The Absolute Power of Christianity!

What is your point, simon? You never seem to make one. Your red part states his FIRST year. Any college students here have trouble their first year? I did. Anyway, there have been many great minds in the past that didn't even HAVE college degrees. As usual, your arguement is weak.

Originally posted by Simon666
Either this means you can live with a girlfriend that never answers back or that God answers you indeed somehow, in which case you're even more crazy than I first thought.

I'm more crazy than you first thought ......

In addition to that, once you know your girlfiend/boyfriend and becomes a fiancee, then spouse, after a number of years you don't need to talk very much. I guess it's because there's always that understanding in love, trust, and faith.

[edit on 21-6-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by junglejake
Not necessarily. In the past, God has made himself known through physical appearance. While the result wasn't denial of His existance, people rebelled against him. Look at Adam and Eve, look at Moses and the Jews druing their exodus, all of the book of Judges, etc. If He let us know in what science would consider a reliable way, we would simply continue living in the manner in which we do today, but instead of denying Him, we'd be rebelling against Him.

It's easy for you to take a bunch of ancient legends as "proof" that people would rebel anyway.

No-one in their right mind would rebel against an omnipotent and omniscient authority if it presented itself in a highly credible way.

The fact remains, even if we would rebel, we are being denied the choice of doing so, because there simply is no credible evidence that any of the legendary stories of the Bible (or other ancient texts) are more than legends, and there is likewise no credible evidence of a personal god, nor even of any supernatural at all.

Can you choose to believe in leprechauns? Of course not. It's obvious mythology supported by no credible evidence. Suppose someone actually captured a leprechaun and presented it to you and allowed all who desired to examine it in as much detail as they wanted. Would you be able to choose not to believe in it? Of course not. A leprechaun staring you in the face and backed by reams of evidence supporting its authenticity could not be denied regardless of how much you wished they weren't real. I can not choose to believe in Biblegod any more than I can choose to believe in leprechauns; both are obvious mythology to me. For some reason, god isn't obvious mythology to you. Why not? What has convinced you that the god of the Bible, or any god for that matter, is more than made up stories?

"Oh, well you'd just reject him anyway and that's why he doesn't present himself" is a cop-out of epic proportion, as is the asinine apologetic that "well if he presented himself, that would deprive you of the free will to choose not to believe in him". I've heard both of these, often coming from the same mouth, without any recognition at all that these two apologetics conflict with eachother.

Originally posted by spamandham
Why not? What has convinced you that the god of the Bible, or any god for that matter, is more than made up stories?

Now THIS is an excellent question. My response is about 4 pages long. I'd be willing to e-mail it to you if you're genuinely interested in the answer and not to take a butcher knife to neither it nor me as a person. Here's a myth: The God of the Bible does not exist in the here and now. I can state this is not true. Because that is not true, this means we can communicate and obtain valid proof that will help us believe. I sought out proof of anything (including leprechans) and got 2 answers. One had me running from damnation, the other I turned to for salvation. That's the brief answer. I wanted proof, modern day. It was a painful way to do it. Had I been smart, I would've searched directly for God first and pursued that proof before challenging everything in the universe.

[edit on 21-6-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by junglejake
Are you saying no thinking, respectable scientific mind would buy into this God mumbo jumbo?

They should say they are unsure, as any intelligent person should.

Originally posted by BadMojoThis "silly book", as you so hap-hazardly label it, has scientific knowledge in it that are just recently being understood.

What scientific knowlege is there in the bible, and how do we not understand it?

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
They should say they are unsure, as any intelligent person should.

Then by the logic I stated earlier, no one can be sure of anything, and should not make factual statements. You can believe something to be true, and in an intellectually honest manner, even if you don't know all fascets of the something. I believe the plane I get onto is going to fly even though I don't have a PhD in aerodynamics.

What scientific knowlege is there in the bible, and how do we not understand it?

Plenty, and the only reason we don't understand it is because we haven't read it. For example:

1 Corinthians 15:41
There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

Astrophysics, the Bible points out that, though they all looked exactly the same at the time it was written, that every star is different from the next. Since the advent of spectrography we have been able to confirm this to be true.

Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.

The Earth is suspended in the solar system on what appears to be nothing. Atlas ain't holdin' this globe up, and that was pointed out in what is suspected to be the oldest book in the Bible.

Ecclesiastes 1:6
The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.

This goes into meterological studies, where we have established that wind patterns and weather patterns are on a circuit through out the world. If you observe the jetstream, which is largely responsable for the weather pattern, it dips south, then turns around and heads north, whirling about continually.

Job 36:27-29
For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?

Again, the oldest book in the Bible just described the hydrologic cycle which was not understood by science until fairly recently (if you consider Job was written about 5,000 to 12,000 years ago)

While the Bible its self is not a science book, it is scientifically accurate. Though there is contention about the first chapter of Genesis, many great arguements for and against the accuracy of that chapter have been made here at ATS on several threads, and you can check those out to learn more about that.

Originally posted by junglejake
Astrophysics, the Bible points out that, though they all looked exactly the same at the time it was written, that every star is different from the next. Since the advent of spectrography we have been able to confirm this to be true.

I take it you've never actually looked at the night sky? The stars do not all look identical even to the naked eye.

Originally posted by junglejake
Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.

Wow! What else does the writer of Job have to say right after this amazing wisdom?


8 He wraps up the waters in his clouds,
yet the clouds do not burst under their weight.


Hmmm. The writer seems to think that clouds are solid objects capable of bursting.


9 He covers the face of the full moon,
spreading his clouds over it.


If I didn't know better, I'd interpret this to mean the writer had no idea that the moon is vastly further away than the clouds.


10 He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters
for a boundary between light and darkness.


...and he didn't seem to realize that the horizon is caused by the curvature of the earth...


11 The pillars of the heavens quake,
aghast at his rebuke.


Ah yes. I almost forgot that the sky is held up by massive pillars.

Originally posted by junglejake
Ecclesiastes 1:6
The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.

Let's explore some other scientific knowledge from the same source:


5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.



The author doesn't seem to realize that the earth is rotating.


6 The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.


This could be referring to the jet streams, but it could just as easily be a simple recognition that there is no meaning to the direction of the wind. Note that the whole thrust of Ecclesiastes 1 is that everything is meaningless.


7 All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.


What do you know? Apparently the streams hurry back to complete their cycle just like the sun does.

Originally posted by junglejake
While the Bible its self is not a science book, it is scientifically accurate.

Oh I've already heard the apologetic responses invented out of thin air for these gems, but here they are anyway:

Some basic scientific errors:

Leviticus 11:21-23; insects have four feet
Leviticus 11:13-19 ; bats are a kind of bird
Leviticus 11:6; rabbits chew their cud
Leviticus 11:4; Camels don't have divided hooves
Jeremiah 8:17; cockatrices are real
(numerous); dragons are real
1 Kings 7:23; pi = 3

Some basic historical errors:

Ezekiel 26: 1-13; Nebuchadnezzar lays seige against Tyre (didn't happen)
Ezekial 29: 1-19; Egypt laid to waste by Nebuchadnezzar (didn't happen)

Nonexistent prophecies referenced:
Matthew 2:22-23; false prophecy that the Messiah would be from Nazareth (a transliteration error probably, the actual prophecy was that he would be a Nazarite [one devoted to god])

More importantly than this false reference, is that there was no city of Nazareth in the first century. It was omitted from the listing of cities in the Old Testament (Joshua 19), it was omitted from Josephus' listing of cities, it was omitted from the listing of cities in the Talmud. Outside the NT, there is no known historical reference to such a city until it was invented in the 4th century. It's impossible to believe it was just a tiny town that didn't make it on the map since; it supposedly had a synagogue, there were multitudes living there who tried to throw Jesus off a cliff.

Archaeology has shown that the modern day city of Nazareth was not occupied in the first century. There are tombs there that are older than that, and activity picks up again centuries later, but there is no activity in the intervening period encompassing the first century.

The town that theology built

I won't address all the purported miracles that violate scientific principles, nor Genesis which you've already admitted has errors.

Thanks for being johnny-on-the-spot, jj.

Ok, spam (every sense of pun intended), first of all, you're not very good at reading.
Next, the writer of Job is Job.
As for your reading, you do not take into account the time period in which the text was written. They did not speak the way that we do today. I'm sure you're aware of that, so that would point to you being spiteful.

When clouds are in front of the moon, don't most people say that the clouds are covering the moon. I do.

As with other previous detractors, you pull out of context. If you were to post the whole verse regarding insects, it mentions insects that have wings and jumps. They likely did not consider the large jumping legs legs per se. I think those of us here would agree that these are grasshoppers and the like.

Birds is a reference to flying animals.

Rabbits were classified as cud chewers by the way they ate. The motion looks similar.

GAMAL -- single or double humped CAMEL; Although the camel
chews its cud, it does not possess a TRUE cloven hoof. Its hoofs are so reduced as to be like claws. In addition, they are completely invisible to the observer, being uniformly covered by layers of thick hard skin and padded sole. The camel is further distinguished from true cloven hooves animals because it treads almost completely flat-footed and not on the tips of the toes. From sami119.tripod.com...

Poor translation for Jeremiah 8:17...the term the New American Standard uses is adder, which is a snake.

Same for I Kings.

For a change, show me your proof of the historical...if you can.

If I missed something, let me know. This is getting fun.

Originally posted by BadMojo
Next, the writer of Job is Job.

Since you are obviously an authority, perhaps you could fill us in on when the book of Job was written, and when Job lived as well.

Originally posted by BadMojo
As for your reading, you do not take into account the time period in which the text was written. They did not speak the way that we do today. I'm sure you're aware of that, so that would point to you being spiteful.

I see you are also an expert on ancient dialects at the time (when was that again?).

Originally posted by BadMojo
When clouds are in front of the moon, don't most people say that the clouds are covering the moon. I do.

As do I, but have you ever wondered where such an expression originated? Someone of your obvious scholarship should have no problem filling us in on that as well.

Originally posted by BadMojo
As with other previous detractors, you pull out of context. If you were to post the whole verse regarding insects, it mentions insects that have wings and jumps. They likely did not consider the large jumping legs legs per se.

Well, I certainly don't want to be accused of pulling out of context, so here's the whole verse:


20 All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. 21 There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23 But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.


Now I get it. All flying creatures with four legs that don't hop are detestable. Oh wait, now I'm confused. The ones that don't hop also don't have the big non-leg legs, but rather they just have 6 little ones (butterflies, wasps, moths, bees, etc), and the passage even called out the big legs as "jointed legs" on the ones that do hop. I'm sure your scholarly works can straighten this out. But don't bother wasting all your precious time posting it here, you can just provide the references to your works. I know that for a scholar of your caliber, your time is valuable.

Originally posted by BadMojo
Birds is a reference to flying animals.

I guess your right. Apparently, these ancient Hebrew scientists classified all flying things as one "kind". It's only because we later Satan caused us to foolishly created finer categories that there is confusion. We should have stuck to the much more elegant "flying things" categorization of birds, mammels, insects, etc.

That makes me wonder then, were all "crawling things" also considered a single kind? What about "swimming things" and "walking things". I guess kangaroos and grasshoppers would both be considered "hopping things"?

Were ostriches and emus considered "flying things" or "walking things"?

Originally posted by BadMojo
Rabbits were classified as cud chewers by the way they ate. The motion looks similar.

Interesting. I'm curious if you've ever watched a rabbit eat? Apparently, the nibbling motion that immediately follows the placing of food in its mouth, and never observed except at those times, can be quite easily confused with chewing cud. Of course, now I'm not sure how that is distinct from say a lamb, that chews almost exactly the same way as a rabbit. Perhaps your scholarly works explain that as well. A reference will suffice yet again.

Originally posted by BadMojo
GAMAL -- single or double humped CAMEL; Although the camel
chews its cud, it does not possess a TRUE cloven hoof. Its hoofs are so reduced as to be like claws. In addition, they are completely invisible to the observer, being uniformly covered by layers of thick hard skin and padded sole. The camel is further distinguished from true cloven hooves animals because it treads almost completely flat-footed and not on the tips of the toes. From sami119.tripod.com...

Now I'm at a real loss. I thought we were discussing the scientific reliability of the Bible, and not merely first impressions sun stroked ancient goat herders would make. To be honest, you sort of started losing me on the whole cud chewing rabbit thing, but I'm sure that's a flaw of mine rather than a failure on your part to make an actual case.

Originally posted by BadMojo
Poor translation for Jeremiah 8:17...the term the New American Standard uses is adder, which is a snake.

Hmmm, and all this time I thought the KJV was god's one true translation.

Originally posted by BadMojo
For a change, show me your proof of the historical...if you can.

If I missed something, let me know. This is getting fun.

Oh, I don't subscribe to the silly idea that claims should be backed up with things like proof and evidence. I simply have faith that the Bible is errant.

But you, being of such obvious scholarship that you even consider correcting me to be fun, should have no problem providing plenty. Oh yes I almost forgot. The Bible is all the proof anyone needs.

Originally posted by junglejake
Plenty, and the only reason we don't understand it is because we haven't read it. For example:

1 Corinthians 15:41
There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

Astrophysics, the Bible points out that, though they all looked exactly the same at the time it was written, that every star is different from the next. Since the advent of spectrography we have been able to confirm this to be true.

Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.

The Earth is suspended in the solar system on what appears to be nothing. Atlas ain't holdin' this globe up, and that was pointed out in what is suspected to be the oldest book in the Bible.


While the Bible its self is not a science book, it is scientifically accurate. Though there is contention about the first chapter of Genesis, many great arguements for and against the accuracy of that chapter have been made here at ATS on several threads, and you can check those out to learn more about that.

The Bible has probably misinterpreted more things than not. The Mayans knew far more than this, it was nothing special. If people of biblical times actually knew what they were talking about, why did the Church still 1000 years later think the Sun revolved around Earth, or a number of other things.

Originally posted by spamandham
Ah yes. I almost forgot that the sky is held up by massive pillars.

It's only because we later Satan caused us to foolishly created finer categories that there is confusion. We should have stuck to the much more elegant "flying things" categorization of birds, mammels, insects, etc.

Hahahahaha

[edit on 22-6-2005 by Charlie Murphy]

I must correct myself. Job was not the actual author of the book of Job. The author is actually unknown, yet the period it was written is believed to be in the 2nd century BC (2000-1000). Thanks for having look more directly at my information, spam.

I don't recall saying that I was an expert on ancient dialects. I have READ BOOKS from experts on ancient dialects that have stated these things. It is interesting the way that knowledge can be tranferred in this manner.

As for cloud cover, you yourself stated it was your interpretation and that you may not know any better.

If you take the literary translation of "winged creatures" it is swarming things with wings. I can see why you are confused by your statement regarding insects. I don't quite understand your point of that one either.

By the way, which of the dozen or so revisions of the KJV are you using? That may help to clarify some things.

I can see that you don't require proof or evidence for your agruements with comments such as "sun-stroked goat herders". But I fail to understand why sources other than the Bible cannot be used to prove it.

good points!

actually, I don't think any book of any bible that is named after a person was actually written by that person. Am I wrong about this? Is there maybe one exception?

Originally posted by Al Davison
good points!

actually, I don't think any book of any bible that is named after a person was actually written by that person. Am I wrong about this? Is there maybe one exception?

The four gospels it's believed was written by the people whose respective names grace the titles of the books. Also, first through third John was written by John, Peter 1 and 2was written by Pete, and James was written by James. I don't think any of the OT books were authored by the name of the book (ie Isiah)

Originally posted by BadMojo
I must correct myself. Job was not the actual author of the book of Job. The author is actually unknown, yet the period it was written is believed to be in the 2nd century BC (2000-1000). Thanks for having look more directly at my information, spam.

Well, I have to say I'm impressed that you didn't push a point that you had made authoritatively and yet clearly had no expertise. You are to be commended for your humility in that regard.

Originally posted by BadMojo
As for cloud cover, you yourself stated it was your interpretation and that you may not know any better.

A lot of the expressions we use in everyday English actually originate in the Bible. I suspect that the "clouds covering the moon" is one of them, but I have no proof of that. But just because it is a common idiom today, does not mean that it was at the time the words were penned. It's appropriate to read it literally unless we have reason to believe it was a common idiom at that time (usage of the same phrase by other authors of the time, etc.).

Originally posted by BadMojo
If you take the literary translation of "winged creatures" it is swarming things with wings. I can see why you are confused by your statement regarding insects. I don't quite understand your point of that one either.

I don't know where you're getting that. I looked it up on the Blue letter Bible, and there's nothing there to indicate that the Hebrew word 'owph is properly translated as "swarming things with wings". But since you were right on this one, I'll take your word for it.

Originally posted by BadMojo
By the way, which of the dozen or so revisions of the KJV are you using? That may help to clarify some things.

Your sarcasm meter needs calibration.

Originally posted by BadMojo
But I fail to understand why sources other than the Bible cannot be used to prove it.

Well, if you were seriously interested in sources, I recommend "The Bible Unearthed" by Silberman and Finkelstein. The evidence is compelling that the OT was penned in the 7th century BCE, with many of the stories originating at that time, or at least heavily revised to match events of the day. Parts were revised and augmented several centuries later as well.

To substantiate the claim that the Bible has no scientific errors, you will have to find non-speculative apologies for the mounds of inconsistencies archaeologists are digging up.

Christianity is a pagan religion...
God lives in the sky...Zeus
The devil lives in the ground.. Pluto
Gehena in the old world translation a burning dump, in the modern bible= hell
hades was the Latin name fro Pluto...hades=hell=pluto
Eoster a pagan holiday for spring...Easter a christian holiday for spring
Mithra a spring time roman god...birdthday december 25 (when adjusted for the julio gregorian calender) Christs B-day December 25...what animals were babies when Chrsit was born and what time of year are then born? look it up you'll see we are either early or late compared to what time of year when the average season is for mamals.
The old testament said I am your God a jeaous god and then about the time of the council of nicea suddenly he became "WE"? and you shall have no gods before him......is it one two, or three?
The old testament states the serpent tempted Eve, and that is why he lost his legs...no comparison was made between the devil and the serpent until the 13th century. If it was the devil why punish serpents.....
I have more but why go on...
the faithful will still have faith, and those who doubt will never see otherwise.
we will be diminished but GOD will not. no matter his/her Name or function. The Earth will follow gravity and we will follow it.


sorry hades was greek not latin. pluto was the latin name for the go of the underworld

[edit on 23-6-2005 by Lord Vilmur]

Originally posted by Lord Vilmur
Christianity is a pagan religion...

Don't you mean was? It's evolved into something totally different now.

But the pagan origins are undeniable (except to Christian apologists). Really, there's very little about modern Christianity that has anything to do with Judaism which is it's purported root. It's pretty obvious that paganized Jews who knew almost nothing about Judaism synthesized Christianity by applying astrological mystery religion to Jewish scriptures out of context.

Is it a coincidence that Christianity was born at the dawn of the age of Pisces, and that Pisces (aka ichthus) is the symbol for Chrsitainity? I think not.

Is it a coincidence that Jesus has 12 disciples and that there are 12 constellations in the zodiac? Hmmm...no.

Is it a coincidence that the symbol of the cross predates Christianity and is associated with the Milky Way? No.

etc.

Originally posted by spamandham
Don't you mean was? It's evolved into something totally different

I believe the two of you are in concurrance, after reading both posts a few times.
Seems just different sentance structure.

And, I concur as well, many of the current trends of Christianity have been taken from the Old Ways.

These thefts is also what lead into the attempted (successful until recent years) aboloshment all together of Pagan people. Take their ways, rid of them, what is left to be followed - Christianity. Many of my wifes blood ancestors (she's Witch as was her mother, grandmother, etc, etc) were murdered in thos atrocities (the burnings)

Misfit

Please see me as a student of other ancient religions. I believe I have a lot to learn in some of these areas.

Originally posted by Lord Vilmur
Christianity is a pagan religion...

Quite a declaritive statement for which by definition cannot be true. Paganism was all that rejected Christianity according to the New Testament, was it not? To say you believe Christianity is rooted in paganism would make an important distinction I think. I disagree, but at least it's debatable.

Originally posted by Lord Vilmur
God lives in the sky...Zeus

God lives in the sky? Show me where please?

Originally posted by Lord Vilmur
The devil lives in the ground.. Pluto

The Devil lives in the ground? Show me where please?

Originally posted by Lord Vilmur
Gehena in the old world translation a burning dump, in the modern bible= hell

Hehe, now you're going to say you're a goat and I'm a sheep right? Jesus called these "parables". Maybe Hell is a burning dump, maybe it isn't. But until I talk to someone who came from there about it, I think it's all speculation what is literally his. Somehow I have the feeling I'll never really know...and I'm just fine with that.

Originally posted by Lord Vilmur
hades was the Latin name fro Pluto...hades=hell=pluto

Hades isn't the same description of Hell. Some Greek works like Orfeo and such can help clarify.

Originally posted by Lord Vilmur
Eoster a pagan holiday for spring...Easter a christian holiday for spring

Easter is not a Christian Holiday. Resurrection Sunday is the holiday that was consolidated and celebrated on the Spring Equinox along with Ishtar. I guess it was to make all the 'town folk' happy. This does not make me happy, I want my holyday back!

Originally posted by Lord Vilmur
Mithra a spring time roman god...birdthday december 25 (when adjusted for the julio gregorian calender) Christs B-day December 25...

Again with the consolidation, not a 'strange coincidence'. Again not happy. I want my holyday back!

Originally posted by Lord Vilmur
what animals were babies when Chrsit was born and what time of year are then born? look it up you'll see we are either early or late compared to what time of year when the average season is for mamals.

I'm good with that. Sounds reasonable to me.

Originally posted by Lord Vilmur
The old testament said I am your God a jeaous god and then about the time of the council of nicea suddenly he became "WE"? and you shall have no gods before him......is it one two, or three?

Multi-thread addressed. But I don't see this change made by the Council of Nicea. One can skip the council altogether and study orignal Hebrew and Greek text and compare with what over 200 scholars came up with in the New International Version. It's a tight fit from what I understand from both Christians and non-Christians who are capable of reading original Hebrew and/or Greek. Now, on for the trinity. God is one, made of different parts. As Jesus explains the one body having many parts yet working together and in accord. It's all there, pick a gospel and go for it.

Originally posted by Lord Vilmur
The old testament states the serpent tempted Eve, and that is why he lost his legs...no comparison was made between the devil and the serpent until the 13th century. If it was the devil why punish serpents.....

Those poor serpents. You think they miss having legs? What's the appeal here, animal rights activism?

Originally posted by Lord Vilmur
I have more but why go on...

Because you're pulling out what seem to be contractions or unfitting puzzle pieces without a complete history chronologically or based on assumption.

Originally posted by Lord Vilmur
the faithful will still have faith, and those who doubt will never see otherwise.

Not true. I doubted and see otherwise. I know many who doubted and see otherwise.

Originally posted by Lord Vilmur
we will be diminished but GOD will not.

Woot!

Originally posted by Lord Vilmur
no matter his/her Name or function. The Earth will follow gravity and we will follow it.

Are you sure?

Originally posted by spamandham
But the pagan origins are undeniable (except to Christian apologists).

I've apologized for nothing.

Originally posted by spamandham
Really, there's very little about modern Christianity that has anything to do with Judaism which is it's purported root.

One God, the Old Testament, any of this ringing a bell?

Originally posted by spamandham
It's pretty obvious that paganized Jews who knew almost nothing about Judaism synthesized Christianity by applying astrological mystery religion to Jewish scriptures out of context.

Enlighten me. Why would paganized Jews tell other people not to be paganized Jews? That was Jesus' teaching in the gospels. There's too many to quote.

Originally posted by spamandham
Is it a coincidence that Christianity was born at the dawn of the age of Pisces, and that Pisces (aka ichthus) is the symbol for Chrsitainity? I think not.

When was the Age of Pisces? What caused the dawn of the Age of Pisces? Have you seen the symbol for Pisces? It don't look like no ichthus, why not? What significance does IXOYE have with Pisces? So many question yet to answer in order to fully explore...

Originally posted by spamandham
Is it a coincidence that Jesus has 12 disciples and that there are 12 constellations in the zodiac? Hmmm...no.

Numerology? Really... Is it a coincidence that my clock reads 10:56? Hmmmmm? How about that bump on your head? Does that mean you like chocolate?

Originally posted by spamandham
Is it a coincidence that the symbol of the cross predates Christianity and is associated with the Milky Way? No.

etc.

The cross does go way back. Why you're pinning it on the Milky Way I have no idea.


Now, if you want to throw a real curveball at a Christian, here's one: Halo

[edit on 23-6-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
But the pagan origins are undeniable (except to Christian apologists).

I've apologized for nothing.

...that's apologist, not apologize. Surely you are familiar with the term apologetics?

Originally posted by saint4God
One God, the Old Testament, any of this ringing a bell?

Are you saying that since Christianity and Judaism are both monotheistic, and since Christians keep the nice parts of the OT, that means the two religions share much in common? The key aspects of Christianity as I see them are the Trinity, Jesus as savior, and salvation by grace through faith. None of these are shared in Judaism.

The key aspects of Judaism as I see them are tradition and the law, the Jewish race is the chosen people, Israel is the chosen nation, the Messiah is a political leader to come. None of these are shared in Christianity.

Why don't you ask some Jews how much Christianity has in common with their religion? I'll save you some time and give you their answer; nothing.

Originally posted by saint4God
Enlighten me. Why would paganized Jews tell other people not to be paganized Jews? That was Jesus' teaching in the gospels. There's too many to quote.

These quotes actually support the premise. If you started a new religion synthesized from others, one way of gaining support is to claim that those others are corrupted versions of your true religion given to you by revelation. "See!? God has only one true religion, this one! Notice that it has some similarities to others? That's because those others are all corrupted versions of this one caused by deception from the Devil! God told me that himself!"

Originally posted by spamandham
Is it a coincidence that Christianity was born at the dawn of the age of Pisces, and that Pisces (aka ichthus) is the symbol for Chrsitainity? I think not.

Originally posted by saint4God
When was the Age of Pisces? What caused the dawn of the Age of Pisces? Have you seen the symbol for Pisces? It don't look like no ichthus, why not? What significance does IXOYE have with Pisces? So many question yet to answer in order to fully explore...

You could ask me these questions, or just do a few googles yourself. The Age of Pisces is an astronomical event that began right around 1 CE (give or take a few years depending on where you set the threshold). We are still in the age of Pisces, although the age of Aquarius is right around the corner (hence the song from the '70s).

There are multiple symbols for Pisces. The most common one today looks sort of like this )-(, but this isn't the only one. One of them looks exactly like the Jesus fish, but rotated 90 degrees.

IXOYE (ichthus in English) means 'fish' in Greek, but it's also an acronym for "Jesus Christ God Son Savior"

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Is it a coincidence that Jesus has 12 disciples and that there are 12 constellations in the zodiac? Hmmm...no.

Numerology? Really... Is it a coincidence that my clock reads 10:56? Hmmmmm? How about that bump on your head? Does that mean you like chocolate?

Not numerology, astrological symbolism. The sun shepherds the 12 constellations. If you actually want to read more.