Some serious theological problems with the Christian religion

a reply to: pthena

Herodotus Book 5
The Persians left behind by King Darius in Europe, who had Megabazus for their general, reduced, before any other Hellespontine state, the people of Perinthus, who had no mind to become subjects of the king. Now the Perinthians had ere this been roughly handled by another nation, the Paeonians. For the Paeonians from about the Strymon were once bidden by an oracle to make war upon the Perinthians, and if these latter, when the camps faced one another, challenged them by name to fight, then to venture on a battle, but if otherwise, not to make the hazard. The Paeonians followed the advice. Now the men of Perinthus drew out to meet them in the skirts of their city; and a threefold single combat was fought on challenge given. Man to man, and horse to horse, and dog to dog, was the strife waged; and the Perinthians, winners of two combats out of the three, in their joy had raised the paean; when the Paeonians struck by the thought that this was what the oracle had meant, passed the word one to another, saying, "Now of a surety has the oracle been fulfilled for us; now our work begins." Then the Paeonians set upon the Perinthians in the midst of their paean, and defeated them utterly, leaving but few of them alive.

I bolded that one part just cuz it sounds cool: Man to man, and horse to horse, and dog to dog

I had some other stuff here, but changed my mind about it. But this is kind of interesting on it's own.

Born Again experience summarised here. Praise the Lord

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Really Jesus returned? What year?

perhaps... a few days after he died?

That's the resurrection, not the 2nd advent to Earth.

Well... Call it whatever you wish...

Seems to me thats two times... Living then returning/resurrecting...

The angels told the disciples the same Jesus would return in like manner that they had just witnessed Him ascend into heaven. That was after the resurrection.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Really Jesus returned? What year?

perhaps... a few days after he died?

That's the resurrection, not the 2nd advent to Earth.

Well... Call it whatever you wish...

Seems to me thats two times... Living then returning/resurrecting...

The angels told the disciples the same Jesus would return in like manner that they had just witnessed Him ascend into heaven. That was after the resurrection.

yeah in the clouds i know...

I just don't buy it

a reply to: Akragon

Clouds? It's just smoke from smoke machines, Jesus is a right rock star. Plays drums in a doom metal band from Hell. Soon he's gonna be all over the bloody planet to give you all the Jack. Calls himself Johnny I think. It's a stoner band. They're wicked.

a reply to: Seede
Then please don't pretend that when I'm responding to you I somehow need to address more parts of your comment if you're just going to ignore it and call it ranting after more or less suggesting that my first response was not complete enough (as if it mattered that it didn't address the rest of the verses in John 1 you brought up). You're spreading your opinion here as well and false accusations to boot but without logical justification or reasonable evidence (not twisted, no half-truths painting a picture or following an agenda), just because that's what you were told/taught (and it tickled your ears, it was what you wanted to hear so you accept it without question). I recognize your arguments very clearly, they've been done to death by both (agnostic) atheists and theists (parroted). I have used many sources for evidence as shown in the videos (many bible translations, encyclopedias, dictionaries used and the findings and studies of translators' and scholars' discussed, with different backgrounds). Your attempt to discredit only 1 of those sources is a big sign on the wall regarding whether or not you're right about that source (who in turn presents evidence from a variety of different sources on most topics).

Plenty of translations and dictionaries (from other sources) that confirm or otherwise demonstrate their agreement with the NW translation's choices (and properly and logically justified, unlike some of those who disagree using a lot of twisting, half-truths and deception such as I will demonstrate regarding the American Standard Version and one of its translators below, who hides his agreement like so many when it comes to the actual translation choices and what they publish to the public in their bible, hiding in plain sight). You did the same routine when we were discussing the myth of the immortality of the soul without videos when I was quoting from Jewish and Catholic encyclopedias and the Encyclopedia Britannica (or other scholarly works), it doesn't matter one bit to you whether or not I'm also using videos next to my text or which sources I'm using (or are used by the source I'm using, you don't even look at the sources or respond to any points I'm making or questions I'm asking and ignore any scholarly work that isn't tickling your ears or allows you to use it in support of your philosophies and the theological doctrines that you are spreading and promoting on ATS, misrepresenting the evidence in the bible by intentionally using a mistranslation that you're willfully ignorant about when the evidence is overwhelming). So this remains true:

I already addressed it many times on ATS, and received no logical reasonable responses and a lot of distractions like...

telling me that "the literature which is translated by hundreds of known and well respected translators should be honored" while ignoring what some of these translators have already admitted to, just like fans of evolutionary philosophies will ignore those evolutonists who and when they are saying something that isn't tickling their ears, what they wanted to hear (usually when it's inconvenient to acknowledge as a fact/truth/reality/certainty in that particular discussion and when zooming in on that subject and how it relates and compares to their philosophies/ideas and beliefs about reality).

Willfull ignorance, when they're saying something you don't want to hear you simply pretend it's only the NW translators that are saying that and simply ignore what these translators you speak so highly of are admitting to (sometimes without putting it in their translation, such as in the case of John 1:1 in the ASV, where one of the translators freely admits that the NW translators are right by his choice of words*, without spelling it out, but still the ASV says "and the Word was God."; how am I supposed to believe your opinion about it when I see details such as this and you're just repeating what you've been told? While denying, ignoring and contradicting many things the bible teaches as you claim to be Christian).
* = see below, also in the video, this time, textformat, as if it matters one bit regarding how you and certain others here that are using a mistranslation of John 1:1 in support of their Trinitarian teachings will react...

Many Greek scholars and Bible translators acknowledge that John 1:1 highlights, not the identity, but a quality of “the Word.” Says Bible translator William Barclay: “Because [the apostle John] has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description . . . John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God.” Scholar Jason David BeDuhn likewise says: “In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean ‘a god.’ . . . Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos, as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” BeDuhn adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.” Or to put it in the words of Joseph Henry Thayer, a scholar who worked on the American Standard Version: “The Logos [or, Word] was divine, not the divine Being himself.”

The most I've ever gotten is 'nuh-uh, other scholars say something different' or 'you're just quote-mining (or cherry-picking) and you're not saying what else these scholars have said about it' (their excuses and twists to justify still translating it to "the Word was God", such as in the ASV's case). Or just ignoring it completely, the same types of responses you get from fans of evolutionary philosophies when you quote evolutionists to them saying something they don't want to acknowledge, such as that DNA IS a code, not that it just resembles a code or that it's an analogy or metaphor. Bunch of cherry-picking information and pot calling the kettle black going on here...tiresome. The people often comlaining about quote-mining or someone leaving something out only hear what they want to hear themselves and ignore the rest, won't even respond to it with anything else than an excuse for dismissal of what was said (in this case by the translators above of whom you said their literature "should be honored". Way to honor it then by ignoring it or dismissing it out of hand because it's not what you wanted to hear (and possibly already setting up a quick switch to the same technique that evolutionists use with arguments ad populum, appeal to the majority; but then when the majority is telling you something you don't want to hear or consider, then that argument suddenly doesn't count anymore, such as in our discussion about the myth of the immortal soul, where I used many 'broad/wide road' sources; Matthew 7:13,14). According to Jesus at Matthew 7:13,14, the majority isn't always right.

Sigh, will I ever get a logical response other than a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations, slander, ad hominems and a lot of picture painting and twisting what someone is saying to accomodate a particular straw man argument?

a reply to: Akragon

Fair enough, but it's all over the OT and NT. 2,200 some passages. That the Messiah will rule from Jerusalem. It's called the Day of the Lord.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

You're waiting for a miracle

when theres work to be done... life to be lived

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical

You're waiting for a miracle

when theres work to be done... life to be lived

I'm fine either way, I just adopted my 2 year old grandaughter. Paul said it perfectly, "to live is Christ and to die is gain." I can die and that would be great, or if I live that's more opportunity to earn rewards. (Or lose them. Lol)

Look into Valentinianism and Manichaeasm to see what Jesus actually taught. Jesus taught very different things to his inner circle. Gnosticism is based on his secret teachings. Christianity is mostly bull# because the Roman Catholic Church wanted to use the religion is a tool of oppression.

Check out the Nag Hammadi library. The Sophia of Jesus Christ explains Jesus's extensive polytheism

gnosis.org...

a reply to: CB328


The religions concerning Jesus Christ do have differing beliefs about Jesus Christ and Salvation.

There is only ONE WAY to be saved.

***SNIP***

a reply to: SaintlyMic

Peace and love ! All religion is mind control ! Peace and love from the mystical metal hippie

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: TzarChasm

Here mate:

Seriously?? Walid Shoebat?

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Seede
Then please don't pretend that when I'm responding to you I somehow need to address more parts of your comment if you're just going to ignore it and call it ranting after more or less suggesting that my first response was not complete enough (as if it mattered that it didn't address the rest of the verses in John 1 you brought up). You're spreading your opinion here as well and false accusations to boot but without logical justification or reasonable evidence (not twisted, no half-truths painting a picture or following an agenda), just because that's what you were told/taught (and it tickled your ears, it was what you wanted to hear so you accept it without question). I recognize your arguments very clearly, they've been done to death by both (agnostic) atheists and theists (parroted). I have used many sources for evidence as shown in the videos (many bible translations, encyclopedias, dictionaries used and the findings and studies of translators' and scholars' discussed, with different backgrounds). Your attempt to discredit only 1 of those sources is a big sign on the wall regarding whether or not you're right about that source (who in turn presents evidence from a variety of different sources on most topics).

Plenty of translations and dictionaries (from other sources) that confirm or otherwise demonstrate their agreement with the NW translation's choices (and properly and logically justified, unlike some of those who disagree using a lot of twisting, half-truths and deception such as I will demonstrate regarding the American Standard Version and one of its translators below, who hides his agreement like so many when it comes to the actual translation choices and what they publish to the public in their bible, hiding in plain sight). You did the same routine when we were discussing the myth of the immortality of the soul without videos when I was quoting from Jewish and Catholic encyclopedias and the Encyclopedia Britannica (or other scholarly works), it doesn't matter one bit to you whether or not I'm also using videos next to my text or which sources I'm using (or are used by the source I'm using, you don't even look at the sources or respond to any points I'm making or questions I'm asking and ignore any scholarly work that isn't tickling your ears or allows you to use it in support of your philosophies and the theological doctrines that you are spreading and promoting on ATS, misrepresenting the evidence in the bible by intentionally using a mistranslation that you're willfully ignorant about when the evidence is overwhelming). So this remains true:

I already addressed it many times on ATS, and received no logical reasonable responses and a lot of distractions like...

telling me that "the literature which is translated by hundreds of known and well respected translators should be honored" while ignoring what some of these translators have already admitted to, just like fans of evolutionary philosophies will ignore those evolutonists who and when they are saying something that isn't tickling their ears, what they wanted to hear (usually when it's inconvenient to acknowledge as a fact/truth/reality/certainty in that particular discussion and when zooming in on that subject and how it relates and compares to their philosophies/ideas and beliefs about reality).

Willfull ignorance, when they're saying something you don't want to hear you simply pretend it's only the NW translators that are saying that and simply ignore what these translators you speak so highly of are admitting to (sometimes without putting it in their translation, such as in the case of John 1:1 in the ASV, where one of the translators freely admits that the NW translators are right by his choice of words*, without spelling it out, but still the ASV says "and the Word was God."; how am I supposed to believe your opinion about it when I see details such as this and you're just repeating what you've been told? While denying, ignoring and contradicting many things the bible teaches as you claim to be Christian).
* = see below, also in the video, this time, textformat, as if it matters one bit regarding how you and certain others here that are using a mistranslation of John 1:1 in support of their Trinitarian teachings will react...

Many Greek scholars and Bible translators acknowledge that John 1:1 highlights, not the identity, but a quality of “the Word.” Says Bible translator William Barclay: “Because [the apostle John] has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description . . . John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God.” Scholar Jason David BeDuhn likewise says: “In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean ‘a god.’ . . . Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos, as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” BeDuhn adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.” Or to put it in the words of Joseph Henry Thayer, a scholar who worked on the American Standard Version: “The Logos [or, Word] was divine, not the divine Being himself.”

The most I've ever gotten is 'nuh-uh, other scholars say something different' or 'you're just quote-mining (or cherry-picking) and you're not saying what else these scholars have said about it' (their excuses and twists to justify still translating it to "the Word was God", such as in the ASV's case). Or just ignoring it completely, the same types of responses you get from fans of evolutionary philosophies when you quote evolutionists to them saying something they don't want to acknowledge, such as that DNA IS a code, not that it just resembles a code or that it's an analogy or metaphor. Bunch of cherry-picking information and pot calling the kettle black going on here...tiresome. The people often comlaining about quote-mining or someone leaving something out only hear what they want to hear themselves and ignore the rest, won't even respond to it with anything else than an excuse for dismissal of what was said (in this case by the translators above of whom you said their literature "should be honored". Way to honor it then by ignoring it or dismissing it out of hand because it's not what you wanted to hear (and possibly already setting up a quick switch to the same technique that evolutionists use with arguments ad populum, appeal to the majority; but then when the majority is telling you something you don't want to hear or consider, then that argument suddenly doesn't count anymore, such as in our discussion about the myth of the immortal soul, where I used many 'broad/wide road' sources; Matthew 7:13,14). According to Jesus at Matthew 7:13,14, the majority isn't always right.

Sigh, will I ever get a logical response other than a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations, slander, ad hominems and a lot of picture painting and twisting what someone is saying to accomodate a particular straw man argument?

Goodness... try condensing what you want to say. You're not keeping an audience with all that.