Violent Jesus

a reply to: KaelemJames

Please, tell me - Where is Jesus responsible for any deaths?

The Lake of Fire.
Jesus predicted, according to the synoptic gospels, the Abomination of Desolation.
I realize there is a common Christian interpretation that dilutes the meaning of the phrase, the "desolation" part.
There was in fact a very real and literal desolation of Jerusalem that happened about 35 years after Jesus would have made that prediction, which was at the hands of the Romans under the command of Titus in 70 AD.
Was this a sort of "payback" for the crucifixion of Jesus by that same city?
Was the "son of man" a title for Jesus as the grand judge?
Well, it happened, and there is an undeniable connection, at least according to the New Testament, which is where we get our knowledge of Jesus from in the first place.

a reply to: jmdewey60

The Lake of Fire is only mentioned in The a Book of Revelation. Surely, those who rejected Christ will have the lake of fire as their final destination. End times. I still don't see where Jesus is responsible for the many wars that has happened since after His death.

He tells us what will happen if we don't choose to come to our Father through Him.

Hell, IMO, is not fire. It is living without God Almighty forever.

Once you felt that AWESOME Presence, it is That which you desire. One knows The beauty. The peace. I cannot live without that which I have experienced. And what I experienced is NOTHING what is awaiting His children.

To live Without God is worse than any eternal fire.

a reply to: KaelemJames

End times.

The End times already happened.
A lot of people died.
Then the new age started, the one we live in now.
There is no "next" age.
It was "future" at one point, when Revelation was written.
What was their future is now our past.

a reply to: Akragon


'Well for your consideration then...

IF you see demons, you might have more problems then you realise...'

I see them and cast them out. It seems more like training, and understanding. In those moments, my God seems to glow much brighter and increases my boldness.

' IF demons exist, they fear me... and do not show themselves...'

You do not recognize them. You think they fear you? No one is truly feared but God. Most especially demons.

' Possible result of your trinity? '

Not my Trinity, THE Trinity. If you knew of the power of the Holy Spirit you would be able to discern, but you have thrown away the gifts of God by rejecting the Holy Spirit. You are therefore unarmed spiritually. You fail to recognize the spiritual battle I speak of.

' Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble'



Thou quote from a book other than the Gospels? Forgive me if I am being curious, but do you not reject what is not called the Gospel? I see the Gospel in every life that has Jesus in it, for truly He works through it. St. Peter, St. James, St. John, St. Paul and many others were anointed by the Holy Spirit to do Christ's works.

St. Paul did a very large amount of miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit, they have not been written for human reasons but for God's reasons.

You should repent and understand because you have truly been living a life that is not in the grace of God.

a reply to: backcase

Perhaps I should explain a few things just to clarify....

No one is truly feared but God. Most especially demons.

I do not fear God...

Not my Trinity, THE Trinity. If you knew of the power of the Holy Spirit you would be able to discern, but you have thrown away the gifts of God by rejecting the Holy Spirit.

First there is no trinity... at least not the one that the church believes in... Its a fabrication of the early church fathers....

Second I don't reject "the holy spirit"... I see it differently then you, or most Christians... Its something that is a part of every living being in creation... Not just Christians have it... in this you have been deceived...

You are therefore unarmed spiritually. You fail to recognize the spiritual battle I speak of.

Again, speaking as if you know me... Don't assume that which you do not know....

Thou quote from a book other than the Gospels?

I do that quite frequently actually... but I usually only use the gospels when dealing with Christians because the four books convict those who do not understand them... especially Christians...

Forgive me if I am being curious, but do you not reject what is not called the Gospel?

You are forgiven... always...

And no I do not reject that which is not called gospel... I reject the OT as the word of God...

I see the Gospel in every life that has Jesus in it, for truly He works through it. St. Peter, St. James, St. John, St. Paul and many others were anointed by the Holy Spirit to do Christ's works.

And you are free to do so... I personally see "gospel" as the four books... because they contain the words of the only man who actually knew God...

St. Paul did a very large amount of miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit, they have not been written for human reasons but for God's reasons.

He also destroyed the lives of many Christians and their families when he lived.... but I suppose he was forgiven for his sins.... regardless I do not trust his writing

You should repent and understand because you have truly been living a life that is not in the grace of God.

And for the second time in this reply... do not assume you know anything about me...

a reply to: Akragon

First there is no trinity... at least not the one that the church believes in... Its a fabrication of the early church fathers....

The current "orthodox" version was not by the early church fathers, but by Athanasius (296-373), Bishop of Alexandria (for 45 years, starting as a relatively young man for that type of position), who got the job by sucking up to the old bishop, then getting political support to take over the role upon his predecessor's death, even though he was not qualified, only serving basically as an assistant.
Once in power he used all his influence to force people to adopt his own personal religion or die.
A very pathologically ambitious person who rightfully never should have been allowed to grasp the advancements that he appropriated for himself.

a reply to: jmdewey60

Still the same idea really... the point being... there wasn't a trinity taught by any of the apostles or Jesus...

Even Paul didn't have any idea of a trinity...

Pure fabrication nothing more

a reply to: Akragon

Still the same idea really... the point being... there wasn't a trinity taught by any of the apostles or Jesus...

There obviously was, if you go by the gospels, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
There just wasn't the same sort of formulaic version like what Athanasius came up with, which actually rejected, in the most direct sort of way, the very words of Jesus.

Even Paul didn't have any idea of a trinity...

Paul said that there is no intermediary between God and Man, meaning that Jesus was both, and could act on behalf of either one.

a reply to: jmdewey60

Theres only one passage where Jesus uses the formula Father, son, and spirit....

And that passage was altered sometime within the following few hundred years...

We know this because other early Christian writers used the same passage... and it does not say "Baptise in the name of the Father, son, and spirit"... It says baptise "in my name"

One of the many passages that were altered or added in the early few centuries to support said trinity

a reply to: Akragon

And that passage was altered sometime within the following few hundred years...

According to the SBL version of the New Testament text, it belongs in there.
All the modern translations have it in there.

You seem to be holding to the minority opinion concerning this question.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: Akragon

And that passage was altered sometime within the following few hundred years...

According to the SBL version of the New Testament text, it belongs in there.

All the modern translations have it in there.

You seem to be holding to the minority opinion concerning this question.

Well I have the minority opinion on a lot of things... im good with that... I never follow the crowd

Of course earlier versions of the bible have the passage... even the oldest version of the bible has it...

that is beside the point... Before Nicea, when they had a better copy of Matthew which was likely in the library of Caesarea... the verse was not in those copies...

Eusebius uses that verse several times... quoting directly from Matthew and it is not the same as it is now...

Demonstratio Evangelica (The Proof of the Gospel)
Book III, Chapter 6,

What sorcerer has ever thought of establishing laws against idolatry in direct opposition to the decrees of kings, |152 ancient legislators, poets, philosophers, and theologians, and of giving them power, and of promulgating them so that they should last on unconquered and invincible for long ages? But our Lord and Saviour did not conceive and not dare to attempt, neither did he attempt and not succeed.

(132) With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," [[Matt. xxviii. 19.]] and He joined the effect to His Word; and in a little while every race of the Greeks and Barbarians was being brought into discipleship,


Obviously his books were written before Nicaea... Because he was accused of being an Arian... and almost excommunicated because of it....

And we both know what became of the Arius.... and his followers

Don't we...

a reply to: Akragon

Eusebius uses that verse several times... quoting directly from Matthew and it is not the same as it is now...

It's not a direct quote since it leaves out the question of baptism altogether.
Eusebius was making another point, not connected entirely with everything in that particular text.
It doesn't seem to be a convincing argument to me.
It was popular with biblical scholars in the early twentieth century to try to figure out what verses don't belong in the Bible, but it has been trending away from that direction for a long time and that sort of thinking is considered rather quaint today and that kind of activity as more counterproductive.
The normal approach now is to consider the text as a cohesive unit, however it got that way, and to deal with it as we find it.
Of course non academic types are free to do all sorts of things where there really isn't any negative repercussions for making odd claims, other than maybe loosing listenership.

a reply to: jmdewey60

Its most definitely a direct quote because not only does he use it in several spots in his books... but you may have noticed that the verse in matthew 28 was actually never followed by the disciples...

IF it was a command from Jesus (which is obviously wasn't) Paul and the others would have been baptising in the name of the Father, son, and holy spirit... but that is absent from the NT aside from the johannine comma, which was another addition to the texts from a zealous Trinitarian scribe...

Paul never uses the formula he and the others were "commanded" to use.... Neither do the others...

Personally I find it a completely convincing argument considering the fact that there is no trinity teaching anywhere in the NT... which is factually recognised by many scholars

a reply to: Akragon

... but you may have noticed that the verse in matthew 28 was actually never followed by the disciples...

How would you know if they did or not?
From the Book of Acts?
I would not trust that book for basing theology on.

Paul never uses the formula . . .

Paul didn't do that much baptizing himself personally.
He probably had associates do that, and he would have given them verbal instructions that did not make it into writing, unless it is in Matthew itself.

Personally I find it a completely convincing argument considering the fact that there is no trinity teaching anywhere in the NT... which is factually recognised by many scholars

Like I said earlier, it wasn't an issue, until later, with Athanasius, who had his own ideas that he wanted to force on the world.
Jesus was saying "father, son, and ghost" as a way to define the kingdom that the believers were entering into, and since it was a spiritual kingdom, of course the Holy Spirit enters into the equation.

a reply to: jmdewey60

Well we could look to acts if you wish... I don't base anything on that particular book...

IF they did baptise using that formula it would have been recorded somewhere...

but the fact remains... there is nothing of the trinity within the New Testament...

Jesus didn't say baptise in the name of the Father son and holy spirit, in fact he didn't say anything about said formula either... He had a God, which was not himself... T'was his Father... Whom he called "my God, and your God"...

He followed what Judaism followed to some extent, which did not include a triune God... he even quoted the shema

IF there is a trinity, Its not three equal parts because Jesus said specifically in three verses in John... God is greater then himself... Said trinity wasn't recognised by anyone close to Jesus in his time... Or even a few hundred years after his death...

and Like I said.... Trinitarian teaching is all but absent from the New Testament... the word trinity isn't there, nor is any Trinitarian teaching aside from pieces that were added after the fact...

and the silly convoluted way the trinity is attempted to be explained by so many Christians really backs up what I've been saying...

a reply to: Akragon

IF they did baptise using that formula it would have been recorded somewhere...

Why, since hardly anything else was?
Of course you might say "Acts" but that was not "recording", even if it was written as a journal, it wasn't and was written a hundred years after the fact by an anonymous person.

but the fact remains... there is nothing of the trinity within the New Testament...

The trinity concept is built into the New Testament, so the Matthew 28:19 formula is just a summary in a condensed form of what is in there already.

What you do not find in the NT is the doctrine made up by Athanasius.

Jesus didn't say baptise in the name of the Father son and holy spirit, in fact he didn't say anything about said formula either... He had a God, which was not himself... T'was his Father... Whom he called "my God, and your God"...

Yes he does, in Matthew 28:19.
What are you talking about, the Bible version that only exists in your own mind?

He followed what Judaism followed to some extent, which did not include a triune God... he even quoted the shema

There was no "Judaism" back then.
What you had was the temple cult.
That was, if you want to be an Israelite, you follow Moses, including making offerings.
What we call Judaism today did not exist in Jesus' day.
The Shema says that all those gods are one.
The same thing that the Trinity says.

IF there is a trinity, Its not three equal parts because Jesus said specifically in three verses in John... God is greater then himself... Said trinity wasn't recognised by anyone close to Jesus in his time... Or even a few hundred years after his death...

They are all essential, so they have equal importance to the whole.

and Like I said.... Trinitarian teaching is all but absent from the New Testament... the word trinity isn't there, nor is any Trinitarian teaching aside from pieces that were added after the fact...

No, the word, trinity, is not in the Bible.
There is a verse in the OT that says three strands makes a stronger rope.
Ecclesiastes 4:12b
A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.
(2011 NIV)

a reply to: jmdewey60

Why, since hardly anything else was?

The idea that hardly anything was recorded leaves the door open for doctrine of any sort to be added...

Of course you might say "Acts" but that was not "recording", even if it was written as a journal, it wasn't and was written a hundred years after the fact by an anonymous person.


Well that really means nothing considering all the gospels were assumed authors as well

The trinity concept is built into the New Testament, so the Matthew 28:19 formula is just a summary in a condensed form of what is in there already.

No it wasn't... there is no trinity concept in the new testament... None of them knew of or recognised a triune God... It was always ONE God... Not three in one, or three parts of one God... or the various other descriptions of said trinity... All of these concepts were thought up much later... Personally I think the only reason they made Jesus God is because they didn't want to admit to the fact that he was executed for blasphemy according to the religious law at the time

and Matthew 28:19 couldn't be a summery of a trinity since that wasn't how the passage originally was written... as I've said it was altered to show evidence of a trinity... which is the exact same thing as 1 john 5:7... Two passages, neither of which were original... altered to show the same thing which no one heard of until just before Nicaea

Yes he does, in Matthew 28:19.
What are you talking about, the Bible version that only exists in your own mind?


Actually what im talking about is a piece of writing that existed before any bible did... A piece that Eusebius quoted likely from a text that no longer exists, but did in that time... and was a closer copy of the original document then anything we have today... and said formula wasn't in it...

There was no "Judaism" back then.
What you had was the temple cult.
That was, if you want to be an Israelite, you follow Moses, including making offerings.
What we call Judaism today did not exist in Jesus' day.

Fair enough...

The Shema says that all those gods are one.
The same thing that the Trinity says.

No... because the OT doesn't recognise any sort of trinity either... except when Christians start digging around trying to find anything that relates to a three in one God in those books... and every one of those instances are extremely weak to say the least...

There was one God before Jesus... and When HE finally arrived on the scene, he said the same thing.... ONE God, not three in one... not three parts of one... Just one, The Father...

And of course there are other "gods"... one of which includes the so called OT god... but that is not the point of this discussion...

They are all essential, so they have equal importance to the whole.

Perhaps... Im not denying that... Im saying a trinity wasn't taught anywhere in the bible, aside from a few passages that were altered later on... the trinity is considered a "revealed" doctrine... but it wasn't revealed by anyone close to Jesus...

We know for a fact that scribes altered these documents... the earliest copies of the NT are almost all different... none of them are identical

Theres a lecture on that fact on youtube somewhere by Bart Ehrman... and no one denies it either... All biblical scholars know this...

No, the word, trinity, is not in the Bible.
There is a verse in the OT that says three strands makes a stronger rope.
Ecclesiastes 4:12b
A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.
(2011 NIV)

This is what I was saying earlier... Its almost if Christianity has been going through every word of the bible trying to find anything that remotely relates to a triune God... soon as they do they "graft" it to their own personal theology

that hardly proves God is three in one... that's just a simple fact...

its like saying two heads are better then one, but it doesn't mean theres two Gods... or that hes two headed... LOL

a reply to: Akragon

The idea that hardly anything was recorded leaves the door open for doctrine of any sort to be added...

That is a really weird comment.
It's a little late now to give the Apostles instructions on what to write about.

Well that really means nothing considering all the gospels were assumed authors as well

But at least they were written in living memory of the persons involved, where Acts wasn't.

No it wasn't... there is no trinity concept in the new testament... None of them knew of or recognised a triune God... It was always ONE God... Not three in one, or three parts of one God... or the various other descriptions of said trinity...

What does it mean to be sitting on the right hand of God, or on the throne with God?
People don't sit on God's throne unless they are somehow god themselves.
And the Son of God, one isn't the son of God without also being somehow god.
Jesus was called "Lord", the same as God was called in the Old Testament (Septuagint), the "name above all names", as Paul puts it in Philippians.
Jesus spoke of "the advocate" which would have been the third person of the godhead.
"One God" is not the point but that all the ways of understanding the living god falls under a single title.

Personally I think the only reason they made Jesus God is because they didn't want to admit to the fact that he was executed for blasphemy according to the religious law at the time

It's just a matter of how you define "god".
Jesus was made god as the Lord, early on, with the writing of the earliest gospel.

and Matthew 28:19 couldn't be a summery of a trinity since that wasn't how the passage originally was written... as I've said it was altered to show evidence of a trinity... which is the exact same thing as 1 john 5:7... Two passages, neither of which were original... altered to show the same thing which no one heard of until just before Nicaea

You say that, for whatever reason, but you are not offering any evidence to support these claims.
The earliest known manuscripts have the standard version as we have today, which I posted earlier as an image from the text.

Didache (a.d. 60-150) chapter 7.1-4
". . . and then baptize in running water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

First Apology by Justin Martyr (a.d. 155) chapter 61
". . . they then receive washing in water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit."

Against Heresies by Irenaeus (a.d. 180) book 3 chapter 17.1
". . . And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, he said to them, ‘Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ . . ."

On Baptism by Tertullian (a.d. 198) chapter 13
". . . ‘Go,’ He saith, ‘teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ . . ."

The Apostolic Tradition by Hippolytus (a.d. 200-235) chapter 21.12-18
". . . Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty? . . ."
". . . Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God . . ."
". . . Do you believe in holy spirit . . ."
". . . He who is being baptized shall say accordingly: I believe, and so he is baptized . . ."

Epistle to Magnus by Cyprian (a.d. 250) chapter 7
". . . knows the same God and Father, the same Christ the Son, the same Holy Spirit, and that for this reason he may claim the power of baptizing . . ."

Actually what im talking about is a piece of writing that existed before any bible did... A piece that Eusebius quoted likely from a text that no longer exists, but did in that time... and was a closer copy of the original document then anything we have today... and said formula wasn't in it...

Where are you getting this from?
It looks like pure conjecture, to explain why he Left out the baptism part.
It is someone guessing.

No... because the OT doesn't recognise any sort of trinity either... except when Christians start digging around trying to find anything that relates to a three in one God in those books... and every one of those instances are extremely weak to say the least...

"Those books", as you put it, were old in the time of Jesus with the possible exception of Esther.
Judaism did not restrict itself, back then, to just the canon, just like how the Christians didn't either.
What the people believed in was a lot of apocalyptic literature that did recognize a personality of the Holy Spirit, and a son of God.

There was one God before Jesus... and When HE finally arrived on the scene, he said the same thing.... ONE God, not three in one... not three parts of one... Just one, The Father...

You lost me here.
What "God" are you talking about?

Perhaps... Im not denying that... Im saying a trinity wasn't taught anywhere in the bible, aside from a few passages that were altered later on... the trinity is considered a "revealed" doctrine... but it wasn't revealed by anyone close to Jesus...

You have walked off the edge of the cliff and have nowhere to stand.

a reply to: jmdewey60

Lets take a different approach to this...

As I've said previously there are only Two passages in the entire New testament that use this Trinitarian formula... One of which is a well known addition so we'll focus on Matthew 28 as we've been doing thus far...

Of course we could use acts, but you've already eliminated that for me so theres no need to bother with it...

Without the use of 1 John 5:7 and Acts, we're left with one "proof text" of the trinity in the New testament...

So the evidence of a triune God is severely lacking to say the least... Now what is the evidence of the "original" version of Matthew in the New testament?

In My Name Vs Father, Son, Spirit

Matthew 18:5
And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

Matthew 18:20
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Matthew 24:5
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Mark 9:37
Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

Mark 9:39
But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

Mark 9:41
For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

Mark 13:6
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Mark 16:17
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Luke 9:48
And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.

Luke 21:8
And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

John 14:13
And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

John 14:14
If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:16
Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

And these examples of this idea of using "his name" is reiterated throughout Pauls writing as well...

You're quite familiar with his work so Im sure you know exactly what im talking about... but with all this evidence on the one side, the Trinitarian formula is left with two... three if you want to include the stoning of steven in Acts, which we've eliminated anyways....

Now if we consider what you've said before, that being... Matthew 28 is referring to baptism... and the method of...

Paul says this...

1 Corinthians 1:13
Now was the Messiah divided? Or was Paul crucified for you? Or were you immersed in the name of Paul?

Thus we can surmise that baptism is to be done in the name of the messiah

Keep in mind "the Father, Son, and spirit" are all titles... not names

We can further this point with Paul, by looking at Galatians...

Galations 3
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

No mention of Said titles of the triune Formula... Only his name...

And I've actually read that the Didache was the first known source of this "error"... and as far as I know there are other issues with that particular text as well... which is why its considered "Pseudo-Christian"

So again, the evidence that Eusebius had the correct version of the text is overwhelming considering the internal evidence of "in his name" that is used through out the New Testament... And yet said trinity is not found anywhere aside from the passages that were altered at a later time... Or from Christians piecing together parts of texts here and there to come up with the equation