't exist because I feel it in my heart.

You fear what you do not understand. It is a common phenomenon.

Well, there's some truth to that. For example, I might fear adults that claim to be normal yet hold irrational & superstitious beliefs in magical beings, like Jesus. I fear them because they are deluded, and I never feel comfortable around deluded people. Don't get me wrong, they are worthy of love just as am I, but I don't feel safe.

He is the only one that exists. So trusting him or not He is the only one we can deal with.

If I knew with certainty that God existed, then you'd be correct in saying that. But how do you know that there is only ONE god? There could be 1001 gods, for all you know. I suppose you might say the Bible says so. But the bible is only a book, made of paper, ink, and human experience, none of which transcends the real world and proves without doubt the existence of a Supreme being. It doesn't matter how profound or wise that book may seem, calling it the "Word of God" only presumes God as its source, but presumption is not proof.

It's no more absurd to infer invisible aliens as the Bible's inspiration than inferring a super-dooper creator being. You can't prove a creator, and I can't prove invisible aliens.

Adstar · Post by **Adstar** » Sun Nov 06, 2011 6:31 am

Infinite light;1374319 wrote: But how are you able to ignore all the N.T. indicators that clearly portray Jesus as a man fighting Roman oppression and religious hypocrisy?

Where did Jesus fight Roman authority? He did speak out against the religious Hypocrisy of the Jewish religious authorities. But He said little to nothing about the Roman Empire while He was on earth. He even told the Jews to pay the Roman taxes. So His teachings offended the Religious authorities of the Jews. So i am not ignoring that part at all.

not as God made flesh (as you say), but simply as a man--albeit an extraordinary man--who assumed a leadership role for a radical faction, just as so many others had done before and after Jesus' death.

Well i will answer this by quoting you. "I find that response meaningless. It's simply a statement of belief"

You as a believer might say that Christ died for our sins, but I say that he died as a result of Roman justice, for crimes against the state.

Here again is just a statement. The Biblical account does not support this statement. The roman authorities did their best to avoid killing Jesus until the jews took responsibility for His execution. Jesus was never a threat to the Roman civil Authorities, indeed He preached non-resistance. But He was a threat to the religious authorities. He undermined their Authority in the eyes of the people.

Somehow you are able to look past historical reality and see a supernatural cause, whereas I see real-life politics and rebellion as the cause.

Somehow you are unable to see the Supernatural reality and all you can see is a disjointed view based on..... well based on a poor knowledge base.

I find that response meaningless. It's simply a statement of belief, and is about as useful for discussion as me saying that I know God doesn't exist because I feel it in my heart.

Likewise i find this response a meaningless statement of disbelief.

Well, there's some truth to that. For example, I might fear adults that claim to be normal yet hold irrational & superstitious beliefs in magical beings, like Jesus. I fear them because they are deluded, and I never feel comfortable around deluded people. Don't get me wrong, they are worthy of love just as am I, but I don't feel safe.

You got a lot of fear in you that’s for sure.

If I knew with certainty that God existed, then you'd be correct in saying that. But how do you know that there is only ONE god? There could be 1001 gods, for all you know.

If there where 1001 gods then there would not be a God to be a God one must have total power, total control over all existence. So if there are 1001 gods then God does not exist.

I suppose you might say the Bible says so. But the bible is only a book, made of paper, ink, and human experience, none of which transcends the real world and proves without doubt the existence of a Supreme being.

But the message in the Bible is independent of the paper and the ink and the human hands that put the message in it. The message stands alone to be assessed by anyone who will assess it. Then people can come to their own conclusion. The Message does move those whom the Message moves. To others it does not. So be it.

It doesn't matter how profound or wise that book may seem, calling it the "Word of God" only presumes God as its source, but presumption is not proof.

And the belief that it is not from God is also presumption.

It's no more absurd to infer invisible aliens as the Bible's inspiration than inferring a super-dooper creator being. You can't prove a creator, and I can't prove invisible aliens.

And you cannot disprove a Creator or aliens for that matter. So what are we left with? The Message that moves people into belief. It has the power and has stood the test of time.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Nov 06, 2011 8:28 am

Adstar, you have a problem here and that is that outside the bible story, there is no record whatsoever of the existence of this person who is the main character of the NT. Your arguments is similar to a person arguing the existence of Superman based on the contents of D.C. Comic Books or the existence of Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs based on the contents of The Disney Company. They are all stories, nothing more.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:33 pm

Ahso!;1374684 wrote: Adstar, you have a problem here and that is that outside the bible story, there is no record whatsoever of the existence of this person who is the main character of the NT. Your arguments is similar to a person arguing the existence of Superman based on the contents of Marvel Comic Books or the existence of Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs based on the contents of Disney And Company. They are all stories, nothing more.

Ahso everyone knows Superman is from D.C. to say he is from Marvel is like saying Jesus is one of the four noble truths of buddhism

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:53 am

littleCJelkton;1374790 wrote: Ahso everyone knows Superman is from D.C. to say he is from Marvel is like saying Jesus is one of the four noble truths of buddhismThank you, fixed.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:48 pm

Ahso!;1374799 wrote: Thank you, fixed.

;)

Adstar · Post by **Adstar** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:58 am

Ahso!;1374684 wrote: Adstar, you have a problem here and that is that outside the bible story, there is no record whatsoever of the existence of this person who is the main character of the NT.

Actually that is not a problem at all. If you know history.

Firstly Christianity was a banned religion for around 300 years. So the roman authorities did their best to suppress knowledge of Jesus. If there where any other accounts of Jesus outside the bible that where favourable to Jesus then the roman authorities would have done their best to destroy it. Of course negative views on Jesus would have been fine with the roman authorities of the time.

So the only positive accounts of Jesus would have been kept by the underground Christian believers during those generations.

Now we come to the time of Constantine and the transformation of Jesus from being pubic enemy no one to the One whom all Romans must honour. So all the positive accounts of Jesus and his teachings held by Christians come out from hiding and are compiled into the Bible.

Note the bible is not One account it is a collection of accounts. Some people misguidedly believe that the Bible is one book. it is not.

So now we have roman empire with the catholic church as the church of state. So now all the negative accounts of Jesus outside the bible would have been suppressed and destroyed because any negative record of Jesus would have been blasphemous to the authorities.

So now with all the positive accounts of Jesus outside the bible and all the negative accounts of Jesus outside the bible done away with, what is left?

The Bible accounts of Jesus.

So the fact that there is a lack of records of Jesus outside the bible makes sense and is in no way a problem for me.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 6:43 am

Adstar, why then do you imagine it is that the Roman authorities were unable to destroy secular historical records relating to Christianity itself? Do you think they just couldn't find them? It appears they were out in the open AFAICT.

Adstar · Post by **Adstar** » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:21 am

Ahso!;1374916 wrote: Adstar, why then do you imagine it is that the Roman authorities were unable to destroy secular historical records relating to Christianity itself? Do you think they just couldn't find them? It appears they were out in the open AFAICT.

Well if you are engaged in a process of persecution of a group ie Christianity you cannot at the same time remove evidence that it exists. You’re persecuting it. You cannot deny something your persecuting exists as you are persecuting it. So they would have acknowledged it's existence in their records and how they where doing their best to counter it, their policies in that regard. But they would have done all they could to eliminate any positive secular historical records. Of course they failed to do that with 100% effectiveness that’s why we have the Gospels and the letters of the apostles. Any human organization is never 100% effecting in suppression.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:48 am

Adstar;1375029 wrote: Well if you are engaged in a process of persecution of a group ie Christianity you cannot at the same time remove evidence that it exists. You’re persecuting it. You cannot deny something your persecuting exists as you are persecuting it. So they would have acknowledged it's existence in their records and how they where doing their best to counter it, their policies in that regard. But they would have done all they could to eliminate any positive secular historical records. Of course they failed to do that with 100% effectiveness that’s why we have the Gospels and the letters of the apostles. Any human organization is never 100% effecting in suppression.

All Praise The Ancient Of DaysSo the authorities were able to destroy every remnant of evidence of your Jesus after making a very pubic spectacle of his torture and crucifixion and all the earth-quaking involved in his death but didn't care as much about removing evidence of christianity itself?

Funny, you'd think Roman authorities would have been more concerned about squashing historical evidence of their own shortcomings than about the existence of a guy they considered a menace. The fact is the guy never existed.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:15 am

Adstar;1375029 wrote: Well if you are engaged in a process of persecution of a group ie Christianity you cannot at the same time remove evidence that it exists. You’re persecuting it. You cannot deny something your persecuting exists as you are persecuting it. So they would have acknowledged it's existence in their records and how they where doing their best to counter it, their policies in that regard.
It's true that Christianity was illegal continuously from Trajan, less than a century after the crucifixion, until Constantine, who of course was forced to recognise it. Most often, Christians were not sought out unless there were complaints. Active, official persecution was sporadic, for two probable reasons. One was that persecution made martyrs, martyrs were good publicity, martyrdom could make things worse. The other reason was that infiltration of the church by apparent Christians began even in the apostolic age, and persecution could not discriminate between real and false Christians. If the eventual corruption of the church was seen as more feasible, and therefore preferable, actively violent persecution would have been more the exception, as indeed it was. But the church was eventually removed by both means.

But they would have done all they could to eliminate any positive secular historical records. Of course they failed to do that with 100% effectiveness that’s why we have the Gospels and the letters of the apostles. Any human organization is never 100% effecting in suppression.

One of the most remarkable facts of all history is that there is no credible history of a movement that eventually gained official acknowledgement in the whole Western world (and, it may be argued, induced Islam in much of the rest of it). What must have been a mass movement is allegedly represented in history by a tiny handful of writers, all of whom held unbiblical views, almost all of whom held unbiblical, and therefore potentially governmentally-approved positions of privilege. So the censorship of Rome must have been very effective; though this is unsurprising, because we know from other sources that the empire was everywhere run as a police state, with spies and entryists wherever people associated in numbers.

As far as the Bible was concerned, Jews and the Old Testament survived beyond the reach of the Roman Empire, so there was no purpose in attempting to destroy every last OT copy within it. The lore of the gospels, and indeed the instructions of Paul and the other apostles would have been memorised and passed on to successive generations, that being the predominant mode of transmission then and until printing became widely used. There were anyway many copies of these works, far more than for any other ancient work, and they also existed outside the empire as well as inside it (though later, Islam would change that situation). The eventual decision of the Roman Empire to make a pretence of adopting Christianity was probably due to a combination of factors, one of which was the impossibility of ensuring the total removal of all Christian Scripture anywhere in the world.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:39 am

The romans weren't terribly bothered what religion you followed (the pantheon was originally intended to house all the gods) Christianity got banned when Christian bigotry started causing problems, then the roman hierarchy realised they could use the religion to control the population and invented Catholicism.

It's like the myth of the pilgrim fathers, they weren't oppressed because of their beliefs, the real reason was because they wouldn't;t leave people alone to worship as they pleased but insisted they were right and everybody was wrong. Half way across the non pilgrim passengers and crew were beginning to contemplate to throw them all overboard they were so annoying.

Christians are mainly oppressed by other Christians for having the "wrong" beliefs. Non believers don't care enough and are happy to leave them alone. Same with sunni and shia, the worst oppressors of islam are other muslims. Why don;t you all just kiss and make up - in a non homosexual way of course god forbid it should be anything else.

Adstar · Post by **Adstar** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 5:46 am

Ahso!;1375032 wrote: So the authorities were able to destroy every remnant of evidence of your Jesus

Positive evidence, Positive evidence,

after making a very pubic spectacle of his torture and crucifixion and all the earth-quaking involved in his death

40 years later they wiped out the Jews of Jerusalem and sent the survivors in the countryside into exile. So how many Jews of Jerusalem who witnessed the execution of Jesus survived that?

but didn't care as much about removing evidence of Christianity itself?

They may have tried after they had exterminated the last Christian. But it would have taken generations of careful history deleting to do that. But while Christianity still existed they could not. They never succeeded in exterminating Christians.

Funny, you'd think Roman authorities would have been more concerned about squashing historical evidence of their own shortcomings than about the existence of a guy they considered a menace. The fact is the guy never existed.

The Roman authorities being human failed. The fact is Jesus exists.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Adstar · Post by **Adstar** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 5:59 am

xyz;1375050 wrote: It's true that Christianity was illegal continuously from Trajan, less than a century after the crucifixion, until Constantine, who of course was forced to recognise it. Most often, Christians were not sought out unless there were complaints. Active, official persecution was sporadic, for two probable reasons. One was that persecution made martyrs, martyrs were good publicity, martyrdom could make things worse. The other reason was that infiltration of the church by apparent Christians began even in the apostolic age, and persecution could not discriminate between real and false Christians. If the eventual corruption of the church was seen as more feasible, and therefore preferable, actively violent persecution would have been more the exception, as indeed it was. But the church was eventually removed by both means.

Oh they tried the “kill them all method” first and when they could not beat them they joined them to perform the old balaam trick. They where far more effective with the’ “Join them and contaminate them from the inside method” as we see with catholicism and such. But they failed because the Word of God through the Holy Spirit has been calling people out of her for centuries and Christianity has never died, nor can it die.

As far as the Bible was concerned, Jews and the Old Testament survived beyond the reach of the Roman Empire, so there was no purpose in attempting to destroy every last OT copy within it. The lore of the gospels, and indeed the instructions of Paul and the other apostles would have been memorised and passed on to successive generations, that being the predominant mode of transmission then and until printing became widely used. There were anyway many copies of these works, far more than for any other ancient work, and they also existed outside the empire as well as inside it (though later, Islam would change that situation). The eventual decision of the Roman Empire to make a pretence of adopting Christianity was probably due to a combination of factors, one of which was the impossibility of ensuring the total removal of all Christian Scripture anywhere in the world.

Of course they could not beat them so they joined them to beat them by corruption. But their very foundational act was in rebellion against the Teachings of Jesus. Constantine was involved in Warfare to gain the position of emperor. And supposedly had his vision telling him to mark his troops shields with the sign of Christianity. No true Christian would have been fooled by this lie. True Christians who where prepared to die not resisting would never have been fooled by such rebellion against the words of Jesus to love their enemies.

All Praise The Ancient of Days

Adstar · Post by **Adstar** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:10 am

gmc;1375053 wrote: The romans weren't terribly bothered what religion you followed (the pantheon was originally intended to house all the gods) Christianity got banned when Christian bigotry started causing problems, then the roman hierarchy realised they could use the religion to control the population and invented Catholicism.

So Christians who preached one exclusive God for centuries but did not remove any of the pantheon of gods from their temples. Where replaced by a roman created catholic authority that saw to it that all the pantheon of gods where destroyed. The very same authority also destroyed the temples and built their churches over the top of them to take their place. Something is not right with the theory your putting forward. I would understand if the catholic religion created doctrines accepting the pantheon gods and therefore ended the troubles. But they did the exact opposite. They smashed them.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:21 am

No matter how much you try to double talk your way through, falsehoods do not become truths by continuous insistence that they are. That worked for long enough, but now many of us know better. Fairy tales are fairy tales, and Biblical stories are fairy tales.

Outside the bible story, there is no evidence whatsoever that this Jesus person as portrayed in the NT ever existed - positive or otherwise.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:50 pm

Adstar;1375240 wrote: a roman created catholic authority that saw to it that all the pantheon of gods where destroyed.
The authority to do that was actually a civil one, and achieved catholicity only because it was of a military character. So it was as far as it is possible to get from an entirely voluntary association of free people, that never had any power to coerce anyone to follow its beliefs; and, moreover, never sought any such power, or thought it appropriate. And yet, this ineluctable authority laid claim to be the continuation of that original association. The responsible reaction of the historian must be to suppose that the actions of those who coerced were in no way related to those who did not- unless they were consciously in opposition to that group.

The very same authority also destroyed the temples and built their churches over the top of them to take their place.
They placed buildings that they forced people to call churches over temple sites. Previously, the word 'church' had applied only to people, saints whose personal behaviour qualified them to be so called. So there is yet more evidence of lack of credibility of claim for continuity by Roman imperial power, and indeed for its opposition to the true church. The continuously imposed illegality of the church for two centuries previously gives the sensible historian even more reason to suppose that imperial recognition of Christianity was not an end of opposition to it, but of opposing it by less direct means than prohibition. Historians have noted that, while it may not have been true that an emperor said of Jesus, "Galilean, you have conquered," it was certainly what emperors and patricians believed. It would be naive, though, to suppose that emperors and patricians were henceforth filled with the fruits of the Spirit rather than cosseted by the fruits of forced labour. What then happened was that the usually rather dense Roman mind became more subtle— perhaps with outside assistance.

I would understand if the catholic religion created doctrines accepting the pantheon gods and therefore ended the troubles. But they did the exact opposite. They smashed them.
The historian would be justified by even a brief theological scrutiny. Roman deities were many and apparently various, but they had certain characteristics in common, characteristics that had been utilised by emperors of Babylon, Assyria and Egypt and many more, in helping them to achieve control of the populations that served their interests. Ostensibly, empires such as Rome had many deities, but these inventions actually represented the empire itself. This was crystallised in the Roman example by the role of the emperor himself as Pontifex Maximus, or Chief Priest (a title previously adopted by the kings of Rome, and later used by popes). This role was to oversee the priests of Rome who offered sacrifices on behalf of the people in their ornate temples, often on special days approved by the empire, priests who to an extent held the plebeians in thrall.

How did that compare with the church? The church met in people's homes, not in temples, and had no special days given them on which to meet. It held no priests, because it offered no sacrifices, because it believed that Jesus had completed the sacrifice that mattered, and was indeed Lord and Saviour for that very reason. The church was called' atheist' because it had no visible religion- only the honesty, kindness, peacefulness and humility that it was set up for. But the 'church' of imperial Rome had priests, ornate temples and sacrifices, made on special days approved by the empire, priests who were later to increasingly hold the common people in thrall.

The church believed that all who had Jesus as their lord were themselves priests, guided by the spirit of Jesus personally, and for whom a human priest was absurdity. It was this apparent self-reliance and personal moral initiative that frightened the Roman emperors, whose exalted position depended on maintaining a violent, highly corrupt and horribly exploitative empire, from Hadrian's Wall to the Persian border. It was really not much of a religion that did not challenge the Romans, whose benefits were for only the privileged few. Rome could not conquer Christ's following by direct action, so took the advice that 'the blood of the martyrs is seed' and decided that it would apply the word 'Christian' to its religion of pagan deities, that actually represented its own interests. And by so doing, it indeed achieved the extinction of the church, for a thousand years, by pretending to be the church, and of course by executing any who disagreed. It could do that with seeming honour, because it seemed to be acting for the best cause, an impossibility while it maintained those pagan deities.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sat Nov 12, 2011 12:54 am

Adstar;1375240 wrote: So Christians who preached one exclusive God for centuries but did not remove any of the pantheon of gods from their temples. Where replaced by a roman created catholic authority that saw to it that all the pantheon of gods where destroyed. The very same authority also destroyed the temples and built their churches over the top of them to take their place. Something is not right with the theory your putting forward. I would understand if the catholic religion created doctrines accepting the pantheon gods and therefore ended the troubles. But they did the exact opposite. They smashed them.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

And that .....coming from somone who believes in the trinity

Adstar · Post by **Adstar** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:21 am

Ahso!;1375241 wrote: No matter how much you try to double talk your way through, falsehoods do not become truths by continuous insistence that they are. That worked for long enough, but now many of us know better. Fairy tales are fairy tales, and Biblical stories are fairy tales.

Outside the bible story, there is no evidence whatsoever that this Jesus person as portrayed in the NT ever existed - positive or otherwise.

Just a few statements.

You have run out of arguments.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:15 pm

Adstar;1375730 wrote: Just a few statements.

You have run out of arguments.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days
There is no point with arguing 1+1=2 with someone who will always despite all evidence otherwise say 1+1=3, 0, or 10. As of yet the NT is a mythical book made up in very similar fashion to those of other religions(Budhism, Islam, Judaism) all of which hold similar stories from the older religions they evolved from (Norse, Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Hindu). None of which have been proven to be actual accounts of any full period of history. No one will argue with you about the how the bible is a collective of moral tales told in a mythical world mimicing this one with a few accounts of people, places, events speckled in, because you don't argue over what is already fact. Though if you put information out there that claims otherwise those who know the facts will let people know the information that is the actual account of what happened as compared to the "mythical, tall tale, or biblical" telling of history. Now it is up to the individual looking at the two conflicting pieces of information to make the choice of what to believe of out of the two the majority of people choose to believe the information that is closest to the truth the majority of the time.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:49 am

littleCJelkton;1375810 wrote: As of yet the NT is a mythical book made up in very similar fashion to those of other religions(Budhism, Islam, Judaism) all of which hold similar stories from the older religions they evolved from (Norse, Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Hindu).
The bias here is a disgrace- and an act of suicide. Christianity claims to arise from Abram, yet this claim is ignored, and the claim of Jews is accepted instead. Christianity wins, therefore.

Now if the claim of Christianity is accepted, as is granted to all other faiths, it predates all of the religions mentioned except those of Egypt and Babylon. But what Christianity (or Judaism- they can't both be right) inherits from Egypt and Babylon is neither chronicle nor precept. It makes brief use of the skeletons of the story myths of those civilisations, but puts its own uniquely distinctive flesh on them. It then continues with a chronology and unique national identity that takes that distinction on to its culmination in the NT. A chronology and unique national identity sufficiently credible to rouse murderous desires from Islam, Romanism and Nazism.

Whatever similarities or truth held by Greek, Hindu and indeed Roman religions can be said to have been copied from Abraham's inheritance.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:47 pm

Thread is about Jesus NT, Abraham is from the OT

The quote at 1:18 in explains

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:52 pm

xyz;1375864 wrote: The bias here is a disgrace- and an act of suicide. Christianity claims to arise from Abram, yet this claim is ignored, and the claim of Jews is accepted instead. Christianity wins, therefore.

Now if the claim of Christianity is accepted, as is granted to all other faiths, it predates all of the religions mentioned except those of Egypt and Babylon. But what Christianity (or Judaism- they can't both be right) inherits from Egypt and Babylon is neither chronicle nor precept. It makes brief use of the skeletons of the story myths of those civilisations, but puts its own uniquely distinctive flesh on them. It then continues with a chronology and unique national identity that takes that distinction on to its culmination in the NT. A chronology and unique national identity sufficiently credible to rouse murderous desires from Islam, Romanism and Nazism.

Whatever similarities or truth held by Greek, Hindu and indeed Roman religions can be said to have been copied from Abraham's inheritance. but anyway there all copies of pretty much the same thing trying to teach pretty much the same moral lessons that unfortunately get lost in the idea that you have to have faith in all the filler stories are actual history