Christian Conservatives

[Chizzang]

Interesting,

There was a Messiah who lived and died as recorded 2000 years ago, however, 400 years later his "God" given title was changed to Christ by a paganized Roman Church and the message of the bible was changed from being about Israelites to pagans, and then 1100 years after that his God given name was changed from Yeshua to Jesus (with out the consent of the Creator one might add).

Somewhere in the afternath of this stuff we are discussing the "comparitive values" of truth between lefties and righties?

Just asking?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Wow. A lot of bad history here.

Oh thank goodness Joe is here to get the facts straight...
Because, you know Religion is all about getting the facts right

[Gil Dobie]

Wow. A lot of bad history here.

Oh thank goodness Joe is here to get the facts straight...
Because, you know Religion is all about getting the facts right

What's that you say Mrs. Robinson?

[Ibanez]

Interesting,

There was a Messiah who lived and died as recorded 2000 years ago, however, 400 years later his "God" given title was changed to Christ by a paganized Roman Church and the message of the bible was changed from being about Israelites to pagans, and then 1100 years after that his God given name was changed from Yeshua to Jesus (with out the consent of the Creator one might add).

Somewhere in the afternath of this stuff we are discussing the "comparitive values" of truth between lefties and righties?

Just asking?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Wow. A lot of bad history here.

Forget it. Reason and Faith don't go together. You have to have faith in the fact that a bunch of men didn't write them translate books for a specific audience with a specific goal. Imperfect men. Imperfect men wrote books and attributed them to illiterate followers of Jesus.


And gave them Roman names. Because...who wants to read the Gospel according to Abu or Aziz?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

Liberal Theologians would say the words of Jesus were added later, while conservatives would believe eyewitness accounts is one example.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There are no eyewitness accounts.

[kalm]

Liberal Theologians would say the words of Jesus were added later, while conservatives would believe eyewitness accounts is one example.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There are no eyewitness accounts.

There were oral histories.

Just like there were oral histories of coyote creating the Columbia River.

No less valid.

[Chizzang]

There are no eyewitness accounts.

There were oral histories.

Just like there were oral histories of coyote creating the Columbia River.

No less valid.

Cosmic Santa is tough to compete with...
It's got everything you need right there

[kalm]

There were oral histories.

Just like there were oral histories of coyote creating the Columbia River.

No less valid.

Cosmic Santa is tough to compete with...
It's got everything you need right there

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

My point is that there are many endearing tales of where we come from and why. To single one out for whatever reason, seems silly. To continue a political crusade based on a single one is bat shit crazy. To profit stupendously off that crusade is amoral.

[Chizzang]

Cosmic Santa is tough to compete with...
It's got everything you need right there

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

My point is that there are many endearing tales of where we come from and why. To single one out for whatever reason, seems silly. To continue a political crusade based on a single one is bat shit crazy. To profit stupendously off that crusade is amoral.

Not with that attitude...

[kalm]

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

My point is that there are many endearing tales of where we come from and why. To single one out for whatever reason, seems silly. To continue a political crusade based on a single one is bat shit crazy. To profit stupendously off that crusade is amoral.

Not with that attitude...

I'm still not quite sure what you mean...

[Chizzang]

Not with that attitude...

I'm still not quite sure what you mean...

This will clear things up...

[Ivytalk]

I'm still not quite sure what you mean...

This will clear things up...

Now that's the kind of theology that this mainline Protestant can support!

Although JSO may have difficulty with it...the divinity of dogs and all...

[JoltinJoe]

Wow. A lot of bad history here.

Oh thank goodness Joe is here to get the facts straight...
Because, you know Religion is all about getting the facts right

There are historical facts and then there is faith

The Gospel of John, memorialized in 90 AD, repeatedly refers to Jesus asserting his divinity. You can choose to believe that or not as a matter of faith.

But you can't say that the first assertions of Jesus' divinity occurred in 400 AD. That's factually and historically wrong -- and it is easy to show so.

[JoltinJoe]

Liberal Theologians would say the words of Jesus were added later, while conservatives would believe eyewitness accounts is one example.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There are no eyewitness accounts.

There are many legitimate historians who assert that many of the accounts in the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. For example, there are legitimate historians who assert that the account of the trial of Jesus before Pilate, as recounted in the Gospel of John, represents the eyewitness accounts of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicomedus ben Gurion. Both were members of the Sanhedrin who would have likely have been among the Jewish leaders present during the trial. Both are mentioned in John as becoming followers of Christ after the Crucifixion.

[Silenoz]

Oh thank goodness Joe is here to get the facts straight...
Because, you know Religion is all about getting the facts right

There are historical facts and then there is faith

The Gospel of John, memorialized in 90 AD, repeatedly refers to Jesus asserting his divinity. You can choose to believe that or not as a matter of faith.

But you can't say that the first assertions of Jesus' divinity occurred in 400 AD. That's factually and historically wrong -- and it is easy to show so.

Sold. Where's the religion line?

[Bisonfanatical]

There is nothing that happened in the new testament that wasn't fortold in the old testament (Tanakh), if you read the book we call deuteronomy, the Creator said that nothing could be added to or taken away from anything in the 5 books of Moses ... of course thIs presents a huge problem for modem Christianity ... HUGE.
The Creator said he would send his "servant" from the line of David, a Hebrew man to redeem his people.
Over and over in every book of every prophet, it is recorded that God's servant from the line of David would come to redeem the Creator's people.
Now either the Creator can't make up his mind on what he means, can't keep his facts straight? ... OR .... The Creator did not wrap him self in flesh and die for the heathens of the world ... he didn't say he would do it ...and it most certainty didn't happen.
God can not die.
He didn't pray to himself in the garden, he did not talk to himself while being crucified, he doesn't sit at the right hand of himself ... it is very clear in the scriptures that there is "1" God and "1" mediator between man and God, the Messiah, Yeshua.
It is good to have faith in a God, it is better to have faith in a God that can save you ... on his terms.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

Oh thank goodness Joe is here to get the facts straight...
Because, you know Religion is all about getting the facts right

There are historical facts and then there is faith

The Gospel of John, memorialized in 90 AD, repeatedly refers to Jesus asserting his divinity. You can choose to believe that or not as a matter of faith.

But you can't say that the first assertions of Jesus' divinity occurred in 400 AD. That's factually and historically wrong -- and it is easy to show so.

Sure but who wrote John..?
Not John that's for sure

A story written about a story written by somebody else
Requires faith indeed



Bernard Madoff has a story he'd like you to invest some faith in as well
and nothing to gain by it he promises

[Ibanez]

I'm still not quite sure what you mean...

This will clear things up...

This....this is solid work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Oh thank goodness Joe is here to get the facts straight...
Because, you know Religion is all about getting the facts right

There are historical facts and then there is faith

The Gospel of John, memorialized in 90 AD, repeatedly refers to Jesus asserting his divinity. You can choose to believe that or not as a matter of faith.

But you can't say that the first assertions of Jesus' divinity occurred in 400 AD. That's factually and historically wrong -- and it is easy to show so.

1. John, "memorialized in 90AD", was ~57 years after Jesus' death. Is it possible some facts, figures, etc... were embellished? Or misremembered? Confused with other people, places, events.

2. Wasn't his divinity essentially settled as a subject during the Council of Nicea? Or was it Trent?

Again...you can either use faith or reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

There are no eyewitness accounts.

There are many legitimate historians who assert that many of the accounts in the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. For example, there are legitimate historians who assert that the account of the trial of Jesus before Pilate, as recounted in the Gospel of John, represents the eyewitness accounts of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicomedus ben Gurion. Both were members of the Sanhedrin who would have likely have been among the Jewish leaders present during the trial. Both are mentioned in John as becoming followers of Christ after the Crucifixion.

It makes sense to use actual events and people. Doesn't mean a little bit of fiction was thrown in there for...color.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

There is nothing that happened in the new testament that wasn't fortold in the old testament (Tanakh), if you read the book we call deuteronomy, the Creator said that nothing could be added to or taken away from anything in the 5 books of Moses ... of course thIs presents a huge problem for modem Christianity ... HUGE.
The Creator said he would send his "servant" from the line of David, a Hebrew man to redeem his people.
Over and over in every book of every prophet, it is recorded that God's servant from the line of David would come to redeem the Creator's people.
Now either the Creator can't make up his mind on what he means, can't keep his facts straight? ... OR .... The Creator did not wrap him self in flesh and die for the heathens of the world ... he didn't say he would do it ...and it most certainty didn't happen.
God can not die.
He didn't pray to himself in the garden, he did not talk to himself while being crucified, he doesn't sit at the right hand of himself ... it is very clear in the scriptures that there is "1" God and "1" mediator between man and God, the Messiah, Yeshua.
It is good to have faith in a God, it is better to have faith in a God that can save you ... on his terms.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

You're ignoring some "facts."

The OT was written at a different time and for a different audience (Jews) than the NT (Christians).

The personality of God in the OT is different than the God in the NT. He's less vengeful, demanding, etc...

Not to mention you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of the Trinity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

Not to mention you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of the Trinity.

Well, to be fair, I don't think anyone understands the Trinity.

I think of it like a taoist thought experiment to contemplate what is impossible to contemplate.

[Ibanez]

Not to mention you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of the Trinity.

Well, to be fair, I don't think anyone understands the Trinity.

I think of it like a taoist thought experiment to contemplate what is impossible to contemplate.

No objection here. That's why I said, " fundamental."

Someone post a pic of a clover.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bisonfanatical]

You're ignoring some "facts."

The OT was written at a different time and for a different audience (Jews) than the NT (Christians).

The personality of God in the OT is different than the God in the NT. He's less vengeful, demanding, etc...

Not to mention you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of the Trinity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Speaking of "facts" my friend;
1) nothing was written for Christians, there were no christians in the days of the Messiah. No body was waiting for a christ, expecially since that was a man made title, invented by a Roman Church several hundred years later ... they were waiting for a Messiah.... there was no body with the name of Jesus either. The name above all names was Yeshua which is a contraction for Yehoshua which means "Yehovah's salvation". ... the "only" name given by which we must be saved ... was changed 500 years ago ... can't make this stuff up.
When the Holy Spirit came on Pentacodt, it was 100% Hebrew men and Hebrew converts (prostlytes) ... there were NO GREEKS (non Hebrews) that were coming to the temple to observe a Pentacost festival ... defies logic ... OT and NT were written for the same audience.
2) God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow ... unless you doubt his word again?
3) the "Trinity" concept as we know it is total nonsense ... there is no 3 as 1 ... they are 3 as 3 ... it was a man made idea, created by a man made council, which was convened by a Pagan Sun god worshipping Roman Emperor named Constantine .... they changed the "eternal" passover date commanded by the Creator to a fertility date observed by pagans ... they changed the "eternal" sabbath day from Saturday to "Sun"day. It was a Pagan council creating doctrines of demons.


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

There are no eyewitness accounts.

There are many legitimate historians who assert that many of the accounts in the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. For example, there are legitimate historians who assert that the account of the trial of Jesus before Pilate, as recounted in the Gospel of John, represents the eyewitness accounts of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicomedus ben Gurion. Both were members of the Sanhedrin who would have likely have been among the Jewish leaders present during the trial. Both are mentioned in John as becoming followers of Christ after the Crucifixion.

Second hand, I believe is the technical term.

[Ibanez]

You're ignoring some "facts."

The OT was written at a different time and for a different audience (Jews) than the NT (Christians).

The personality of God in the OT is different than the God in the NT. He's less vengeful, demanding, etc...

Not to mention you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of the Trinity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Speaking of "facts" my friend;
1) nothing was written for Christians, there were no christians in the days of the Messiah. No body was waiting for a christ, expecially since that was a man made title, invented by a Roman Church several hundred years later ... they were waiting for a Messiah.... there was no body with the name of Jesus either. The name above all names was Yeshua which is a contraction for Yehoshua which means "Yehovah's salvation". ... the "only" name given by which we must be saved ... was changed 500 years ago ... can't make this stuff up.
When the Holy Spirit came on Pentacodt, it was 100% Hebrew men and Hebrew converts (prostlytes) ... there were NO GREEKS (non Hebrews) that were coming to the temple to observe a Pentacost festival ... defies logic ... OT and NT were written for the same audience.
2) God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow ... unless you doubt his word again?
3) the "Trinity" concept as we know it is total nonsense ... there is no 3 as 1 ... they are 3 as 3 ... it was a man made idea, created by a man made council, which was convened by a Pagan Sun god worshipping Roman Emperor named Constantine .... they changed the "eternal" passover date commanded by the Creator to a fertility date observed by pagans ... they changed the "eternal" sabbath day from Saturday to "Sun"day. It was a Pagan council creating doctrines of demons.


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

1. I'm well aware they were Jews. I should have said the books were designed and collected into the Bible for the Christian audience. That's my fault.

2.

God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow ...

I don't know what this means.

3) OF COURSE IT'S A MAN MADE IDEA. All religion is a man-made idea. Religion was nothing more than a method to control thought and behavior as well as give an explanation to things that we didn't understand. Things that were attributed to God, we know now are due to geography, climate, germs, genetics, etc... And of course pagan rituals and dates were co-opted. How else do you make it easy for the pagans to convert. But no, they were not written for the same audience. The NT was written for those to follow Christ, something the Jews, overall, weren't going to do. You know..since they served him to the Romans on a platter. If you want to get into semantics...the books were written to chronicle the life of Jesus (well the first 4 books) but the remainder of the NT takes place after his death.

So we have:

1) Gospels - 4 books about the Birth, Ministry, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ ( ~ 7BC - ~33 AD)
2) Acts of the Apostles - Apostles ministry post Resurrection. Very similar writing, phrasing, etc.. to the Gospel of Luke

Epistles - Holy letters written by Apostles and disciples for new Chrisitans
3) Pauline Epistles - written to Christian communities. Thse are the ones to the Romans, Epistle to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Thessalonians.
4) Pauline Letters to Timothy, Titus and Philemom, Hebrews - These are pastoral letters discussing Christian lives, leadership, doctrine, etc... The letter to the Hebrews was for Jews that have come to believe in Christ as...Christ (the anointed one)
5) Epistles of James, John, Peter and Jude - these are to the catholic church, the church at large.
6) Revelations - Apocalypse.


I'm not as arrogant on some here, but I've done my research over the course of my life. Which is probably why I'm not a practicing Catholic..or anything anymore. Religion Free since 2001.