Total Posts:220|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Christ Was Not a Christian

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 11:29:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If Christ were running for political office, conservatives would call him a bleeding-heart liberal because he told the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and feed the poor. If that doesn't sound like a redistribution of wealth, I don't know what does.

They would call him a blasphemer because he said the holy day, the day of rest, was appointed in service of the Jew, and not the Jew in service of it. That's equivalent to saying the Jew was lord of the Sabbath.

He not only allowed but also justified disobedience of Jewish law in saying it was alright to work on the Jewish day of rest.

He said the Jewish religion was wrong in saying retribution was ok. The Religious Right defines this as pacifism and says it is a sign of weakness.

He said a heathen was holier than Jewish men of God in saying the Samaritan was neighborly to the man who fell among theives. This would be like saying a pagan was holier than Christian ministers.

He sat and ate with people who betrayed and disobeyed their religion.

The Pharisees accused him of being a drunkard and a glutton.
Fly
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 11:50:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The body of your post doesn't really follow the title you have given it. So...

To your title, I say that many men who have founded a movement were not themselves members of the movement-- Marx was not a Communist, Martin Luther was not a Protestant, and Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian.

To the body of your post, I agree and yes, the narrative of Christ is full of conflicting ideas, especially in the context of Judaism.

What is the point you are trying to make?
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 1:08:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The body of your post doesn't really follow the title you have given it. So...

To your title, I say that many men who have founded a movement were not themselves members of the movement-- Marx was not a Communist, Martin Luther was not a Protestant, and Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian.

To the body of your post, I agree and yes, the narrative of Christ is full of conflicting ideas, especially in the context of Judaism.

What is the point you are trying to make?

My point was many people call themselves Christians, meaning Christlike; but according to their own gospels, that's not the way Christ was.

Secondly, Christ may have technically been a Jew; but, it's also clear according to the Christian bible he rebelled against Judaism.
NathanDuclos
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 2:06:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Dear Sir.
Thank you for your response and letting me respond to your particular forum. I look forward to your response. I"m slightly curious as to a number of things, including why you have your particular point of view and how it would be opposed (if it is) to mine and why you believe what you believe in your post.

The first thing is Christ was a fictional character and there is no historical record of him that would meet any rational or reasonable burden of proof. Given the book is a work of fiction, how do you assume that christ would stand for a liberal point of view?
The second is your comment about redistribution of wealth.

The New Testament states to pay your taxes and render under to Caesar his dues. Do you think that jesus was thinks tax evasion is a sin? He disagreed with money lenders as well. Would you think he would get rid of banks?

It also in OT an NT that it"s acceptable to own slaver, how to manage them, how much you can beat them and even how to make a slave serve you for life. Again do you think that Jesus would support slavery as a politician as clearly ok in gods eyes?
AS per the bible, do you think jesus would agree that rape victims should be forced to marry there rapist as per the Bible. Or would he take the stance that the woman cannot get pregnant during rape like many conservative politicians said in the previous election cycle?

The third question is about Jesus changing the law.
Matthew 5:17-19 " he points that has not come to change the law but to fulfil it. That the old laws, which I"m assuming you approve of like the 10 commandments, are actual dozens and dozens. So how do you say that the biblical jesus is opposed to jewish law and rebelled against the jewish laws when he specifically did so to prove a jewish prophacy? There is a large contradiction, when he claims to obey all the laws and he isn"t here to change them. If there is a contradiction between these things then how do you hold any claim in the bible as valid and by what method did you use to get there?

Lastly the 4th question

Do you know what a true scottsman is? If not

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

How do you define a true Christian? The Westboro Baptist church follows the laws of hating gays, opposed to divorce, actively protesting to get death for adultery and atheism and other things you would horrible. Would they not be a better Christian then you? The amount of love they neighbor in the bible is marginal, small, slight, minute and the laws and requirements of killing people, slavery and death to the non-believers is far greater in number. So the bible seems to say, kill others more than love neighbors. So how do you think the biblical jesus would be anything other than a war hark, bigoted racist who thinks non-Europeans are anything but inferior and mixing of the races as bad?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 12:11:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Dear Sir.
Thank you for your response and letting me respond to your particular forum. I look forward to your response. I"m slightly curious as to a number of things, including why you have your particular point of view and how it would be opposed (if it is) to mine and why you believe what you believe in your post.

The first thing is Christ was a fictional character and there is no historical record of him that would meet any rational or reasonable burden of proof. Given the book is a work of fiction, how do you assume that christ would stand for a liberal point of view?
The second is your comment about redistribution of wealth.

Christ, whether he was a historical figure is immaterial. Christ is an archetype, and the gospel story is a motif.

The New Testament states to pay your taxes and render under to Caesar his dues. Do you think that jesus was thinks tax evasion is a sin? He disagreed with money lenders as well. Would you think he would get rid of banks?

The jesus of the Christian bible said give to Caesar that which is Caesar's, referring to a Roman coin.

He was, also, a Jew; and, Jews did not believe in charging interests on money.

It also in OT an NT that it"s acceptable to own slaver, how to manage them, how much you can beat them and even how to make a slave serve you for life. Again do you think that Jesus would support slavery as a politician as clearly ok in gods eyes?
AS per the bible, do you think jesus would agree that rape victims should be forced to marry there rapist as per the Bible. Or would he take the stance that the woman cannot get pregnant during rape like many conservative politicians said in the previous election cycle?

Again, I think you're missing the point, entirely; whether Jesus actually lived is irrelevant. Christ is called an archetype. To the Christian, he is a symbol of good. He is a revolt against the old order of things. He is not a continuation of the Jewish god, who was both good and evil; he is goodness, only, thusly, the need for the Devil.

The third question is about Jesus changing the law.
Matthew 5:17-19 " he points that has not come to change the law but to fulfil it. That the old laws, which I"m assuming you approve of like the 10 commandments, are actual dozens and dozens. So how do you say that the biblical jesus is opposed to jewish law and rebelled against the jewish laws when he specifically did so to prove a jewish prophacy? There is a large contradiction, when he claims to obey all the laws and he isn"t here to change them. If there is a contradiction between these things then how do you hold any claim in the bible as valid and by what method did you use to get there?
First of all, regardless of his intention to end the law or not, his actions clearly marked a revolt against some aspects of Judaism.

Secondly, I don't believe he fulfilled any Jewish prophecy and neither do Orthodox Jews.

Lastly, for me, the Bible is a book of myth. That's not to say there is no wisdom in the Bible or it's a book of lies, but I treat Christianity as any other religion or mythology. It is a reflection of the people who wrote it. If you get lost in the historicity of a myth, you've missed its message, completely. Its message is as old and as new as humanity, itself. Its characters are the inner workings of our collective psyche; they symbolize the hopes and fears of each of us. God is that unknown abyss of our collective unconsciousness.

Lastly the 4th question

Do you know what a true scottsman is? If not

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com......

How do you define a true Christian? The Westboro Baptist church follows the laws of hating gays, opposed to divorce, actively protesting to get death for adultery and atheism and other things you would horrible. Would they not be a better Christian then you? The amount of love they neighbor in the bible is marginal, small, slight, minute and the laws and requirements of killing people, slavery and death to the non-believers is far greater in number. So the bible seems to say, kill others more than love neighbors. So how do you think the biblical jesus would be anything other than a war hark, bigoted racist who thinks non-Europeans are anything but inferior and mixing of the races as bad?

Just as with any other group, Christianity is as diverse as its constituency.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 12:55:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 11:29:07 AM, s-anthony wrote:
If Christ were running for political office, conservatives would call him a bleeding-heart liberal because he told the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and feed the poor. If that doesn't sound like a redistribution of wealth, I don't know what does.

They would call him a blasphemer because he said the holy day, the day of rest, was appointed in service of the Jew, and not the Jew in service of it. That's equivalent to saying the Jew was lord of the Sabbath.

He not only allowed but also justified disobedience of Jewish law in saying it was alright to work on the Jewish day of rest.

He said the Jewish religion was wrong in saying retribution was ok. The Religious Right defines this as pacifism and says it is a sign of weakness.

He said a heathen was holier than Jewish men of God in saying the Samaritan was neighborly to the man who fell among theives. This would be like saying a pagan was holier than Christian ministers.

He sat and ate with people who betrayed and disobeyed their religion.

The Pharisees accused him of being a drunkard and a glutton.

According to the new testament he detested the church. He didn't prescribe to rituals and he advised people to pray in private. He did whatever he wanted to do on the Sabbath. I'm sure he'd be sickened by mega churches with their sports complexes and gift shops where you can by a trendy pair of cross earnings made in China.

I think he'd be crucified all over again if he was here today. Or assassinated.

I'm not sure whether he was really alive or a figment of someone's imagination but he was portrayed as a forward thinking, non-conformist, interested in spreading a philosophy of love and good will. We need people like that in the world.

Why did they build a religion called Christianity? Probably for control and money. Why else do people do anything?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 1:02:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 12:55:29 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/30/2014 11:29:07 AM, s-anthony wrote:
If Christ were running for political office, conservatives would call him a bleeding-heart liberal because he told the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and feed the poor. If that doesn't sound like a redistribution of wealth, I don't know what does.

They would call him a blasphemer because he said the holy day, the day of rest, was appointed in service of the Jew, and not the Jew in service of it. That's equivalent to saying the Jew was lord of the Sabbath.

He not only allowed but also justified disobedience of Jewish law in saying it was alright to work on the Jewish day of rest.

He said the Jewish religion was wrong in saying retribution was ok. The Religious Right defines this as pacifism and says it is a sign of weakness.

He said a heathen was holier than Jewish men of God in saying the Samaritan was neighborly to the man who fell among theives. This would be like saying a pagan was holier than Christian ministers.

He sat and ate with people who betrayed and disobeyed their religion.

The Pharisees accused him of being a drunkard and a glutton.

According to the new testament he detested the church.

There was no church when Jesus was living.


I'm not sure whether he was really alive or a figment of someone's imagination but he was portrayed as a forward thinking, non-conformist, interested in spreading a philosophy of love and good will.

He came primarily to establish His kingdom, an effect to which He repeatedly made reference.

Why did they build a religion called Christianity?

"They didn't." Jesus said, "Upon this rock, I will build my church ... "
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 1:09:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 1:02:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/31/2014 12:55:29 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/30/2014 11:29:07 AM, s-anthony wrote:
If Christ were running for political office, conservatives would call him a bleeding-heart liberal because he told the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and feed the poor. If that doesn't sound like a redistribution of wealth, I don't know what does.

They would call him a blasphemer because he said the holy day, the day of rest, was appointed in service of the Jew, and not the Jew in service of it. That's equivalent to saying the Jew was lord of the Sabbath.

He not only allowed but also justified disobedience of Jewish law in saying it was alright to work on the Jewish day of rest.

He said the Jewish religion was wrong in saying retribution was ok. The Religious Right defines this as pacifism and says it is a sign of weakness.

He said a heathen was holier than Jewish men of God in saying the Samaritan was neighborly to the man who fell among theives. This would be like saying a pagan was holier than Christian ministers.

He sat and ate with people who betrayed and disobeyed their religion.

The Pharisees accused him of being a drunkard and a glutton.

According to the new testament he detested the church.

There was no church when Jesus was living.


I'm not sure whether he was really alive or a figment of someone's imagination but he was portrayed as a forward thinking, non-conformist, interested in spreading a philosophy of love and good will.

He came primarily to establish His kingdom, an effect to which He repeatedly made reference.

Why did they build a religion called Christianity?

"They didn't." Jesus said, "Upon this rock, I will build my church ... "

Church, used in general terms. The organization. The temple.

What do you think he meant by the word kingdom?

What did he mean when he said that he would build a church upon a rock?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 1:12:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 1:09:43 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/31/2014 1:02:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/31/2014 12:55:29 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/30/2014 11:29:07 AM, s-anthony wrote:
If Christ were running for political office, conservatives would call him a bleeding-heart liberal because he told the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and feed the poor. If that doesn't sound like a redistribution of wealth, I don't know what does.

They would call him a blasphemer because he said the holy day, the day of rest, was appointed in service of the Jew, and not the Jew in service of it. That's equivalent to saying the Jew was lord of the Sabbath.

He not only allowed but also justified disobedience of Jewish law in saying it was alright to work on the Jewish day of rest.

He said the Jewish religion was wrong in saying retribution was ok. The Religious Right defines this as pacifism and says it is a sign of weakness.

He said a heathen was holier than Jewish men of God in saying the Samaritan was neighborly to the man who fell among theives. This would be like saying a pagan was holier than Christian ministers.

He sat and ate with people who betrayed and disobeyed their religion.

The Pharisees accused him of being a drunkard and a glutton.

According to the new testament he detested the church.

There was no church when Jesus was living.


I'm not sure whether he was really alive or a figment of someone's imagination but he was portrayed as a forward thinking, non-conformist, interested in spreading a philosophy of love and good will.

He came primarily to establish His kingdom, an effect to which He repeatedly made reference.

Why did they build a religion called Christianity?

"They didn't." Jesus said, "Upon this rock, I will build my church ... "

Church, used in general terms. The organization. The temple.

What do you think he meant by the word kingdom?

It means just that: kingdom, as in reign. It is the functional equivalent of the church of Christ.

What did he mean when he said that he would build a church upon a rock?

Upon the great, paramount truth that Peter had just stated.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 3:44:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 1:08:41 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The body of your post doesn't really follow the title you have given it. So...

To your title, I say that many men who have founded a movement were not themselves members of the movement-- Marx was not a Communist, Martin Luther was not a Protestant, and Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian.

To the body of your post, I agree and yes, the narrative of Christ is full of conflicting ideas, especially in the context of Judaism.

What is the point you are trying to make?

My point was many people call themselves Christians, meaning Christlike; but according to their own gospels, that's not the way Christ was.

Secondly, Christ may have technically been a Jew; but, it's also clear according to the Christian bible he rebelled against Judaism.

He didn't rebel against Judaism, strictly speaking. He rebelled against the traditions and commandments of men that had been piled on top of it. He did, however, live and die a Jew.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 4:39:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 1:09:43 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

What did he mean when he said that he would build a church upon a rock?

The gospels have him referencing Peter whose name derives from the Greek word "petra" meaning stone or rock. (Jesus gave him the name Cephas which means "stone" in Aramaic and the Greek equivalent is Petros). All very confusing given his original name was Simon, but think of it as Jesus saying "I name you rock and you will found my church". Of course Jesus, if he existed, said no such thing. This story and dialogue was concocted to provide the later Catholic Church with apostolic authority.
biznis_3
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 6:51:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 11:29:07 AM, s-anthony wrote:
If Christ were running for political office, conservatives would call him a bleeding-heart liberal because he told the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and feed the poor. If that doesn't sound like a redistribution of wealth, I don't know what does.

They would call him a blasphemer because he said the holy day, the day of rest, was appointed in service of the Jew, and not the Jew in service of it. That's equivalent to saying the Jew was lord of the Sabbath.

He not only allowed but also justified disobedience of Jewish law in saying it was alright to work on the Jewish day of rest.

He said the Jewish religion was wrong in saying retribution was ok. The Religious Right defines this as pacifism and says it is a sign of weakness.

He said a heathen was holier than Jewish men of God in saying the Samaritan was neighborly to the man who fell among theives. This would be like saying a pagan was holier than Christian ministers.

He sat and ate with people who betrayed and disobeyed their religion.

The Pharisees accused him of being a drunkard and a glutton.

Why would God tell someone to give away everything they owned? Did god need money? You ever think the devil might have tricked you? instead of God stealing people's money?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 8:22:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
He didn't rebel against Judaism, strictly speaking. He rebelled against the traditions and commandments of men that had been piled on top of it. He did, however, live and die a Jew.

"And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again." - Leviticus 24: 19 - 20

I'm sure Orthodox Jews would appreciate your calling resting on the Sabbath and a prescription of the law of retaliation from their bible only "...traditions and commandments of men...".
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 8:29:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 8:22:04 AM, s-anthony wrote:
He didn't rebel against Judaism, strictly speaking. He rebelled against the traditions and commandments of men that had been piled on top of it. He did, however, live and die a Jew.

"And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again." - Leviticus 24: 19 - 20

I'm sure Orthodox Jews would appreciate your calling resting on the Sabbath and a prescription of the law of retaliation from their bible only "...traditions and commandments of men...".

Just as they'd appreciate the fact that Jesus kept the Law at all points.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 8:42:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why would God tell someone to give away everything they owned? Did god need money? You ever think the devil might have tricked you? instead of God stealing people's money?

Sorry, but the reference I'm making is clearly out of the Christian bible:

"And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life...?" - Luke 18: 18

"Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me." - Luke 18: 22
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 8:45:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 8:29:37 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/31/2014 8:22:04 AM, s-anthony wrote:
He didn't rebel against Judaism, strictly speaking. He rebelled against the traditions and commandments of men that had been piled on top of it. He did, however, live and die a Jew.

"And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again." - Leviticus 24: 19 - 20

I'm sure Orthodox Jews would appreciate your calling resting on the Sabbath and a prescription of the law of retaliation from their bible only "...traditions and commandments of men...".

Just as they'd appreciate the fact that Jesus kept the Law at all points.

How is telling people to disregard the Law, keeping the Law?
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 8:48:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 8:45:46 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/31/2014 8:29:37 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/31/2014 8:22:04 AM, s-anthony wrote:
He didn't rebel against Judaism, strictly speaking. He rebelled against the traditions and commandments of men that had been piled on top of it. He did, however, live and die a Jew.

"And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again." - Leviticus 24: 19 - 20

I'm sure Orthodox Jews would appreciate your calling resting on the Sabbath and a prescription of the law of retaliation from their bible only "...traditions and commandments of men...".

Just as they'd appreciate the fact that Jesus kept the Law at all points.

How is telling people to disregard the Law, keeping the Law?

I didn't say He disregarded the Law, nor do I believe that the NT credits Him with saying such a thing.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 9:37:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 11:29:07 AM, s-anthony wrote:
If Christ were running for political office, conservatives would call him a bleeding-heart liberal because he told the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and feed the poor. If that doesn't sound like a redistribution of wealth, I don't know what does.

They would call him a blasphemer because he said the holy day, the day of rest, was appointed in service of the Jew, and not the Jew in service of it. That's equivalent to saying the Jew was lord of the Sabbath.

He not only allowed but also justified disobedience of Jewish law in saying it was alright to work on the Jewish day of rest.

He said the Jewish religion was wrong in saying retribution was ok. The Religious Right defines this as pacifism and says it is a sign of weakness.

He said a heathen was holier than Jewish men of God in saying the Samaritan was neighborly to the man who fell among theives. This would be like saying a pagan was holier than Christian ministers.

He sat and ate with people who betrayed and disobeyed their religion.

The Pharisees accused him of being a drunkard and a glutton.

No your wrong there, the people were about to claim and declare Him King of Israel and rightful heir which means "monarchy" in today"s terms. No association to liberalism or socialism there, is there? So yes He was affecting the political seen in Israel at that time. Which was the main motivation for the political powers at the time, to be rid of Him.

You have to give the statement that Jesus gave to the rich man and just what was it that the Lord was trying to get the rich man to see. There was and is no sin in riches and prosperity if that were so Abraham, Joseph, King David, wouldn"t have the relationship with the Lord their God that they did. It was the importance that the rich man put on his possessions that was the issue that Jesus was pointing to.

And the rest you"ve posted seems to be just stuff.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 11:10:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I didn't say He disregarded the Law, nor do I believe that the NT credits Him with saying such a thing.

The Christian gospels clearly teach Christ had reproach for some of the laws of Moses. I have given you two examples; of course, you can explain those passages away and say they were taken out of context or they were misinterpreted; but, the fact remains, if the Church had not seen Christ' giving justification to disregard the Jewish law, there would be no Church; Christianity doesn't follow the precepts of Judaism. Why...? Because, it believes Christ ended the Law. How can you say you honor the Law if you don't obey it?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 11:26:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
No your wrong there, the people were about to claim and declare Him King of Israel and rightful heir which means "monarchy" in today"s terms. No association to liberalism or socialism there, is there? So yes He was affecting the political seen in Israel at that time. Which was the main motivation for the political powers at the time, to be rid of Him.

You have to give the statement that Jesus gave to the rich man and just what was it that the Lord was trying to get the rich man to see. There was and is no sin in riches and prosperity if that were so Abraham, Joseph, King David, wouldn"t have the relationship with the Lord their God that they did. It was the importance that the rich man put on his possessions that was the issue that Jesus was pointing to.

I'm sorry. I see, now, Christ didn't really mean that. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Are there any other things Christ didn't really mean? I could use your twenty-first-century-libertarian eyes to show me how it is the Bible is really read.

And the rest you"ve posted seems to be just stuff.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 11:41:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 4:39:26 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/31/2014 1:09:43 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

What did he mean when he said that he would build a church upon a rock?

The gospels have him referencing Peter whose name derives from the Greek word "petra" meaning stone or rock. (Jesus gave him the name Cephas which means "stone" in Aramaic and the Greek equivalent is Petros). All very confusing given his original name was Simon, but think of it as Jesus saying "I name you rock and you will found my church". Of course Jesus, if he existed, said no such thing. This story and dialogue was concocted to provide the later Catholic Church with apostolic authority.

I knew what she was referring to. I was just curious how she would answer.

I agree with you in regards to the Catholic church concocting stories to gain authority. Would you like to purchase some indulgences? ;)
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 12:03:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 11:26:04 AM, s-anthony wrote:
No your wrong there, the people were about to claim and declare Him King of Israel and rightful heir which means "monarchy" in today"s terms. No association to liberalism or socialism there, is there? So yes He was affecting the political seen in Israel at that time. Which was the main motivation for the political powers at the time, to be rid of Him.

You have to give the statement that Jesus gave to the rich man and just what was it that the Lord was trying to get the rich man to see. There was and is no sin in riches and prosperity if that were so Abraham, Joseph, King David, wouldn"t have the relationship with the Lord their God that they did. It was the importance that the rich man put on his possessions that was the issue that Jesus was pointing to.

I'm sorry. I see, now, Christ didn't really mean that. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Are there any other things Christ didn't really mean? I could use your twenty-first-century-libertarian eyes to show me how it is the Bible is really read.

And the rest you"ve posted seems to be just stuff.

In world political terms, Jesus Christ isn"t a liberal, or conservative. That"s an American thing. To get right down to it, the Kingdom of God is more of a tyranny. If you"re not in agreement with God through His Son who is King in the Kingdom of God, you"re out, as a matter fact never let in. So man"s governmental systems are convenient for those who live it, but even if you read what its like for the rest of the world after Jesus returns in the book of Revelations, a nation"s failure to pay homage to the King in Jerusalem will not be tolerated.

I don't have "I could use your twenty-first-century-libertarian eyes " where did you get that idea? You're not one of those who think because they are correct about what they think then they believe they must be correct? Because what they don't know is, what they think is incorrect.
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 12:49:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 11:29:07 AM, s-anthony wrote:
If Christ were running for political office, conservatives would call him a bleeding-heart liberal because he told the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and feed the poor. If that doesn't sound like a redistribution of wealth, I don't know what does.

You are correct here. But Jesus Himself said that the world would not like Him. No surprise to real Christians. But Christian and conservative aren't synonymous no matter what your culture tells you.

They would call him a blasphemer because he said the holy day, the day of rest, was appointed in service of the Jew, and not the Jew in service of it. That's equivalent to saying the Jew was lord of the Sabbath.

He said even more than that. He said the LAW was in service to man, not the other way around.

He not only allowed but also justified disobedience of Jewish law in saying it was alright to work on the Jewish day of rest.

This is not quite true. He said certain actions thought of as violations of the law were not actually violations. So He did not justify disobedience of the law.

He said the Jewish religion was wrong in saying retribution was ok. The Religious Right defines this as pacifism and says it is a sign of weakness.

This is again, not quite true. He did not contradict the concept of retribution. He said retribution was the purview if God only, something echoed in the OT.

He said a heathen was holier than Jewish men of God in saying the Samaritan was neighborly to the man who fell among theives. This would be like saying a pagan was holier than Christian ministers.

Again untrue. He said the actions of the Samaritan was commendable as compared to the Jewish "men of God." But yes, a Christian minister who behaves unkindly is not being the way Jesus commands him to be. And a pagan behaving kindly would be better in that particular case.

He sat and ate with people who betrayed and disobeyed their religion.

The Pharisees accused him of being a drunkard and a glutton.

True. But i fail to see how any of this supports your topic title.
NathanDuclos
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 12:52:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 11:26:04 AM, s-anthony wrote:
No your wrong there, the people were about to claim and declare Him King of Israel and rightful heir which means "monarchy" in today"s terms. No association to liberalism or socialism there, is there? So yes He was affecting the political seen in Israel at that time. Which was the main motivation for the political powers at the time, to be rid of Him.

You have to give the statement that Jesus gave to the rich man and just what was it that the Lord was trying to get the rich man to see. There was and is no sin in riches and prosperity if that were so Abraham, Joseph, King David, wouldn"t have the relationship with the Lord their God that they did. It was the importance that the rich man put on his possessions that was the issue that Jesus was pointing to.

I'm sorry. I see, now, Christ didn't really mean that. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Are there any other things Christ didn't really mean? I could use your twenty-first-century-libertarian eyes to show me how it is the Bible is really read.

And the rest you"ve posted seems to be just stuff.

Misquoting Jesus is a book on how the bible changed and why it changed and for whom. The author is very intersting and presents it in a very easy to understand format.

If you look through my last few debates there is one on Simon (?). . . if you go through the links it list a number of bible scholars who are proffesional and experts in there field and there is a wealth of information that shows the bible is not only fictional, but jesus was not a real person and where many of the stories come from, try mithrus, Gilgames, pandora's box . . . a simple look through was jesus real and morality in debate.org will have a wealth of information . . .

As to the other part of you question, try googling any debate with Christepher Hitchens on debate. or ATheist experince episode 889 2014-10-26 with caller time from lansing. Why the bible is not a source of moral teaching and majorit of the lawss are not.

As for why if he was real or not, the bible is a source of evil. Though breaking godwins laws, the nazi's and holocost was justified and inspired by the bible, 911 was based in belief in a holy book, slavery in USA was entirely justified by the bible and used, quoted and held to support slavery (as per numerous passages). . . it goes on and on an on, even if jesus was an archetype (which he is not or your not using the word as defined) people use his actions, quotes and the book he's in to commit attrocities.

AS for moral, if you want a laugh.

http://www.youtube.com...

I'll explain in another way . . . If 1 in 20 non-smokers get cancer, and 1 in 5 pot smokers get cancer but 1 in 2 smokers get cancer, you and I would agree that smoking is bad, be it pot or cigarettes. That is religious belief. Every study shows a degree of criminality, peodophila, hatred, bigotry, abuse, everything that is ethically unsound is found in greater numbers of people who believe then people who are irrilegious. The higher degree of religious fundementalism the greater amount of crime and unethical belief and behavior. The better way in life is not through not smoking and athiesm, and to avoid the mental cancer taht comes with belief. It may be you never catch cancer but the odds are never in your favor. . .
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 12:57:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In world political terms, Jesus Christ isn"t a liberal, or conservative. That"s an American thing. To get right down to it, the Kingdom of God is more of a tyranny. If you"re not in agreement with God through His Son who is King in the Kingdom of God, you"re out, as a matter fact never let in. So man"s governmental systems are convenient for those who live it, but even if you read what its like for the rest of the world after Jesus returns in the book of Revelations, a nation"s failure to pay homage to the King in Jerusalem will not be tolerated.

I don't have "I could use your twenty-first-century-libertarian eyes " where did you get that idea? You're not one of those who think because they are correct about what they think then they believe they must be correct? Because what they don't know is, what they think is incorrect.

No. All I did was quote from two passages of the Christian bible. I did not add anything to it like you did, by saying Christ did not really mean that. I have no idea as to the meaning of the words attributed to a man called Jesus (if in fact such a man really lived.) The only meaning I can give to those words is the meaning I have to give, and telling someone to sell everything he owns and give the money to the poor sounds to me like telling someone to sell everything he owns and give the money to the poor. However, you came along and said he didn't really mean that. He was only trying to teach the man a lesson. That sounds to me, you're reading into that passage something in which there isn't.
12_13
Posts: 1,365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 3:18:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 11:29:07 AM, s-anthony wrote:
He not only allowed but also justified disobedience of Jewish law in saying it was alright to work on the Jewish day of rest.

Jesus didn"t say it is ok, to work on Shabbat. He told it is allowed to do good even in Shabbat.

Then Jesus said to them, "I will ask you something: Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good, or to do harm? To save a life, or to kill?"
Luke 6:9

This OT text gives right to do good every day.

This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things which must happen soon, which he sent and made known by his angel to his servant, John,
Exodes 23:5

But I understand that for evil people it is disgusting, if someone does good thing.

He said a heathen was holier than Jewish men of God in saying the Samaritan was neighborly to the man who fell among theives. This would be like saying a pagan was holier than Christian ministers.

If Christian minister is hypocrite and evil, it is correct say, if pagan is better.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 10:05:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 3:18:04 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 10/30/2014 11:29:07 AM, s-anthony wrote:
He not only allowed but also justified disobedience of Jewish law in saying it was alright to work on the Jewish day of rest.

Jesus didn"t say it is ok, to work on Shabbat. He told it is allowed to do good even in Shabbat.

Then Jesus said to them, "I will ask you something: Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good, or to do harm? To save a life, or to kill?"
Luke 6:9

This OT text gives right to do good every day.

This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things which must happen soon, which he sent and made known by his angel to his servant, John,
Exodes 23:5
That is NOT Exodus 23:5
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 10:41:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 11:29:07 AM, s-anthony wrote:
If Christ were running for political office, conservatives would call him a bleeding-heart liberal because he told the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and feed the poor. If that doesn't sound like a redistribution of wealth, I don't know what does.

They would call him a blasphemer because he said the holy day, the day of rest, was appointed in service of the Jew, and not the Jew in service of it. That's equivalent to saying the Jew was lord of the Sabbath.

He not only allowed but also justified disobedience of Jewish law in saying it was alright to work on the Jewish day of rest.

He said the Jewish religion was wrong in saying retribution was ok. The Religious Right defines this as pacifism and says it is a sign of weakness.

He said a heathen was holier than Jewish men of God in saying the Samaritan was neighborly to the man who fell among theives. This would be like saying a pagan was holier than Christian ministers.

He sat and ate with people who betrayed and disobeyed their religion.

The Pharisees accused him of being a drunkard and a glutton.

Christ is a symbolic name meaning the invisible mind of our Creator where we all exist. Jesus is the name of the flesh called a saint that God used to testify to Christ where the knowledge of God teaches us the past, present and future and also how we were created within His mind.

We saints are only here to testify to the knowledge of God ( Christ ) and we're killed because of our testimonies by the jealous antichrists ( religious Jews and Christians ).

Psalm 116
16. Precious in the sight of thy Lord is the death of his saints.

Revelation 6
9: When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne;

Revelation 20
4: Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom judgment was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life, and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Revelation 18
20: Rejoice over her, O heaven, O saints and apostles and prophets, for God has given judgment for you against her!"
21: Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, "So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence, and shall be found no more;
22: and the sound of harpers and minstrels, of flute players and trumpeters, shall be heard in thee no more; and a craftsman of any craft shall be found in thee no more; and the sound of the millstone shall be heard in thee no more;
23: and the light of a lamp shall shine in thee no more; and the voice of bridegroom and bride shall be heard in thee no more; for thy merchants were the great men of the earth, and all nations were deceived by thy sorcery.
24: And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on earth."
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 11:27:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You are correct here. But Jesus Himself said that the world would not like Him. No surprise to real Christians. But Christian and conservative aren't synonymous no matter what your culture tells you.

He said even more than that. He said the LAW was in service to man, not the other way around.

He not only allowed but also justified disobedience of Jewish law in saying it was alright to work on the Jewish day of rest.

This is not quite true. He said certain actions thought of as violations of the law were not actually violations. So He did not justify disobedience of the law.

"Then said the Lord unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no. And it shall come to pass, that on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily." - Exodus 16: 4 & 5

The Jews were not even allowed to gather manna on the Sabbath. This amounted to merely going out to pick up something that had no need of harvesting, processing, or preparation. However, the grains of wheat the disciples plucked had to be shucked and ground before they could be eaten. I know this was all done by hand and on a very small scale; but, it was more labor intensive than merely picking up manna.

This is again, not quite true. He did not contradict the concept of retribution. He said retribution was the purview if God only, something echoed in the OT.

"And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again." - Leviticus 24: 19 - 20

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." - Matthew 5: 38 & 39

How is that not a contradiction? The Jewish bible not only permits retaliation, it commands it; and, Christ says it's wrong.

Again untrue. He said the actions of the Samaritan was commendable as compared to the Jewish "men of God." But yes, a Christian minister who behaves unkindly is not being the way Jesus commands him to be. And a pagan behaving kindly would be better in that particular case.

He sat and ate with people who betrayed and disobeyed their religion.

The Pharisees accused him of being a drunkard and a glutton.

True. But i fail to see how any of this supports your topic title.