Christians on PH?
Discussion
kowalski655 said:
daemon said:
Its massively offensive to me because your "friend in the sky" belief system (most of which predates christianity) has been forced upon our society and has shaped our society almost wholly in a bad way.
Whilst you might pick out the "love and peace" phrases of christianity, that is not how it was rolled out across Europe and that is not how it has existed in society.
On the rape/pillage vs peace and live,isn't it obvious god smoked some weed and got laid in between writing the old and new testaments Whilst you might pick out the "love and peace" phrases of christianity, that is not how it was rolled out across Europe and that is not how it has existed in society.
daemon said:
Two different Gods. However it suited early Christians to tack their god on to Judaism and make Jesus into the leader foretold in the Old Testament.
I presume you do know Christ was born a Jew - and in fact, was a qualified (or equivalent) Rabbi?The two religions are historically linked. It wasn't a "choice" made by early Christians.
Eric Mc said:
I presume you do know Christ was born a Jew - and in fact, was a qualified (or equivalent) Rabbi?
Yes.Eric Mc said:
The two religions are historically linked. It wasn't a "choice" made by early Christians.
They arent. Jesus was retrofitted to "make it work" that he was the Messiah predicted in Judaism. Why else do you think we have this convoluted story of Mary and Joseph having to go to Bethlehem for a Roman Consensus? There was no Roman Consensus recorded and it would have been daft if they had. BUT, the Messiah had to be born there.
Likewise the gospels make various attempts - differening and non consistent attempts - to link Jesus back to the house of David - again to fulfil that prophecy that he was a descendant of David.
There were a load of things that "had to happen" but were retrofitted.
AND, i would add, that the entire Jewish nation didnt / dont accept that Jesus was the Messiah either.
Mopey said:
Do you dispute he existed?
Do you dispute that he performed the miraculous?
Wow. Ok, if that's your level of debate (I.e. A guy probably existed in history, thus everything written about him is also true) then you're off to a poor start. Do you dispute that he performed the miraculous?
To turn it around; do you dispute that L Ron Hubbard existed? Do you dispute that he had the greatest insight ever into the human condition, and how to improve it?
daemon said:
DukeDickson said:
Not sure how any true Christian can see further than the nastiest Perodua, or equivalent, or better still Hindustan Ambassador, or can support the decadence that comes from liking expensive fripperies.
+1daemon said:
They arent. Jesus was retrofitted to "make it work" that he was the Messiah predicted in Judaism.
Why else do you think we have this convoluted story of Mary and Joseph having to go to Bethlehem for a Roman Consensus? There was no Roman Consensus recorded and it would have been daft if they had. BUT, the Messiah had to be born there.
Likewise the gospels make various attempts - differening and non consistent attempts - to link Jesus back to the house of David - again to fulfil that prophecy that he was a descendant of David.
There were a load of things that "had to happen" but were retrofitted.
AND, i would add, that the entire Jewish nation didnt / dont accept that Jesus was the Messiah either.
What's a Roman Consensus? I don't recall anything of that nature being described - except when maybe the Senate agreed on something (which was rare).Why else do you think we have this convoluted story of Mary and Joseph having to go to Bethlehem for a Roman Consensus? There was no Roman Consensus recorded and it would have been daft if they had. BUT, the Messiah had to be born there.
Likewise the gospels make various attempts - differening and non consistent attempts - to link Jesus back to the house of David - again to fulfil that prophecy that he was a descendant of David.
There were a load of things that "had to happen" but were retrofitted.
AND, i would add, that the entire Jewish nation didnt / dont accept that Jesus was the Messiah either.
Or are you talking about the "Census" (which is a different thing)?
So you do agree Jesus was Jewish - yet you say that the followers of that particular Jew have no link with Judaism.
What about all the references Jesus himself makes to the Jewish Old Testament?
Or have you decided that whenever the New Testament refers to the Old Testament it is obviously a fabrication? If that is the case, what makes your interpretation any more accurate. You may be fabricating stuff too.
It's quite funny that we're all getting so bogged down here, discussing the where any whyfores of the Bible. It's a work of fiction. No more worthy of informing the course of human history than the Harry Potter novels.
Yes it's a simple argument, but the conversation really need go no further than that. It didn't happen. It can't have happened. Discussing it as though it actually happened is like arguing women's lib on the strength of Fifty Shades of Grey.
If you want to live a virtuous life, full of good deeds for others and having respect for things and being grateful for your lot, then fine, do so. Quite why you'd want to project to others that you're doing these things not because you're an intrinsically good person, but because you're commanded so to do by the words of a man long dead has never been fully explained.
Yes it's a simple argument, but the conversation really need go no further than that. It didn't happen. It can't have happened. Discussing it as though it actually happened is like arguing women's lib on the strength of Fifty Shades of Grey.
If you want to live a virtuous life, full of good deeds for others and having respect for things and being grateful for your lot, then fine, do so. Quite why you'd want to project to others that you're doing these things not because you're an intrinsically good person, but because you're commanded so to do by the words of a man long dead has never been fully explained.
princealbert23 said:
This thread started as one persons shout-out to others who share his faith. It is as simple as that. To the militant atheists the mere sight of them existing and talking to each other is mere provocation and an invitation to all those stupid 'well what about the dinosaurs etc. how do you prove that......?'
Ahhh, another reference to militant atheists. By militant, you mean the atheists who challenge the beliefs of others with words. I just wish militant christians and militant muslims would do the same. Instead of bombing abortions clinics, shooting children on a Norwegian island, flying planes into buildings and kidnapping 200 schoolgirls.Eric Mc said:
daemon said:
Two different Gods. However it suited early Christians to tack their god on to Judaism and make Jesus into the leader foretold in the Old Testament.
I presume you do know Christ was born a Jew - and in fact, was a qualified (or equivalent) Rabbi?The two religions are historically linked. It wasn't a "choice" made by early Christians.
daemon said:
Eric Mc said:
daemon said:
Two different Gods. However it suited early Christians to tack their god on to Judaism and make Jesus into the leader foretold in the Old Testament.
I presume you do know Christ was born a Jew - and in fact, was a qualified (or equivalent) Rabbi?The two religions are historically linked. It wasn't a "choice" made by early Christians.
Eric Mc said:
What's a Roman Consensus? I don't recall anything of that nature being described - except when maybe the Senate agreed on something (which was rare).
Or are you talking about the "Census" (which is a different thing)?
So you do agree Jesus was Jewish - yet you say that the followers of that particular Jew have no link with Judaism.
What about all the references Jesus himself makes to the Jewish Old Testament?
Or have you decided that whenever the New Testament refers to the Old Testament it is obviously a fabrication? If that is the case, what makes your interpretation any more accurate. You may be fabricating stuff too.
I meant census. I was typing in a hurry.Or are you talking about the "Census" (which is a different thing)?
So you do agree Jesus was Jewish - yet you say that the followers of that particular Jew have no link with Judaism.
What about all the references Jesus himself makes to the Jewish Old Testament?
Or have you decided that whenever the New Testament refers to the Old Testament it is obviously a fabrication? If that is the case, what makes your interpretation any more accurate. You may be fabricating stuff too.
The other mistake you're making is assuming Jesus existed. There is no evidence of that or that Christianity was anything other than something fabricated long after his supposed existence and promoted by Constantine as the One True Religion to stop all the squabblings among the many religions that existed at the time.
Hooks back to Judaism were retrofitted to early Christianity to give the new religion credence.
DanL said:
Mopey said:
Do you dispute he existed?
Do you dispute that he performed the miraculous?
Wow. Ok, if that's your level of debate (I.e. A guy probably existed in history, thus everything written about him is also true) then you're off to a poor start. Do you dispute that he performed the miraculous?
To turn it around; do you dispute that L Ron Hubbard existed? Do you dispute that he had the greatest insight ever into the human condition, and how to improve it?
As for it all being retrofitted it's laughable. How do you retro fit psalm 22. How can he control what happens to him upon a cross. Unless of course we are calling into question the Roman Empire also. How do you explain the resurrection and the Jewish historian Josephus not disputing it?
Eric Mc said:
daemon said:
Eric Mc said:
daemon said:
Two different Gods. However it suited early Christians to tack their god on to Judaism and make Jesus into the leader foretold in the Old Testament.
I presume you do know Christ was born a Jew - and in fact, was a qualified (or equivalent) Rabbi?The two religions are historically linked. It wasn't a "choice" made by early Christians.
I knew as i typed that someone would pick up on Life of Brian
Mopey said:
How do you explain the resurrection and the Jewish historian Josephus not disputing it?
How do we explain the resurrection? It's inexplicable.Or if you think it did happen watch something like the last Sherlock Holmes film were lord blackwood came to life. It's as true as that.
Mopey said:
DanL said:
Mopey said:
Do you dispute he existed?
Do you dispute that he performed the miraculous?
Wow. Ok, if that's your level of debate (I.e. A guy probably existed in history, thus everything written about him is also true) then you're off to a poor start. Do you dispute that he performed the miraculous?
To turn it around; do you dispute that L Ron Hubbard existed? Do you dispute that he had the greatest insight ever into the human condition, and how to improve it?
As for it all being retrofitted it's laughable. How do you retro fit psalm 22. How can he control what happens to him upon a cross. Unless of course we are calling into question the Roman Empire also. How do you explain the resurrection and the Jewish historian Josephus not disputing it?
It was predicted in the Old Testament.
300+ years after Jesus allegedly died, someone thought to document it, and conveniently it fit the prophecy?
The one paragraph that Josephus supposedly describes jesus has long since been proven to be a fake and to have been added at a later date, and even IF it was written by Josephus in 95AD which is when it is supposed to have, its two generations after the event took place!
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff