|
oh my god (pg. 36)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by kr00t0n
Hehhe, I wanna say "Baptism by [insert word that starts with a j and rhymes with baptism]", but that would be rude :p |
Baptism by japtism? What the is that supposed to mean?! That some biblical term for cracking one off or summat equally sad? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by NiteMer
This is something I don't get. Give me a verse that says one must take communion for salvation. Jesus says, "Do this in remembrance of me", not do this to be saved. I think communion is important as an act of obedience to God, as is baptism, but there isn't any scripture that says they are necessary for salvation. |
You are correct, scripture at face value does not support this believe. What you fail to note, however, is that it is throught the body and blood of Christ that the new covonent is sealed. Each time we take communion we are renewing that covonent... essentially we are washed clean by our entry into the covonent.
Also, baptism is not an act of obedience but an instilling of the holy spirit and our naming in front of God. It is by whatever name we are given in baptism that God will call us to him. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by NiteMer
Renegade and Occrider - Although I agree with your reasoning and idealogy, I would consider a different tactic when debating these issues. You aren't going to change anyone's mind by telling them they are going to burn in hell, or by getting worked up and attacking their idealogy. You have to debate the issues intelligently and allow individuals to make their own decision. God wouldn't want it any other way, as he really determines the end result. |
+1 |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RJT
BTW, I do not think people who do take part in Organized Religions are weak willed or minded... I just personally deal with these things more internally... My questions and my "faith" are my own, and not something I choose to place or force upon other people... |
The Bible is wrong! It was edited and put together 350 years after Jesus dies by a group of people who had political objectives to fulfill. You tell me what day it says Jesus was born on? It doesn't. Yet we all were told he was born on 25th december...why? Cos that was the main festival (its actually winter solstice) of the pagans who were prevelant in the Roman empire at the time. Why do Jews have their hold day on saturday and Christians on the sunday if Christianity came from Judaism? Cos the Roman pagans holy day was on subday. What Christians are actually worshiping is the Roman Sun God! You ing mugs!! Would the great unwashed of the Roman empire simply have accepted Christianity as their new religion? No. Christianity had to be a bastardisation of the Roman sun god worship and aspects of Christianity fixed onto that template. The gospels cant even make their mind up whether Jesus was born in a stable or a house and was it shepards or wise men who visited Jesus cos they cant even decide on that! So the gospels certainly are not true 100% cos they contradict each other therefore it is a pretty safe bet other parts are wrong. Most of the gospels that went against the Bible editors political beliefs were simply left out. Jesus had to be immortal as thats what the Roman sun god was so anything that said other wise was not included and the followers of these true forms of Christianity wiped off the face of the planet by the Catholic church (ie the Gnostics) Same for any gospels that elevated women as equals (ie gospel of Mary) as the blokes didn't want any women getting power. But even the gospels that did make it got edited! You heard of Lazarus? Brought back from the dead?! Was he e. In the gospel of Mark there is a section taken out of the Lazarus story that suggests he is alive in the chambre and it is just a ceremony (the actual reason it was edited out was not because of that but because Jesus slept naked with the naked Lazarus and some people might thinkl thats a bit gay!!) As for the old testiment well thats even more full of . The Jews never made the exodus from Egypt - FACT. Moses didn't write the first 5 (or 4?) books they were all different authours - FACT
So no I do not have any respect for people who believe in a book that was written for the specific purpose of controlling a population and all those that do are dumb dumb dumb... |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| I notice a lot of people here referring to God as a male.....I have never seen God and I am sure none of you have so how can you say God is a male. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
I notice a lot of people here referring to God as a male.....I have never seen God and I am sure none of you have so how can you say God is a male. |
the bible say he so god is a male! ;) ;) ;) another proof!
its good to see so many atheist belief the bible is frought too. occrider and nitemer and renegade has no chance - their arguing against four of us (me, floorfiller adn drug_tito and uwm) !!!!:D :D :D :D
and drug_tito - some guy i know on another msgboard knows the producer of xfiles (chris nolan)!:eyes: he says that xfiles stopped becuz bush think they came to close to the truth! so ur properly right about the aliens!!! |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
The Bible is wrong! It was edited and put together 350 years after Jesus dies by a group of people who had political objectives to fulfill. You tell me what day it says Jesus was born on? It doesn't. Yet we all were told he was born on 25th december...why? Cos that was the main festival (its actually winter solstice) of the pagans who were prevelant in the Roman empire at the time. Why do Jews have their hold day on saturday and Christians on the sunday if Christianity came from Judaism? Cos the Roman pagans holy day was on subday. What Christians are actually worshiping is the Roman Sun God! You ing mugs!! Would the great unwashed of the Roman empire simply have accepted Christianity as their new religion? No. Christianity had to be a bastardisation of the Roman sun god worship and aspects of Christianity fixed onto that template. The gospels cant even make their mind up whether Jesus was born in a stable or a house and was it shepards or wise men who visited Jesus cos they cant even decide on that! So the gospels certainly are not true 100% cos they contradict each other therefore it is a pretty safe bet other parts are wrong. Most of the gospels that went against the Bible editors political beliefs were simply left out. Jesus had to be immortal as thats what the Roman sun god was so anything that said other wise was not included and the followers of these true forms of Christianity wiped off the face of the planet by the Catholic church (ie the Gnostics) Same for any gospels that elevated women as equals (ie gospel of Mary) as the blokes didn't want any women getting power. But even the gospels that did make it got edited! You heard of Lazarus? Brought back from the dead?! Was he e. In the gospel of Mark there is a section taken out of the Lazarus story that suggests he is alive in the chambre and it is just a ceremony (the actual reason it was edited out was not because of that but because Jesus slept naked with the naked Lazarus and some people might thinkl thats a bit gay!!) As for the old testiment well thats even more full of . The Jews never made the exodus from Egypt - FACT. Moses didn't write the first 5 (or 4?) books they were all different authours - FACT
So no I do not have any respect for people who believe in a book that was written for the specific purpose of controlling a population and all those that do are dumb dumb dumb... |
Please allow me to address a few things about your statement.
Most scholars believe Jesus was born between September 12 and 14 based on Roman records and astrological models (there was a steller phenominon that would have occured at that time which is thought to be the "star" of Betheham). I agree with you the day was moved to fit with Roman celebrations.
Early christians gathered to meet on Sundays prior to it being the official church of the empire. Sunday was chosen as the sacred day because Jesus' resurection occured on a Sunday. Interestingly, early christians would also follow the rules regarding not working etc. on the jewish sabeth in order to not be discovered as christians.... this led to the two day weekend that exists today because the practice remained even through the Roman period.
Confusion between whether Jesus was born in a stable or a house is not evidence that the gospels are in opposition. Your claim of this shows that you have a lack of understanding of the times at which the story occured. The Galelien tradition was to have the "stable" as part of the house. The living quarters were generally the upper rear portion of the building and the stables were the lower floor. Think of a loft overlooking a small barn. This is likely the reason for the confusion in the Gospels.
As far as shepards and wise ment are concerned it is clear that the sheppards arrived first and the "wise men" several days later.
You are correct that there are a number of accounts of Jesus' life that do not appear in the bible. Since the Vatican owns all of these and does not allow them to be viewed one can only speculate as to why they are not included. The Vatican's official position is that they are redundant and/or they are only partial accounts of isolated events.
I do not doubt that there has been substantial editing of the bible, however, unless you know for sure what was ommited I would suggest that you are in no position to assert anything in this regard. It is fun to speculate though isn't it.
My favorit is the idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdoline. It would have been uncommon for Jesus not to be married, in fact it would have been contrary to his religion and by all accounts Jesus was a very good Jew. Additionally, the bible refers to the "grail" being at the foot of the cross. The Greek word that grail was translated from actually means receptical of blood. In poetic terms that would suggest a child. The bible also says that Mary was at the foot of the cross... could it be Mary was preggers with the big JC's kid?
The Egyptians have record of an insignificant slave revolt at the time of the exodus. There is also record of the Ramsis first son dying mysteriously at the same time. I'm not saying this is proof of the exodus but it does fit with the story.
I don't doubt that Moses didn't write all the books he is credited with, however, if you are to assert something as fact I would appreciate your source. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
I notice a lot of people here referring to God as a male.....I have never seen God and I am sure none of you have so how can you say God is a male. |
God was likely writen as a male for one of two reasons.
1) God revealed himself to the Isrealits as a male because they were a patriarchal society and would more readily accept the ultimate power in the world as a male rather then a female or a non-sexual entity.
2) The writers of the bible chose to protray God as being a man because they wanted to reinforce the patriachal system they had created. Having God as male suggests that it is by devine order that men be in authority. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
If you think Jesus is anything more than a Che-Guevara-cum-David-Blaine of his times then your a ing clueless idiot. You never heard of "the cult of personality"? Never seen The Life of Brian its all conclusive proof that Jesus was merely a socialist revolutionary you was clever enough to realise that stupid people (ie YOU) would believe in his Marxist doctrine if he performed a few magic shows (what you might refer to as "miracles")
Feeding of the 5,000? The poor go to Heaven while the rich go to hell? Pure socialism |
What??? You got to be ing kidding me. Socialist??? Look here you minger, Jesus is about as capitalist as apple pie. Of course you would believe that life of Brian bollocks because a fellow wanker made it. If jesus were alive today he would embrace all American values such as American football:
And the almighty dollar:
I tell you what, I'm going to use my 7 Jesus dollars, I'm going to buy your mom for the night, and I'm going to spend it slapping her around because she gave birth to such an ignorant twat. I'm pretty sure it's what Jesus would have wanted. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Please allow me to address a few things about your statement.
Most scholars believe Jesus was born between September 12 and 14 based on Roman records and astrological models (there was a steller phenominon that would have occured at that time which is thought to be the "star" of Betheham). |
There are no records of a census taking place at the time Joseph and Mary went on their travels. Strange no?
| quote: | | As far as shepards and wise ment are concerned it is clear that the sheppards arrived first and the "wise men" several days later. |
No its clear the authours of the gospels forgot to get their stories straight before they sat down and wrote them (and tell me, who wrote the gospel of John?)
| quote: | | I do not doubt that there has been substantial editing of the bible, however, unless you know for sure what was ommited I would suggest that you are in no position to assert anything in this regard. It is fun to speculate though isn't it. |
Some have been found (well, parts of them) in the Nag Hammadi texts
| quote: | | My favorit is the idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdoline. It would have been uncommon for Jesus not to be married, in fact it would have been contrary to his religion and by all accounts Jesus was a very good Jew. Additionally, the bible refers to the "grail" being at the foot of the cross. The Greek word that grail was translated from actually means receptical of blood. In poetic terms that would suggest a child. The bible also says that Mary was at the foot of the cross... could it be Mary was preggers with the big JC's kid? |
Have you read Holy Blood? Its quite interesting (was what the Da Vinci code is based on) and makes a strong case using passages within the Bible itself to suggest the Crucifix was staged and Jesus survived it (then there are all kinds of theories like Jesus went to India and had an influence on Bhuddism)
| quote: | | The Egyptians have record of an insignificant slave revolt at the time of the exodus. There is also record of the Ramsis first son dying mysteriously at the same time. I'm not saying this is proof of the exodus but it does fit with the story. |
There is no archaelogical evidence to suggest that large numbers of people crossed the Sinai - none whatsoever
| quote: | | I don't doubt that Moses didn't write all the books he is credited with, however, if you are to assert something as fact I would appreciate your source. |
It was a documentary I saw over Christmas and it was conclusive that Moses did not write them (not sure if I can find a link I'll have a look) |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
What??? You got to be ing kidding me. Socialist??? Look here you minger, Jesus is about as capitalist as apple pie. |
I'm not sure I agree with you there. A true capitalist would not have overturned the tables of the money traders. Additionally, most christian churches are pretty left wing when it comes to distribution of wealth. Don't get me wrong, there is a strong work ethic in christianity but I don't think that is because Jesus would have played the market if he were alive today. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
There are no records of a census taking place at the time Joseph and Mary went on their travels. Strange no?
No its clear the authours of the gospels forgot to get their stories straight before they sat down and wrote them (and tell me, who wrote the gospel of John?)
Some have been found (well, parts of them) in the Nag Hammadi texts
Have you read Holy Blood? Its quite interesting (was what the Da Vinci code is based on) and makes a strong case using passages within the Bible itself to suggest the Crucifix was staged and Jesus survived it (then there are all kinds of theories like Jesus went to India and had an influence on Bhuddism)
There is no archaelogical evidence to suggest that large numbers of people crossed the Sinai - none whatsoever
It was a documentary I saw over Christmas and it was conclusive that Moses did not write them (not sure if I can find a link I'll have a look) |
My understanding is that there are records of a census. Agustas Ceasar did order one in the first two or three years BC.
I cannot tell you who wrote the gospel of John but I can tell you it is the first writen account and dates circa 140 CE.
There is, however, archaelogical record of a large number of chariots and riders drown in "The Reed Sea" which is a marshy area of the Nile delta, which during low tide is passable by foot.
IF you can find the link I'd like to check it out... reconsiling the bilbe with historical record and archaelogical record is always interesting. I'll check out Holy Blood as well (thanks). |
|
|
|
|
