100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: If God were really standing right in front of you... | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Mon 07/26/10 08:37 PM
|
|
There is no man like Jesus. Jesus was and will ever be the only begotten child of God. Of course. And Zeus was and will always be the God of Gods. And Thor will always carry his hammer with him everywhere he goes. And Little Red Riding Hood will forever be eaten by the big bad wolf. That's just the way fairytales are. They never change. But if you want to meet real live people who actually live their lives like Jesus did, I'm just saying that there are plenty of them around even today. The kind of lifestyle that Jesus lived is commonplace in the Buddhist traditions. This is why there are many people who are convinced that even the Jesus mentioned in the Bible was actually a Buddhist bodhisattva. The tale about him being born of a virgin is comparible to the tale of Little Red Ridding Hood being eaten by the big bad wolf. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Mon 07/26/10 10:09 PM
|
|
There is no man like Jesus. Jesus was and will ever be the only begotten child of God. Of course. And Zeus was and will always be the God of Gods. And Thor will always carry his hammer with him everywhere he goes. And Little Red Riding Hood will forever be eaten by the big bad wolf. That's just the way fairytales are. They never change. But if you want to meet real live people who actually live their lives like Jesus did, I'm just saying that there are plenty of them around even today. The kind of lifestyle that Jesus lived is commonplace in the Buddhist traditions. This is why there are many people who are convinced that even the Jesus mentioned in the Bible was actually a Buddhist bodhisattva. The tale about him being born of a virgin is comparible to the tale of Little Red Ridding Hood being eaten by the big bad wolf. Only problem is Zues isn't a real person, nor is Thor. Regardless if you want to Jesus' word as the truth, Jesus was a real man who did those things. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only problem is Zues isn't a real person, nor is Thor. Regardless if you want to Jesus' word as the truth, Jesus was a real man who did those things. Actually we have no way of knowing that at all. Especially in terms of the gospels being a 'correct' description of the man. At best their may have been a man who lived, taught moral values that disagreed with those taught in the Old Testament, and was indeed crucified for his opinions. I'm personally willing to accept that much 'history'. However, to then jump to the conclusion that the hearsay that was written about him decades later and attributed to him as if they are 'verbatim quotes' of precisely what he had actually said, is a whole other story. Most scholars confess that they cannot even say with certainy that any such man ever existed, much less that any rumors about him that appeared decades later might be valid. Even in Greek Mythology there are reasons to believe that a man named Hercules may have actually lived and performed feats similar to the rumors of mythology. And Hercules was said to be the Son of Zeus. So all mythologies are based in-part upon actual mortal humans. I don't doubt that Jesus lived. As I've often stated I believe he was a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva. That doesn't suggest that he was born of a virgin, rose from the dead, or was the son of Yahweh. So even if they actually found absolute proof that a man named Jesus had actually lived and was crucified that doesn't even remotely suggest that any of the rest of the fable has any merit. I actually expect that this was indeed a historical fact. That's what gave rise to these rumors in the first place. The very fact that an innocent man who did nothing more than preach love was wrongfully crucified would naturally cause much controversy. In fact, there were many rumors that saw Jesus as being a mortal man who actually taught against the teachings of the Torah. The people who held that view were slaughted by the "Christians" as time marched forward. That's also a historically recorded fact. Look up the history of the Cathers. If you like the idea of Yahweh sending his innocence son to be nailed to a pole to pay for your evil nature then by all means believe it. I personally don't feel that I have an evil nature that would warrent such a action to begin with, and I also wouldn't have any respect for a bloodthirsty God who would be appeased by having his own son butchered on a pole. So I ultimately have no motivation to even remotely believe in such a gruesome tale. I personally feel that a person truly needs to be desperate in some major way to even want to believe in such a gory and horrible picture of reality. You keep speaking of it as if it has something to do with 'love', but the problem is that it's a 'love' that, by your own proclamation, you are necessarily unworthy of. Why would anyone want to believe that they are unworthy of the love of their creator? We could just as easily believe in Hercules and Zeus. We have just as much reason to believe in those myths as we have for believing in the myths that surround the stories of Jesus. They are equally unprovable and equally absurd. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only problem is Zues isn't a real person, nor is Thor. Regardless if you want to Jesus' word as the truth, Jesus was a real man who did those things. Actually we have no way of knowing that at all. Especially in terms of the gospels being a 'correct' description of the man. At best their may have been a man who lived, taught moral values that disagreed with those taught in the Old Testament, and was indeed crucified for his opinions. I'm personally willing to accept that much 'history'. However, to then jump to the conclusion that the hearsay that was written about him decades later and attributed to him as if they are 'verbatim quotes' of precisely what he had actually said, is a whole other story. Most scholars confess that they cannot even say with certainy that any such man ever existed, much less that any rumors about him that appeared decades later might be valid. Even in Greek Mythology there are reasons to believe that a man named Hercules may have actually lived and performed feats similar to the rumors of mythology. And Hercules was said to be the Son of Zeus. So all mythologies are based in-part upon actual mortal humans. I don't doubt that Jesus lived. As I've often stated I believe he was a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva. That doesn't suggest that he was born of a virgin, rose from the dead, or was the son of Yahweh. So even if they actually found absolute proof that a man named Jesus had actually lived and was crucified that doesn't even remotely suggest that any of the rest of the fable has any merit. I actually expect that this was indeed a historical fact. That's what gave rise to these rumors in the first place. The very fact that an innocent man who did nothing more than preach love was wrongfully crucified would naturally cause much controversy. In fact, there were many rumors that saw Jesus as being a mortal man who actually taught against the teachings of the Torah. The people who held that view were slaughted by the "Christians" as time marched forward. That's also a historically recorded fact. Look up the history of the Cathers. If you like the idea of Yahweh sending his innocence son to be nailed to a pole to pay for your evil nature then by all means believe it. I personally don't feel that I have an evil nature that would warrent such a action to begin with, and I also wouldn't have any respect for a bloodthirsty God who would be appeased by having his own son butchered on a pole. So I ultimately have no motivation to even remotely believe in such a gruesome tale. I personally feel that a person truly needs to be desperate in some major way to even want to believe in such a gory and horrible picture of reality. You keep speaking of it as if it has something to do with 'love', but the problem is that it's a 'love' that, by your own proclamation, you are necessarily unworthy of. Why would anyone want to believe that they are unworthy of the love of their creator? We could just as easily believe in Hercules and Zeus. We have just as much reason to believe in those myths as we have for believing in the myths that surround the stories of Jesus. They are equally unprovable and equally absurd. Do your history brother. Harry V. Martin Copyright FreeAmerica and Harry V. Martin, 1995 Most Biblical scholars, historians, archeologist and even the clergy are knowledgeable about one fact of Christianity that the Christian worshipper is not, there is limited historical facts to establish finite historical evidence that Jesus Christ existed. The vast majority of what Christians believe today is based purely on the New Testament , a collection of writings and testimony of those who knew Jesus and from those who never saw him. The origin of the New Testament was not the "bible" of the Christians until after 150 A.D. The actual "bible" of the early Christians was the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. For more than a century after the death of Christ, the early Christians relied on the Old Testament ======================================================== I can also find more if you wish. Not posting this to show Jesus' divinity or anything, just showing that there is actual evidence of the existance of Jesus. Like i said before, regardless if you want to believe Jesus was the son of God, Jesus WAS A MAN. And the bible was written as Jesus lived, say it as a diary if you may. Yes of course the "bible" as we know it wasn't being written. But the sources of the bible was being written as it happened. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only problem is Zues isn't a real person, nor is Thor. Regardless if you want to Jesus' word as the truth, Jesus was a real man who did those things. Actually we have no way of knowing that at all. Especially in terms of the gospels being a 'correct' description of the man. At best their may have been a man who lived, taught moral values that disagreed with those taught in the Old Testament, and was indeed crucified for his opinions. I'm personally willing to accept that much 'history'. However, to then jump to the conclusion that the hearsay that was written about him decades later and attributed to him as if they are 'verbatim quotes' of precisely what he had actually said, is a whole other story. Most scholars confess that they cannot even say with certainy that any such man ever existed, much less that any rumors about him that appeared decades later might be valid. Even in Greek Mythology there are reasons to believe that a man named Hercules may have actually lived and performed feats similar to the rumors of mythology. And Hercules was said to be the Son of Zeus. So all mythologies are based in-part upon actual mortal humans. I don't doubt that Jesus lived. As I've often stated I believe he was a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva. That doesn't suggest that he was born of a virgin, rose from the dead, or was the son of Yahweh. So even if they actually found absolute proof that a man named Jesus had actually lived and was crucified that doesn't even remotely suggest that any of the rest of the fable has any merit. I actually expect that this was indeed a historical fact. That's what gave rise to these rumors in the first place. The very fact that an innocent man who did nothing more than preach love was wrongfully crucified would naturally cause much controversy. In fact, there were many rumors that saw Jesus as being a mortal man who actually taught against the teachings of the Torah. The people who held that view were slaughted by the "Christians" as time marched forward. That's also a historically recorded fact. Look up the history of the Cathers. If you like the idea of Yahweh sending his innocence son to be nailed to a pole to pay for your evil nature then by all means believe it. I personally don't feel that I have an evil nature that would warrent such a action to begin with, and I also wouldn't have any respect for a bloodthirsty God who would be appeased by having his own son butchered on a pole. So I ultimately have no motivation to even remotely believe in such a gruesome tale. I personally feel that a person truly needs to be desperate in some major way to even want to believe in such a gory and horrible picture of reality. You keep speaking of it as if it has something to do with 'love', but the problem is that it's a 'love' that, by your own proclamation, you are necessarily unworthy of. Why would anyone want to believe that they are unworthy of the love of their creator? We could just as easily believe in Hercules and Zeus. We have just as much reason to believe in those myths as we have for believing in the myths that surround the stories of Jesus. They are equally unprovable and equally absurd. Do your history brother. Harry V. Martin Copyright FreeAmerica and Harry V. Martin, 1995 Most Biblical scholars, historians, archeologist and even the clergy are knowledgeable about one fact of Christianity that the Christian worshipper is not, there is limited historical facts to establish finite historical evidence that Jesus Christ existed. The vast majority of what Christians believe today is based purely on the New Testament , a collection of writings and testimony of those who knew Jesus and from those who never saw him. The origin of the New Testament was not the "bible" of the Christians until after 150 A.D. The actual "bible" of the early Christians was the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. For more than a century after the death of Christ, the early Christians relied on the Old Testament ======================================================== I can also find more if you wish. Not posting this to show Jesus' divinity or anything, just showing that there is actual evidence of the existance of Jesus. Like i said before, regardless if you want to believe Jesus was the son of God, Jesus WAS A MAN. And the bible was written as Jesus lived, say it as a diary if you may. Yes of course the "bible" as we know it wasn't being written. But the sources of the bible was being written as it happened. Also would like to point out that the historical evidence and knowledge they have goes hand in hand with the timeline of the bible. Just something to truely think about. We have here a diary "bible" of a man that lived, and historical solid evidence of his existance that goes along with what the bible says. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Tue 07/27/10 11:01 AM
|
|
Also would like to point out that the historical evidence and knowledge they have goes hand in hand with the timeline of the bible. Just something to truely think about. We have here a diary "bible" of a man that lived, and historical solid evidence of his existance that goes along with what the bible says. The bible isn't a 'diary'. It's utter hearsay RUMORS. We have nothing written by the man himself. We also have absolutely no reason to believe in any of the so-called "divine miracles" that have been associated to him via the RUMORS. There is no reason to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin anymore than there is any reason to believe the Hercules was the son of Zeus. There is also no reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, or that a voice from the sky proclaimed that Jesus was the "Son of God". As far as any actual history is concerned the best we can know is that some guy lived, potentially taught moral values that were in completely contradiction to the moral values taught by the torah. And was crucified for having held those views. In fact, based on the information we have (including what the authors of the Bible claim that Jesus supposedly taught), the only sensible conclusion to arrive at is that Jesus could not possibly have been the son of Yahweh. Even the gospels (that you are calling a 'diary') confirm that Jesus did not agree with the moral teachings of Yahweh. So there's utterly no reason to even remotely suspect that he was the son of Yahweh. Those rumors we can indeed dismiss as being completely out-of-line with what's actually known about the man. If anything, it makes far more sense to conclude that Jesus must have been a Mahayana Buddhist bodhisattva. Everything that has been attributed to him, his lifesyle and teachings, are totally in-line with that hypothesis. And nothing about Jesus fits in with the hypothesis that he was the 'son of Yahweh'. Even the gospels confirm that Jesus did not agree with the moral teachings of the OT. So all the historical evidence points away from the idea that Jesus was the son of Yahweh, not toward it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also would like to point out that the historical evidence and knowledge they have goes hand in hand with the timeline of the bible. Just something to truely think about. We have here a diary "bible" of a man that lived, and historical solid evidence of his existance that goes along with what the bible says. The bible isn't a 'diary'. It's utter hearsay RUMORS. We have nothing written by the man himself. We also have absolutely no reason to believe in any of the so-called "divine miracles" that have been associated to him via the RUMORS. There is no reason to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin anymore than there is any reason to believe the Hercules was the son of Zeus. There is also no reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, or that a voice from the sky proclaimed that Jesus was the "Son of God". As far as any actual history is concerned the best we can know is that some guy lived, potentially taught moral values that were in completely contradiction to the moral values taught by the torah. And was crucified for having held those views. In fact, based on the information we have (including what the authors of the Bible claim that Jesus supposedly taught), the only sensible conclusion to arrive at is that Jesus could not possibly have been the son of Yahweh. Even the gospels (that you are calling a 'diary') confirm that Jesus did not agree with the moral teachings of Yahweh. So there's utterly no reason to even remotely suspect that he was the son of Yahweh. Those rumors we can indeed dismiss as being completely out-of-line with what's actually known about the man. If anything, it makes far more sense to conclude that Jesus must have been a Mahayana Buddhist bodhisattva. Everything that has been attributed to him, his lifesyle and teachings, are totally in-line with that hypothesis. And nothing about Jesus fits in with the hypothesis that he was the 'son of Yahweh'. Even the gospels confirm that Jesus did not agree with the moral teachings of the OT. So all the historical evidence points away from the idea that Jesus was the son of Yahweh, not toward it. You're not taking ALL the facts to make your conclusion. There is no contradictions between the new testament and the old testament *tora* for one simple reason. With the coming of Jesus, the old testament *tora* was fullfilled/completed/finished. So it therefor held no more power, thus resulting in no contradictions. That would be the same as me telling someone to go down this road and turn left on maple street to chop the trees down on that road till all healthy trees are chopped down. And when that happens i tell him to take a right on apple street and chop the trees down there. NO contradictions, the old instructions*testament* was fulfilled, so i gave him new instructions*new testament* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Except that Jesus as related in the New Testament does not fulfill the requirements of the messiah in the Old Testament.
see: http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html 1. Jesus Did Not Fulfill the Messianic Prophecies What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will: 1. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28). 2. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6). 3. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4) 4. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world ― on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9). If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah." Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected. Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Tue 07/27/10 12:03 PM
|
|
Except that Jesus as related in the New Testament does not fulfill the requirements of the messiah in the Old Testament. see: http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html 1. Jesus Did Not Fulfill the Messianic Prophecies What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will: 1. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28). 2. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6). 3. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4) 4. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world ― on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9). If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah." Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected. Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists. Jesus did not fail even one of those. 1. Ezekiel 37:26-28 26(A) I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be(B) an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land[a] and(C) multiply them, and will(D) set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. 27(E) My dwelling place shall be with them,(F) and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 28Then(G) the nations will know that(H) I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when(I) my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore." ------------- Has nothing to do with building any third temple. God did make a covenant of peace with us/them. ================================= 2. Isaiah 43:5-6 5 Fear not, for I am with you; I will bring your offspring from the east, and from the west I will gather you. I will say to the north, Give up, and to the south, Do not withhold; bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth ------------------- You have to keep in mind both Jesus and God spoke in parables. As believers we are all gathered together, no matter where we are physically. We're gathered in our belief and goals in life. ============================== 3. Isaiah 2:4 4He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore. ---------------- Has not happened yet. Some prophecies in the old testament was the coming of christ and some were even further then that. Jesus fullfilled the prophecies of him. This prophecy is yet to happen. 4. Zechariah 14:9 And the LORD will be king over all the earth. On that day the LORD will be one and his name one. -------------------------------- Jesus is king over all the earth. That is why we will recieve punishment for disobediance. Because JESUS IS KING OF KINGS LORD OF LORDS. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're not taking ALL the facts to make your conclusion. There is no contradictions between the new testament and the old testament *tora* for one simple reason. With the coming of Jesus, the old testament *tora* was fullfilled/completed/finished. So it therefor held no more power, thus resulting in no contradictions. That would be the same as me telling someone to go down this road and turn left on maple street to chop the trees down on that road till all healthy trees are chopped down. And when that happens i tell him to take a right on apple street and chop the trees down there. NO contradictions, the old instructions*testament* was fulfilled, so i gave him new instructions*new testament* Oh but there is. 1. The biblical God is supposed to be unchanging. 2. The teachings of Jesus were totally different morals from the teachings of Yahweh. So your claim that the New Testament supposedly reflects a change of heart in how God deals with humanity and sin doesn't jive with the idea that God is unchanging. That very theme is a blatant contradication in and of itself. Face it, the mythology can't be salavaged. But you should be HAPPY about that!  It means that you're not an unworthy sinner who has fallen from grace from your creator to the point where your creator had to have his only begotten son nailed to a pole to pay for your sins. What could be better NEWS? Surely it wouldn't upset you to discover that all these horrible claims were actually just fables to begin with? Surely you're not disappointed with that? Who could be disappointed with that?  It's the greatest news I can imagine. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're not taking ALL the facts to make your conclusion. There is no contradictions between the new testament and the old testament *tora* for one simple reason. With the coming of Jesus, the old testament *tora* was fullfilled/completed/finished. So it therefor held no more power, thus resulting in no contradictions. That would be the same as me telling someone to go down this road and turn left on maple street to chop the trees down on that road till all healthy trees are chopped down. And when that happens i tell him to take a right on apple street and chop the trees down there. NO contradictions, the old instructions*testament* was fulfilled, so i gave him new instructions*new testament* Oh but there is. 1. The biblical God is supposed to be unchanging. 2. The teachings of Jesus were totally different morals from the teachings of Yahweh. So your claim that the New Testament supposedly reflects a change of heart in how God deals with humanity and sin doesn't jive with the idea that God is unchanging. That very theme is a blatant contradication in and of itself. Face it, the mythology can't be salavaged. But you should be HAPPY about that! It means that you're not an unworthy sinner who has fallen from grace from your creator to the point where your creator had to have his only begotten son nailed to a pole to pay for your sins. What could be better NEWS? Surely it wouldn't upset you to discover that all these horrible claims were actually just fables to begin with? Surely you're not disappointed with that? Who could be disappointed with that? It's the greatest news I can imagine. Nothing about God changed. Nothing changed in the long run. 1. We are born - We live according to God's word - We receive heaven. That is all there is to it, NOTHING changed with that. And it was prophesied that Jesus would come. So again nothing is changing, it's going along with the plan that was already set out before us. It's funny you say this, what you say doesn't make sense. You point fingers saying God is obviously changing, when in fact he's not because God told us way ahead of time that this would happen......... so what exactly changed? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Tue 07/27/10 01:04 PM
|
|
It's funny you say this, what you say doesn't make sense. You point fingers saying God is obviously changing, when in fact he's not because God told us way ahead of time that this would happen......... so what exactly changed? His instructions about how we should behave has changed. Originally he tells us that he wants us to judge other and stone sinners to death. Then through Jesus he tells us that he doesn't want us to judge others or stone sinners to death. Originally he tells us to seek revenge as in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Then through Jesus he tells us that we should turn the other cheek instead. Originally he tells us that we should seek out heathens and murder them, their wives, childern and even the entire villages from whence they came. Then through Jesus he tells us to knock the dust from our feet and walk away from heathens. Originally he shows us that he deals with sinners by drowning them out. Now, through Jesus his shows us that he deals with sin by nailing his son to a pole. Everything changed dramatically. Moreover, if Jesus came to change the laws then why not just say so? Why lie and claim that he did not come to change the laws? At best he's being extremely vauge and inept in his communication, at worst he's outright lying about his intentions. A god who is either inept or a liar is not good. If he wanted to change the laws he should have stated clearly that he came to change the laws rather than beating around the bush with vauge and misleading chatter. In order for me to believe in your story I need to either believe that God is utterly inept at communication, or he's being purposefully decietful. And why do I need to believe in this again? This brings us full-circle. I need to believe in all these absurdities in order to place my FAITH in the idea that I'm at horrible odds with my creator and have been so disgustingly bad and rebellious that he had to have his only begotten son nailed to a pole to somehow appease himself for that. The whole things makes absolutely no sense to me and doesn't sound attractive anyway. I see no reason why I should even want to put my FAITH in such a story. Like I say, who would want this story to be true anyway? Certainly not me! I have no motivation to even want it to be true. So I'm certainly not going to bend over backwards trying to ignore all its flaws and contradictions in order to place FAITH in it. I would much rather have FAITH that is isn't true. Seems to me the sane thing to do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would much rather have FAITH that is isn't true. Seems to me the sane thing to do. Ditto. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Tue 07/27/10 01:31 PM
|
|
It's funny you say this, what you say doesn't make sense. You point fingers saying God is obviously changing, when in fact he's not because God told us way ahead of time that this would happen......... so what exactly changed? His instructions about how we should behave has changed. Originally he tells us that he wants us to judge other and stone sinners to death. Then through Jesus he tells us that he doesn't want us to judge others or stone sinners to death. Originally he tells us to seek revenge as in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Then through Jesus he tells us that we should turn the other cheek instead. Originally he tells us that we should seek out heathens and murder them, their wives, childern and even the entire villages from whence they came. Then through Jesus he tells us to knock the dust from our feet and walk away from heathens. Originally he shows us that he deals with sinners by drowning them out. Now, through Jesus his shows us that he deals with sin by nailing his son to a pole. Everything changed dramatically. Moreover, if Jesus came to change the laws then why not just say so? Why lie and claim that he did not come to change the laws? At best he's being extremely vauge and inept in his communication, at worst he's outright lying about his intentions. A god who is either inept or a liar is not good. If he wanted to change the laws he should have stated clearly that he came to change the laws rather than beating around the bush with vauge and misleading chatter. In order for me to believe in your story I need to either believe that God is utterly inept at communication, or he's being purposefully decietful. And why do I need to believe in this again? This brings us full-circle. I need to believe in all these absurdities in order to place my FAITH in the idea that I'm at horrible odds with my creator and have been so disgustingly bad and rebellious that he had to have his only begotten son nailed to a pole to somehow appease himself for that. The whole things makes absolutely no sense to me and doesn't sound attractive anyway. I see no reason why I should even want to put my FAITH in such a story. Like I say, who would want this story to be true anyway? Certainly not me! I have no motivation to even want it to be true. So I'm certainly not going to bend over backwards trying to ignore all its flaws and contradictions in order to place FAITH in it. I would much rather have FAITH that is isn't true. Seems to me the sane thing to do. "His instructions about how we should behave has changed. Originally he tells us that he wants us to judge other and stone sinners to death." ------------------ Nothing changed in how we are to live our lives. And yes originally we judged each other for there was no judge. With the coming of the new covenant Jesus was appointed Judge. Again you can not just take parts of what i've said, you have to keep the whole thing in mind. This is not "changing" ANYTHING. The old covenant was fullfill, thus we were given a new covenant and in the new covenant Jesus was appointed judge of us all. ====================== Not even gonna waste my time with the rest of your post, because same answere for it ALL. The old testament was a covenant given to us by God. That covenant was fulfilled with the coming of Jesus, which then we were in need of a new covenant, which is what Jesus put out before us. And again THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT CAN NOT BE COMPARED TO ONE ANOTHER, BECAUSE THEY ARE TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT SET OF RULES. The new testament isn't a revision of the old testament, it is a totally different covenant because the first one was fulfilled. And again NOTHING was changed, it was fulfilled which we then needed a new covenant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing changed in how we are to live our lives. And yes originally we judged each other for there was no judge. With the coming of the new covenant Jesus was appointed Judge. Again you can not just take parts of what i've said, you have to keep the whole thing in mind. This is not "changing" ANYTHING. The old covenant was fullfill, thus we were given a new covenant and in the new covenant Jesus was appointed judge of us all. Can you please show me where it was decreed, and who decreed that Jesus is appointed judge? As far as I can see the gospels themselves have Jesus supposedly "quoted" as having said precisely the opposite: John.12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. John has Jesus proclaiming that he is not to judge anyone. and if you read a little further John has Jesus saying that following: [48] He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. [49] For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. This suggests that the Father is ultimately the judge. But that flies in the face of what you just suggested: And yes originally we judged each other for there was no judge. There was no judge?  What was wrong with God the Father? Was he down with the flu? In fact, as far as I'm concerned the mere fact that this mythological story instructs the readers to judge each other based on what the authors have told them and carry out punishments just blatantly shows that this mythology was indeed written by mortal men. No genuine all-powerful supreme being would need to ask mere mortals to judge each other and carry out punishments. This just proves taht the original Old Testament was written by dubious mortal men who KNEW that there was no God who can actually pass judgements and carry out punishments and that's precisely why they had to incite their readers to do their bidding in this matter. If the God of the Old Testament were real he could have passed his own judgements and carried out his own punishments. As as I always say, when you read the Bible just ask yourself the following two questions: 1. Would an almighty God have truly behaved this way? 2. Is this something that devious mortal men would write? If you ask yourself those two questions as you read the bible you'll always find that the answer to #1 is almost always "No", and the answer to #2 is almost always "Yes". The authors gave themselves away in no uncertain terms. Jesus was never appointed 'judge' of anything, nor did he every claim to be appointed 'judge' as far as I know. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if you could actually find a verse that appoints Jesus as Judge. That would just contradict the verse I just posted by John, but that wouldn't surprise me in the least since the Bible basically contradicts itself even within the same books. The very authors themselves sometimes didn't even keep good track of what they had written previously in their own story. In fact, John's writings above are a good example. First he has Jesus saying that he won't judge anyone. Then he has Jesus saying that the Father will judge people. But then later John has Jesus saying, "I and the father are one". John.10:30 I and my Father are one. Talk about your convoluted contradictions? Here you have John claiming that Jesus will not judge anyone, but saying that the Father will, and then later in the very same story John has Jesus saying that he and the Father are one. Tell me that's not a contradiction? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing changed in how we are to live our lives. And yes originally we judged each other for there was no judge. With the coming of the new covenant Jesus was appointed Judge. Again you can not just take parts of what i've said, you have to keep the whole thing in mind. This is not "changing" ANYTHING. The old covenant was fullfill, thus we were given a new covenant and in the new covenant Jesus was appointed judge of us all. Can you please show me where it was decreed, and who decreed that Jesus is appointed judge? As far as I can see the gospels themselves have Jesus supposedly "quoted" as having said precisely the opposite: John.12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. John has Jesus proclaiming that he is not to judge anyone. and if you read a little further John has Jesus saying that following: [48] He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. [49] For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. This suggests that the Father is ultimately the judge. But that flies in the face of what you just suggested: And yes originally we judged each other for there was no judge. There was no judge? What was wrong with God the Father? Was he down with the flu? In fact, as far as I'm concerned the mere fact that this mythological story instructs the readers to judge each other based on what the authors have told them and carry out punishments just blatantly shows that this mythology was indeed written by mortal men. No genuine all-powerful supreme being would need to ask mere mortals to judge each other and carry out punishments. This just proves taht the original Old Testament was written by dubious mortal men who KNEW that there was no God who can actually pass judgements and carry out punishments and that's precisely why they had to incite their readers to do their bidding in this matter. If the God of the Old Testament were real he could have passed his own judgements and carried out his own punishments. As as I always say, when you read the Bible just ask yourself the following two questions: 1. Would an almighty God have truly behaved this way? 2. Is this something that devious mortal men would write? If you ask yourself those two questions as you read the bible you'll always find that the answer to #1 is almost always "No", and the answer to #2 is almost always "Yes". The authors gave themselves away in no uncertain terms. Jesus was never appointed 'judge' of anything, nor did he every claim to be appointed 'judge' as far as I know. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if you could actually find a verse that appoints Jesus as Judge. That would just contradict the verse I just posted by John, but that wouldn't surprise me in the least since the Bible basically contradicts itself even within the same books. The very authors themselves sometimes didn't even keep good track of what they had written previously in their own story. In fact, John's writings above are a good example. First he has Jesus saying that he won't judge anyone. Then he has Jesus saying that the Father will judge people. But then later John has Jesus saying, "I and the father are one". John.10:30 I and my Father are one. Talk about your convoluted contradictions? Here you have John claiming that Jesus will not judge anyone, but saying that the Father will, and then later in the very same story John has Jesus saying that he and the Father are one. Tell me that's not a contradiction? First off, that verse in no way says that Jesus isn't the judge. Jesus was saying he did not "come" to judge the earth. That was not his reason for being here. I want to point specific attention to verse 22. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son John 5:20-24 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. 24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing changed in how we are to live our lives. And yes originally we judged each other for there was no judge. With the coming of the new covenant Jesus was appointed Judge. Again you can not just take parts of what i've said, you have to keep the whole thing in mind. This is not "changing" ANYTHING. The old covenant was fullfill, thus we were given a new covenant and in the new covenant Jesus was appointed judge of us all. Can you please show me where it was decreed, and who decreed that Jesus is appointed judge? As far as I can see the gospels themselves have Jesus supposedly "quoted" as having said precisely the opposite: John.12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. John has Jesus proclaiming that he is not to judge anyone. and if you read a little further John has Jesus saying that following: [48] He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. [49] For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. This suggests that the Father is ultimately the judge. But that flies in the face of what you just suggested: And yes originally we judged each other for there was no judge. There was no judge? What was wrong with God the Father? Was he down with the flu? In fact, as far as I'm concerned the mere fact that this mythological story instructs the readers to judge each other based on what the authors have told them and carry out punishments just blatantly shows that this mythology was indeed written by mortal men. No genuine all-powerful supreme being would need to ask mere mortals to judge each other and carry out punishments. This just proves taht the original Old Testament was written by dubious mortal men who KNEW that there was no God who can actually pass judgements and carry out punishments and that's precisely why they had to incite their readers to do their bidding in this matter. If the God of the Old Testament were real he could have passed his own judgements and carried out his own punishments. As as I always say, when you read the Bible just ask yourself the following two questions: 1. Would an almighty God have truly behaved this way? 2. Is this something that devious mortal men would write? If you ask yourself those two questions as you read the bible you'll always find that the answer to #1 is almost always "No", and the answer to #2 is almost always "Yes". The authors gave themselves away in no uncertain terms. Jesus was never appointed 'judge' of anything, nor did he every claim to be appointed 'judge' as far as I know. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if you could actually find a verse that appoints Jesus as Judge. That would just contradict the verse I just posted by John, but that wouldn't surprise me in the least since the Bible basically contradicts itself even within the same books. The very authors themselves sometimes didn't even keep good track of what they had written previously in their own story. In fact, John's writings above are a good example. First he has Jesus saying that he won't judge anyone. Then he has Jesus saying that the Father will judge people. But then later John has Jesus saying, "I and the father are one". John.10:30 I and my Father are one. Talk about your convoluted contradictions? Here you have John claiming that Jesus will not judge anyone, but saying that the Father will, and then later in the very same story John has Jesus saying that he and the Father are one. Tell me that's not a contradiction? First off, that verse in no way says that Jesus isn't the judge. Jesus was saying he did not "come" to judge the earth. That was not his reason for being here. I want to point specific attention to verse 22. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son John 5:20-24 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. 24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. as i've said before. You have to the ENTIRE bible not just a verse here and there to completely understand what it is talking about. No contradictions, no problems, no nothing. But you HAVE to take the ENTIRE bible to understand what you're reading. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John 5:20-24 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. 24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. If you read that in terms of pantheism is makes perfect sense. But in that context the "Son" refers here to all men, not just to Jesus. In fact, this verse wouldn't even make any sense at all if you take the word "Son" here to actually mean Jesus only. What Jesus was trying to tell people is the very same things that the Eastern Mystics have been teachings for eons. All of life is judgement, and it is we who do the judging. In fact, you claim to have resolved a contradiction, but if you take Jesus to be the special "only begotten Son of God" being referenced here by the word "Son" then you've just created even more contradictions for yourself because in the previous verses Jesus was saying that he will not judge anyone. Once you give up the idea that Jesus was some sort of demigod, and you recognize that he was just teaching a pantheisic view, then all these contradictions go away. And his teachings make perfect sense. He was teaching pantheism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John 5:20-24 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. 24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. If you read that in terms of pantheism is makes perfect sense. But in that context the "Son" refers here to all men, not just to Jesus. In fact, this verse wouldn't even make any sense at all if you take the word "Son" here to actually mean Jesus only. What Jesus was trying to tell people is the very same things that the Eastern Mystics have been teachings for eons. All of life is judgement, and it is we who do the judging. In fact, you claim to have resolved a contradiction, but if you take Jesus to be the special "only begotten Son of God" being referenced here by the word "Son" then you've just created even more contradictions for yourself because in the previous verses Jesus was saying that he will not judge anyone. Once you give up the idea that Jesus was some sort of demigod, and you recognize that he was just teaching a pantheisic view, then all these contradictions go away. And his teachings make perfect sense. He was teaching pantheism. No abra. We are all CHILDREN of God. But Jesus is the only SON of God. So again no contradiction one bit and have no idea of this Eastern Mystics you speak of. |
|
|
|
|
