Some serious theological problems with the Christian religion

a reply to: NOTurTypical

YEAH and OBAMA is in Iraq too....with a coalition.
WE LIKE coalitions...

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Slightly different. This is a revived Turkish caliphate.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Where are these important?

because people are killing and dying and fighting over a fraud.

been away for the weekend. sorry you had to wait that long for your answer

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Where are these important?
i'm assuming you meant why are these important and not where right?

a reply to: TzarChasm
The section that starts with "A VITAL ISSUE IS RAISED" explains why God couldn't put Satan down right away. God is not a cruel unreasonable dictator and tyrant that is going to put someone down for speaking out against him right away without giving them a chance to prove their point (and demonstrate to everyone that they're wrong when they fail to do so).

Is the student more qualified than the teacher?

Not that your state of mind allows you to contemplate these things about characters you believe don't even exist.

a reply to: flyingfish
Your comment might be more convincing if you got some of the details right. Then again... (knowing the sources and amongst which circles your view of Satan is popularized nowadays...Roman Catholicism, Judaism, New Age philosophy, etc.)

"Satan" means "resister". "Devil" means "slanderer" (or accuser, in the sense of making false accusations).

Throughout the Scriptures the qualities and actions attributed to him could be attributed only to a person, not to an abstract principle of evil. It is clear that the Jews, and Jesus and his disciples, knew that Satan existed as a person.

Source: Satan: Insight, Volume 2

There's plenty of evidence available from which a person could conclude that Satan really exists (as a person). However, it's a question of being able to process it logically and reasonably without your conditioned views of reality and how to apply logic. Clear your mind Morpheus would say (and then you still fall when doubt creeps in ). A nice clue is the source of your views about Satan and what it supposedly means (if they can't even get the meaning of the word right...it's not a reliable source). That same source (or similar sources) can't get the meaning of "faith/belief" right either (conflating it with blind faith/belief).

a reply to: NOTurTypical
The terms "man of lawlessness" or "the antichrist" are not used in Revelation chapter 17 (I guess that's why you didn't quote anything in support of your comment about it).

And the book of Revelation is mostly symbolic, perhaps you could consider whether that may be so for the word "city" used in Revelation 17:18 as well, the last verse after all the other clues regarding the identity of Babylon the Great and the beast she's riding have already been given in the chapter (where I also see no mention of the Red Sea, but you hardly ever specify where you get something from anyway so I'm not going to try to find what you are referring to). Ah I see (via google from a website promoting your interpretations or similar ones), you're probably conflating the real city of Babylon and ancient Babylonian territories or surrounding tribes (from Isaiah chapter 21) with the symbolic prostitute called Babylon the Great in Revelation. Conveniently misleading as usual.

“Babylon Has Fallen!” Isaiah’s Prophecy I

a reply to: whereislogic

Were you not aware the man of lawlessness is the 11th horn? He overtakes 3 horns and leads the 10 kingdom "Beast Empire"? Don't be conused on this, the "man of lawlessness" is just one of the 33 titles the Bible uses for the man we call "the antichrist".

And no, I'm not talking about the real ancient city of Babylon, it's a tourist location today, nothing more. And ancient Babylon the city is nowhere near a sea, remember the ship merchants see her smoke as they sail by and mourn for this great city that was destroyed. However the city that is Mystery Babylon the Great is located within the old Babylonian Empire. Southern to middle Iraq and Saudi Arabia was the territory of ancient Babylon.

John was taken to the desert to see this city by the sea. What is the richest city on Earth, in the desert, and by a sea that is located within the borders of the old Babylonian Empire? This woman is a whore who also rides the Beast Empire, yet the antichrist hates her and his 10 kingdom federation destroys her.

Which city is it?

a reply to: NOTurTypical
John wasn't taken anywhere literally, he remained on Patmos as he was receiving his vision containing symbolic representations of things to come. The city is symbolic, the "sits on many waters" is symbolic (and explained in verse 15: "...mean peoples and crowds and nations and tongues.", not a sea, how can that be one literal city?), the wilderness is symbolic. But again you didn't quote anything possibly to avoid an accurate response, cause Revelation is filled with symbolic "waters" and seas, cities and kingdoms, etc. I'm going to stop trying to find the phrase "city by the sea" in relation to "the great prostitute who sits on many waters" (Rev 17:1) on whose forehead the name “Babylon the Great, the mother of the prostitutes and of the disgusting things of the earth.” (Rev 17:5) is written. Can you be any less vague first?

It's interesting how certain types of people who claim to believe the bible will interpret many things that are symbolic or figurative as if it's literal (including when Jesus mentions something about seeing God or being one) and will interpret other things as figurative when it's literal ("firstborn of all creation") when it's inconvenient for their Babylonian traditions, philosophies and teachings (the doctrine of the Trinity, the immortal soul, literal hellfire, Pagan festivals, rituals and idols).

Isaiah 5:20,21 (NW):

20 Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

21 Woe to those wise in their own eyes

And discreet in their own sight!

Babylon the Great: Reasoning
Babylon the Great: Insight, Volume 1

In the symbolism of Revelation, Babylon the Great is referred to as a “great city,” a “kingdom” that rules other kings. (Rev. 17:18) Like a city, it would have many organizations within it; and like a kingdom that includes other kings in its domain, it would be international in scope. It is described as having relations with political rulers and contributing much to the wealth of men in commerce, while itself being a third element that “has become a dwelling place of demons” and a persecutor of “prophets and of holy ones.”—Rev. 18:2, 9-17, 24.

In Revelation 17:3-5, Babylon the Great is described as a woman arrayed in purple and scarlet, richly adorned, and sitting upon a scarlet-colored wild beast having seven heads and ten horns. Upon her forehead a name is written, “a mystery: ‘Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth.’” She is also depicted as sitting on “many waters” representing “peoples and crowds and nations and tongues.”—Re 17:1-15.

The luxury and the dominion attributed to Babylon the Great do not allow for simply equating her with the literal city of Babylon in Mesopotamia [or any other literal city]. After ancient Babylon fell to Cyrus the Persian in 539 B.C.E., it lost its position as a dominant world power, its captives, including the Jews, being freed. Although the city continued to exist even beyond the days of the apostles, and hence existed in John’s day, it was no longer a city of world importance, and it eventually fell into decay and utter ruin. Thus, Babylon the Great must be viewed as a symbolic city, one of which the literal city of Babylon was the prototype. Because the ancient city gives the mystic city its name, it is helpful to consider briefly the outstanding features of Babylon on the Euphrates, features that provide clues as to the identity of the symbolic city of John’s vision.
...
Distinguishing Features of Mystic Babylon. The symbolic woman bearing the name Babylon the Great is “the great city that has a kingdom over the kings of the earth,” a kingdom that allows her, in effect, to sit on “peoples and crowds and nations and tongues.” (Re 17:1, 15, 18) A kingdom over other kingdoms and nations is what is defined as an “empire.” Babylon the Great places herself above earthly kings, exercising power and influence over them. She rides the symbolic seven-headed beast, beasts being used elsewhere in the Bible as symbols of political world powers.—See BEASTS, SYMBOLIC.

Some scholars assume that Babylon the Great is a political empire, either Babylon or Rome. We have already seen that Babylon as a political empire had long since ceased to exist when John received his prophetic vision. As to Rome, the nature of its political rule does not harmonize with the description of Babylon the Great’s course and her methods of dominating. She is a harlot, committing fornication with the kings of the earth, making them drunk with the wine of her fornication, misleading the nations by her “spiritistic practice.” (Re 17:1, 2; 18:3, 23) Rome’s dominion, by contrast, was gained and maintained by its ironlike military might and its firm application of Roman law among its provinces and colonies. Recognizing this fact, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible says: “It is not sufficient to identify Rome and Babylon. Babylon embraces more than one empire or culture. It is defined rather by dominant idolatries than by geographical or temporal boundaries. Babylon is coextensive with the kingdom of that beast which has corrupted and enslaved mankind, and whom the Lamb must conquer (Rev. 17:14) if mankind is to be freed.”—Edited by G. Buttrick, 1962, Vol. 1, p. 338.

The symbol of a harlot or a fornicatrix is used frequently in the Hebrew Scriptures. The nation of Israel was warned against entering into covenant relations with the nations of Canaan because this would lead them to commit “immoral intercourse [“play the harlot,” RS] with their gods.” (Ex 34:12-16)
...
An additional significant factor is that when Babylon the Great goes down under the devastating attack of the ten horns of the symbolic wild beast, her fall is mourned by her companions in fornication, the kings of the earth, and also by the merchants and shippers who dealt with her in supplying luxurious commodities and gorgeous fineries. While these political and commercial representatives survive her desolation, notably no religious representatives are depicted as still on the scene to share in mourning her downfall. (Re 17:16, 17; 18:9-19)
...

a reply to: CB328

Being a Christian and religious are not synonymous. Religion is the primary reason Christ came, because it misses the point. Keep it simple stupid. Love fails not when true.

a reply to: whereislogic

The city is symbolic, the "sits on many waters" is symbolic (and explained in verse 15: "...mean peoples and crowds and nations and tongues.", not a sea, how can that be one literal city?)

It's certainly not symbolic, there is a city in a desert, right by a sea, that is the richest city on Earth, it is the center for a major religion that began in Babylon and is located right within the area of the Earth that ancient Babylonian empire controlled, that many nations follow, many people and many languages. Yes, the book of Revelation is symbolic in most regards. Out of the 400 some verses in it however, alludes to over 800 places in the OT.

Look..

If you just want to make this personal about me instead of a dialogue about the text, then I'll just leave you where you are. I don't have to sit here and defend myself to you, I'm not on trial and you aren't my judge. So read whatever you want into the text, it's not my concern.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

I still believe in Jesus. Not YHWH, though. Any god that requires the sacrifice of animals is no good god to me. Aside from all the other atrocities he not only commanded, but did. That is, if he's even real. That's up for debate, too. The God I encountered was nothing like that. And yes, He's spoken to me....many, many times.

Therein lays the problem with most all . With that statement it leads me to believe there is a misunderstanding.

Would you tell me just who your YHWH is? According to the NT scriptures the God of Jesus is not the Creator of this existence. According to the NT scriptures "The Most High EL" is total Spirit and is the God or Father of Jesus.

The NT scriptures state that the pre-existent Jesus was the Begotten of the Most High EL and was the Creator YHWH (Word). This Jesus was the Word who created all that we are and is that YHWH that you so disapprove of. What am I saying? I am saying that according to the NT theology YHWH is the incarnate Jesus who has now returned to His first estate as the Creator. How then can you disapprove of YHWH when in fact He is the incarnate Jesus? It's mind boggling that most all Christians do not even know their own Creator.

The Father God did not create anything. The Most High El gave that creative ability to His Word while He, the Most High, gave the life to that which YHWH created. The Romans really messed this up with their own philosophy. Re read the first chapter of the Apostle John and digest exactly what he says.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: whereislogic

Look..

If you just want to make this personal about me instead of a dialogue about the text, then I'll just leave you where you are. I don't have to sit here and defend myself to you, I'm not on trial and you aren't my judge. So read whatever you want into the text, it's not my concern.

Didn't notice I was doing that. Seeing that I'm quoting the text when talking about it and you aren't. You are spreading stories about what the bible is supposedly saying as usual and I am responding with what the bible is really saying cause I'm not that fond of the misinformation spread by people actually reading whatever they want into the text without logical justifications or even giving them in detail when asked after they just stated their philosophies as if it's factual/true and (enlightened) knowledge. Telling people what to think rather than teaching them how to think for themselves (or showing what the bible is really saying, with the appropiate context). If you don't want to defend the views and ideas/philosophies you're spreading (in response to my comment which then gets twisted in the eyes of the person I said it to with your interpretation if he takes that serious) you don't have to but don't expect me to stay quiet when I have logical reasons to believe it is misinformation and a distraction away from what's important to know for those who want to know what the bible is really teaching (and a nice setup for those who want to make the argument that because people can read whatever they want into the prophecies of the bible therefore the bible is unreliable and myth, etc. including the related argument about debating the meaning of scriptures used in the first paragraph of the OP as well. While actually the bible exposes this behaviour when you actually read what it says, on the whole, or everything related to a specific subject; in some cases, if you see the bigger picture).

None of us is the judge of another, doesn't mean we can't help eachother when we figure something out or need to stay quiet as the antichrist views of Babylon the Great and the Man of Lawlessness are spread through human society because some people don't want to look into the origin of their own beliefs; or even when they do, remain in denial of the historical facts someone else is pointing them towards as a heads up and to echo the warning in Revelation 18:4 regarding Babylon the Great:

...Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues.

This comment sums up the identity of Babylon the Great and how to recognize her deceptions (her "spiritistic practices" and antichrist philosophy, what I referred to above as "antichrist views"). And the comment about the Man of Lawlessness I already shared in the comment you were initially responding to.

ANTICHRIST

This word means “against (or instead of) Christ.” It occurs a total of five times, singular and plural, all of them in two of John’s epistles.

The subject was not new among the Christians when John wrote his letters (c. 98 C.E.). First John 2:18 states: “Young children, it is the last hour, and, just as you have heard that antichrist [Gr., an·tiʹkhri·stos] is coming, even now there have come to be many antichrists; from which fact we gain the knowledge that it is the last hour.” John’s statement shows that there are many individual antichrists, though all together they may form a composite person designated “the antichrist.” (2Jo 7) The use of the expression “hour” as referring to a period of time, either relatively brief or of undetermined length, is exemplified in other writings of John. (See Joh 2:4; 4:21-23; 5:25, 28; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27.) He thus did not restrict the appearance, existence, and activity of such antichrist to some future time only but showed that the antichrist was then present and would continue on.—1Jo 4:3.

Identification. Although there has been much effort in the past to identify “the antichrist” with an individual, such as Pompey, Nero, or Muhammad (this latter person being suggested by Pope Innocent III in 1213 C.E.), or with a specific organization, as in the Protestant view of “the antichrist” as applying to the papacy, John’s inspired statements show the term to be broad in its application, embracing all those who deny that “Jesus is the Christ,” and who deny that Jesus is the Son of God who came “in the flesh.”—1Jo 2:22; 4:2, 3; 2Jo 7, NE, NIV; compare Joh 8:42, 48, 49; 9:22.

Denial of Jesus as the Christ and as the Son of God of necessity embraces the denial of any or all of the Scriptural teachings concerning him: his origin, his place in God’s arrangement, his fulfillment of the prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures as the promised Messiah, his ministry and teachings and prophecies, as well as any opposition to or efforts to replace him in his position as God’s appointed High Priest and King. This is evident from other texts, which, while not using the term “antichrist,” express essentially the same idea. Thus, Jesus stated: “He that is not on my side is against me, and he that does not gather with me scatters.” (Lu 11:23) Second John 7 shows that such ones might act as deceivers, and hence the “antichrist” would include those who are “false Christs” and “false prophets,” as well as those who perform powerful works in Jesus’ name and yet are classed by him as “workers of lawlessness.”—Mt 24:24; 7:15, 22, 23.

In view of Jesus’ rule that what is done to his true followers is done to him (Mt 25:40, 45; Ac 9:5), the term must include those who persecute such ones, which means it would include the symbolic “Babylon the Great.”—⁠Lu 21:12; Re 17:5, 6.

John specifically mentions apostates as among those of the antichrist by referring to those who “went out from us,” abandoning the Christian congregation. (1Jo 2:18, 19) It therefore includes “the man of lawlessness” or “son of destruction” described by Paul, as well as the “false teachers” Peter denounces for forming destructive sects and who “disown even the owner that bought them.”—2Th 2:3-5; 2Pe 2:1; see MAN OF LAWLESSNESS.

Source: Antichrist: Insight, Volume 1

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

I still believe in Jesus. Not YHWH, though. Any god that requires the sacrifice of animals is no good god to me. Aside from all the other atrocities he not only commanded, but did. That is, if he's even real. That's up for debate, too. The God I encountered was nothing like that. And yes, He's spoken to me....many, many times.

Therein lays the problem with most all . With that statement it leads me to believe there is a misunderstanding.

Would you tell me just who your YHWH is? According to the NT scriptures the God of Jesus is not the Creator of this existence. According to the NT scriptures "The Most High EL" is total Spirit and is the God or Father of Jesus.

The NT scriptures state that the pre-existent Jesus was the Begotten of the Most High EL and was the Creator YHWH (Word). This Jesus was the Word who created all that we are and is that YHWH that you so disapprove of. What am I saying? I am saying that according to the NT theology YHWH is the incarnate Jesus who has now returned to His first estate as the Creator. How then can you disapprove of YHWH when in fact He is the incarnate Jesus? It's mind boggling that most all Christians do not even know their own Creator.

The Father God did not create anything. The Most High El gave that creative ability to His Word while He, the Most High, gave the life to that which YHWH created. The Romans really messed this up with their own philosophy. Re read the first chapter of the Apostle John and digest exactly what he says.

Jesus and YHWH were nothing alike in character. Nothing. How anyone can think so, is beyond me. Jesus said that the words He spoke and the works He did, were directly from the Father. The WORD indwelt Jesus. What word? The Word of the Most High. YHWH is an imposter god. Jesus came from the Most High God to set the record straight on WHO and WHAT the real God was like. That's why the priests had him set up and killed by the Romans. Not only was Jesus totally opposite of YHWH and broke just about every "law" that YHWH gave, He also challenged the whole animal sacrificial system, going on in the temple. Do you really think Jesus would get that upset over money changers? No, He was ticked off that they were butchering innocent animals "in the name of YHWH", making money on it, and attributing that to the true Father.
Why do you think Jesus said, "My Father's house shall be a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of robbers!" Robbers (unlike thieves) take through violence. Who was the violence being done to?? The animals.
The Torah is full of commands by YHWH to bring blood offerings to him. If that's how you see Jesus, then I feel sorry for you.

The whole Christian religion is built on "Paul's gospel". Every Christian tries to explain Jesus through the lense of a false apostle and YHWH. It's why Noturtypical and Whereislogic are in a condescending debate with one another. CHRISTIANS can't even agree on their doctrine.
Jesus didn't come to preach doctrine. He came to show us the TRUE Character of His Father.
Why are there over 40,000 (probably more) denominations in Christianity? Why do supposed "brother's and sisters" in the faith, do nothing but argue over things in the Bible. BECAUSE it is meant to cause division. It divides even those who claim to be saved by believing in Jesus.
It's so ridiculous to me now. I sit and read ya'lls posts and think, "good god, can't they see how divided religion makes people?"
Then you have Raggedyman, who's just downright rude. Jeez people. Ya'll are being played like fiddles by something not good....and you can't see the forest for the trees. Yet, I'm the one deceeeeived, because I actually have questioned the bible's inerrancy. It's so sad. It's good to see there are people who've woken up to it on here.

a reply to: whereislogic

John specifically mentions apostates as among those of the antichrist by referring to those who “went out from us,” abandoning the Christian congregation. (1Jo 2:18, 19) It therefore includes “the man of lawlessness” or “son of destruction” described by Paul, as well as the “false teachers” Peter denounces for forming destructive sects and who “disown even the owner that bought them.”—2Th 2:3-5; 2Pe 2:1;

So I see where you're coming from, a 20th century position in which Christianity and the 5th Century Bible Canon are already the default "truth". From that perspective, of course anyone leaving the "default truth" is an enemy to the default "truth".

But there were channels of "truth" before the establishment of our current default "truth"; philosophy, religion handed down from the fathers (a large category for pre-Christian Rome) which was a bulwark of civilization. Sure, Rome absorbed and syncretized already existing religions from previously conquered tribes and nations. That's eclecticism. That's how civilization works.

Christianity comes along and says, "No, no, all that civilization, history, wisdom, etc. is rubbish. Now all your "truth" will come from one single source."

So a 20th Century man says "hey, wait a minute. If I had lived in 1st Century Rome, and heard this, would I have joined? No, I wouldn't have. I am only in this system because I was drawn into the mystery (born again), of what was the only system available in my time and place."

You used the term Satan previously. My definition of Satan in this context would be "obstructer". What is it I'm obstructing? I am obstructing the notion that Christianity, with it's single channel of "truth" is the only universal, eternal reality. Because it isn't from my point of view. I am obstructing the notion that the current default worldview should continue as the one and only way, the one and only reality with all else categorized as delusion.

a reply to: enkilo

Refresh my memory ..box is confusing me again (Computer)and the click thingie didn't go back to the statement.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: whereislogic


Satan is not real.
The early Christians perverted the Old Testament and invent Satan and Hell. The word Devil comes from Greek Diabolos and means Accuser/Advocate, as does Satan. It's just a translation of Satan into Greek, they were originally different myths.

is there a book that covers this transliteration in detail?

Curious.. You need a book to tell you Santa is not real?

Look up Richard Carrier -On Historicity of Jesus. There are plenty of references.

*sigh* thank you for answering the question, anyway.

*sigh* ? I suppose my ironic attempt at humor has failed.

a reply to: fryingfish
Oh, another funny guy huh?

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Text The Torah is full of commands by YHWH to bring blood offerings to him. If that's how you see Jesus, then I feel sorry for you.

It makes no difference in how I perceive YHWH, it is how the Apostle John teaches exactly who YHWH truly is. As you read
John 1:1-3
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:14
(14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

As you read all before and after verses in context then you can understand exactly who YHWH truly was and is. He is your Creator and was known as Jesus while in the flesh. Jesus created nothing while in the flesh but while in the Celestial realm was known as The Word of God or YHWH and was the Creator.

There is only one Creator and He was and is the same in the old as well as the new testaments. There is only one Most High Father God and only one Creator who is His begotten YHWH. Now I don't wish to argue the theological teachings but they are very clear in the teachings of the synagogue of James and since those first Nazarene's have been slaughtered and their testimonies hijacked and perverted by the Romans and their offshoots this is the result that we see today. Don't feel sorry for me but pity the ignorance of the many who are not taught the truth.