The Jesus of the Bible was a communist. If you aren't a communist, then you are anti-Christ.

a reply to: ltrz2025

I respect all faiths, people are free to believe in whatever story they want. I have dear friends who practices all the religions you named. My point here was: if you are going to judge others with your personal belief, at least get your belief straight and don't be a hypocrite.

We are? That isn't what you have demonstrated over the thread.

By the way, I think you need to look up the word apostate. I do not think it means what you seem to think it means. I would look into hypocrite. It might serve better.

Just to save me 1 post, I'll answer you both here.

a reply to: ketsuko

a reply to: Degradation33

The point of the thread was about Jesus' communist teachings and way of life. You are trying to lead it to off topic conversations (Degradation33) or making something personal out of this (Ketsuko). Your proposals BORE ME as hell, plus they present absolutely no argument in regards to the point of the thread.

So, sure, whatever. Go away now, or go tag someone else.


P.S.: Apostate is generally used for someone who abandons a religion, but it is also someone who willingly and knowingly disobeys one of God's laws, because that represents a denial of God. When people lack of arguments usually lead everything to personal discussions and "semantics"... so obvious.

a reply to: nugget1

At the risk of being too far off topic I have a bit of mental confusion you may be able to shed some light on and I'd like to hear your take on the subject.

Well, I don't speak for God, obviously, but I'll be happy to give you my take after studying the Bible and the Scriptures.

Mankind has been on earth far longer, so does that mean God created a 'perfect' chosen race when he created Adam and Eve?

That's a controversial subject. Again, I can say what I think on the issue, but you will get different answers depending on who you ask. I can speak to the science involved, as I work in (privately since my disability) and am trained in scientific research.

Scientific dating is accomplished by a wide array of different methods, but all are based on one thing: carbon-14 dating. It turns out that carbon, which normally exists as carbon-12, gets changed into carbon-14 in the life process. Carbon-14 has a specific half-life, being slightly radioactive, so by measuring the amount of carbon-14 as compared to carbon-12, one can determine how long it has been since the source of the carbon-14 was alive. That's the theory.

The reality is somewhat less straightforward. Any time a sample is sent for questioning, the lab will request an approximate date... usually supplied by dating the rock strata or something along those lines. Without this approximation, the results can vary wildly due to the technical difficulties in measuring the different carbon isotopes. In other words, the same sample could say both 1000 years old and 100,000 years old, and the approximation is used to determine which of those different results will be accepted.

In addition, the method makes a few assumptions: the life process today produces the same amount of carbon-14 as it did 100,000 years ago; the decay rate for the carbon-14 is still accurate in today's environment as it was in the environment from 100,000 years ago; the techniques used for measurement are accurate and consistent. Now, those seem like reasonable assumptions, but then again, there is that inconsistency in the results I mentioned.

In other words, I am not 100% convinced about the reliability of carbon-14 dating. It's the best we have, and it is useful for trying to understand our world, but it is not a guarantee of accuracy.

We also don't know for a fact that the planet's orbital rotation around the sun is consistent throughout pre-history with the present observations. We can't even say that a day today is the same length of time as a day was 100,000 years ago. Observations indicate that the normal status of a planet is to be tidal-locked, meaning no day and night at all. The Earth seems to be an exception, not the rule.

In other words, while I am not going to go on record as saying that I know God created man exactly 6000 present-day years ago, I am also not convinced that the science is infallible either. That will probably be one of the first questions out of my mouth when I meet God.

I know Jesus didn't come to replace the law, but to fulfill the law. The law seemed to have been created by anything but a 'loving' God, and creating the perfect race makes me uncomfortable in my lack of understanding.

God created a perfect race when He made Adam and Eve. However, Adam and Eve chose to ignore God and exercise their free will. They were allowed to do that, but it also meant they suffered the consequences of that decision. One of those consequences was that God was forced to abandon them outside the Garden of Eden. God is perfect; any sin that stands before God would be obliterated. Once Adan and Eve sinned, continued exposure to God would have destroyed them.

But God wanted to save mankind anyway. To do so, He had to have a chosen people to do His will so He could set up for Jesus' coming. Sure, God could have just forced Himself on the world, but that would mean that man never had free will. That was the purpose of the Law: to keep the people of Israel living according to God's will so He could bring forth the earthy form of Jesus.

When Jesus was crucified, there was no longer any need for the Law; God's plan had been fulfilled. Ever since, mankind has been on a collision course with Judgement Day. Every one of us is now in a position to determine our ultimate fate. Israel is still the "chosen people," but there is no longer a need for a "chosen people." We are now all God's "chosen people" if we wish to be.

It has nothing to do with creating a "perfect race."

The Bible almost reads like a power-play to have dominion over the human species, one created by fallen angels and a 'superior' race created by God.

I do believe that at one point, the human race was "contaiminated" if you will, by those who spawned from fallen angels. The Bible states that is so. I also know that science has unearthed human skeletons of giants, some 7, 9, 10, 12 feet tall or even taller. These giants lived in the lands God gave to Israel, and I do believe a part of His plan was for Israel to destroy these "contaminated" races.

But we no longer have them among us. The largest humans now have hormonal issues which are generally fatal if not treated... Andre the Giant of wrasslin' fame died from such. Big Show has the same condition, but science was able to stop his growth in time for him to live a normal lifespan. Probably so does The Great Khali and Omos, the "Nigerian Giant." But they are not 12 feet tall, either. They are not of the race of giants specified in the Bible.

The Bible gives us the Jewish version of religions, while all others are deemed wrong and hedonistic.

Of course it does! Why would you expect any culture to do differently?

The difference is that the God of Abraham has proven Himself to me, as He has to countless others across the globe. I didn't become a Christian because my parents told me to or because I was raised in a Christian environment... I actually rejected those teachings at one point. But later on, I gave God an honest chance, and He showed me not just that He exists, but that His Word, the Bible, is true. I do not believe in God; I know God! I talk to Him, and He talks to me. I just wish I was better at following what he says all the time.

Other religions demand that one sacrifice their life for their god... my God sacrificed His life for me. I just chose to accept the sacrifice.

Hope that helped.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ltrz2025

Apostate is someone who renounces it. You have to believe in it in order to renounce it. Those of us arguing against you never believed in the version of Christianity you are trying to make us believe in. We know Christ was not a communist, and we've been making that point over and over with scripture to back us, even the scripture you've brought up.

We can't be called something we're not as we've renounced nothing.

I've made plenty of arguments all throughout this thread. This is where we have wound up. Interesting that this is also the only one you feel like answering.

You are right about this. At the very least he is socialist. Modern Republicans forgot the first thing about Jesus. I have recently read the entire Bible, including the New Testament. I can probably get in a scripture-quoting war with anyone who thinks Jesus is an individualist and capitalist like Jordan Peterson thinks, for example. It is simply not the case.

But... follow a false philosophy if you want, it doesn't bother me that you are fake Christians.

a reply to: darkbake

Why teach in terms of prosperity? So many of his parables are couched in regular terms of ownership and prosperity. If our natural and intended state is to not have that, then those tales would cease to have any context.

a reply to: ltrz2025

Perfect is how you gain your way to heaven.

Absolutely NO!

No man can ever be perfect. None. Not you, me, or anyone else. We all sin, because ever since Adam and Eve, sin is in our nature. The entire point of Jesus coming in the flesh was so HE could live a perfect life and sacrifice that perfect life for us. We can't do it; if we could, there would be no need for Jesus.

We are to strive for perfection, but striving for something is not the same as achieving it.

A story I once heard:

A young man sat through a Sunday sermon once. Afterwards, he went to the pastor and asked, "If I become a Christian, do I have to give up pot?"

The pastor simply answered, "No."

Thinking he misunderstood, the man asked again, "No, I mean if I become a Christian, do I have to give up smoking marijuana?"

Again, the pastor replied, "No."

Frustrated, the man tries again. "Pastor, listen to me! If I become a Christian, will I have to give up this?" as he dug a joint out of his pocket and held it up.

The pastor replied, "When you take a shower, do you clean yourself up before you get in the shower?"

"That's ridiculous!" replied the young man. "I get in the shower to get clean! If I am already clean, I don't need a shower!"

"Exactly," came the reply. "Christianity is the shower. You become a Christian the way you are right now, no restrictions. Once you and Jesus get to talking, then you two can work out the details among yourself."

That is a very good metaphor to how it works.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ltrz2025

Apostate is someone who renounces it. You have to believe in it in order to renounce it. Those of us arguing against you never believed in the version of Christianity you are trying to make us believe in. We know Christ was not a communist, and we've been making that point over and over with scripture to back us, even the scripture you've brought up.

We can't be called something we're not as we've renounced nothing.

HAHA, I should not answer you, but feel compelled to for some reason.

First, my point was not "making you believe" in anything. If you want to believe in one-eyed, one-horned, flying, purple people eaters, that's totally fine! I applaud you. If it makes you happy, cheers to that. I was simply quoting the Bible.

Then, my objective never is to people to agree with me, on the contrary, I'm anti-establishment, anti-authority and anti-consensus by default. When too many people agree with me, it's usually a bad sign. If I say something, it necessarily needs to be provocative (and rational) and push people to question themselves. Otherwise, I find no reason to say it. I knew that this thread would create cognitive dissonance in the apostates, that was the point of it all. You can say that after 140+ posts, I kind of achieved it. You want to believe that you "won" the debate, fine by me, if it makes you happy, be happy. All good.

Much love

originally posted by: TheRedneck
No man can ever be perfect. None. Not you, me, or anyone else. We all sin, because ever since Adam and Eve, sin is in our nature.

Jesus is telling you how to be "perfect" in Matthew 19:21 (“If you want to be perfect, go, sell all your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven"). And here you are, denying Jesus' words again, denying the Bible's clear and literal message, like a good apostate. Sorry bro, your own words.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
A story I once heard:

A young man sat through a Sunday sermon once. Afterwards, he went to the pastor and asked, "If I become a Christian, do I have to give up pot?" The pastor simply answered, "No."

So, you are not technically following Jesus' teachings, but your Pastor's opinions. This actually explains a lot. Shouldn't your religion be called: MyPastorTianity, then?

Best to you,

a reply to: ltrz2025

/facepalm

When the points fly over your head, they do so by a mile.

I don't give a rip about you. You are trying to call us apostate. An apostate is someone who abandons a belief. You are talking about beliefs none of us ever held. By definition, we are not apostate.

I don't care about agreeing with you or not, being persuaded by you or not. Your contention is that Jesus is communist and all Christians must be communist to be really Christian. In order to be apostate, we have to have embraced this belief ourselves at some point. It doesn't matter if we came to it from you or someone else, and believe me, this idea of yours is NOT AT ALL NEW. It's a very popular progressive talking point and belief.

It's even a part of a branch of theology called "liberation theology".

But if you never believed in any of that, then you can't have turned away from it and are not, therefore, an apostate of any kind.

I suppose a more valid way of describing those of us who choose not embrace this view of the faith would be to call us infidel as the Muslims call those who refuse to follow their faith.

originally posted by: darkbake
You are right about this. At the very least he is socialist. Modern Republicans forgot the first thing about Jesus. I have recently read the entire Bible, including the New Testament. I can probably get in a scripture-quoting war with anyone who thinks Jesus is an individualist and capitalist like Jordan Peterson thinks, for example. It is simply not the case.

But... follow a false philosophy if you want, it doesn't bother me that you are fake Christians.

I technically have no problem with people being Christian apostates (or "fake" christians as you call them) either, whatever makes them happy. But when they form a "mass" and they go around judging everything and everyone with a doctrine they don't even respect (hypocrites), someone somewhere needs to help them reflect a bit. For the sake of dignity and intellectual honesty, if such thing still exists in this world of internet whiners.

originally posted by: ltrz2025

originally posted by: ketsuko
Jesus believed in charity which is giving of what you have freely.

And Jesus said: “If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Matthew 19:21)

Does it read like Jesus is giving you an option? At no point he tells you that you are free to choose whatever you want, he is pointing you the way to heaven.

"Treasure in Heaven" is above and beyond getting to go to Heaven. In a similar Bible verse, Jesus says to lay up your treasures in Heaven not on earth where rust can destroy or thieves can steal.

a reply to: TruthJava

In those passages, as in the entire New Testament, Jesus is explaining what to do to be saved. He is not promising any McDonald's happy meal surprise in heaven, he is telling how to get to heaven before he closes the door.

a reply to: ketsuko

More so than you think.

The living arrangement may just be that it is more a work camp for vacationing than living full time.

a reply to: ltrz2025

Jesus is telling you how to be "perfect" in Matthew 19:21 (“If you want to be perfect, go, sell all your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven").

Yes, He did. Now, did the man He was speaking to do so?

No, he didn't. He left ashamed because he couldn't.

And here you are, denying Jesus' words again, denying the Bible's clear and literal message, like a good apostate. Sorry bro, your own words.

I am denying no words from the Bible. Yes, if he could have lived a perfect life like Jesus did, he could have been saved by his own actions. But he could not do so!

Like so many, you miss the last part of Jesus' lesson in Matthew 19:26:

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Jesus Himself said it is impossible for man to achieve perfection alone! If anyone is denying the words of Jesus, it is you for not quoting the entire context of what is being said/done. Paul also made a similar statement, as does the Old Testament.

So, you are not technically following Jesus' teachings, but your Pastor's opinions.

Actually, I was telling a story; a parable if you will, and one that apparently you are unable to understand. I do not have a pastor; I do not even have a regular church! I commune with God sitting out beside my barn; I used to do so in the mountain behind my house, but I am unable to walk that far now. I also regularly read the Bible, not just to see the words, but to understand the meaning behind them. God helps me to do so.

As usual, your arguments are falling apart like a house of cards. As one falls, it dislodges three more. You have made too many completely and demonstrably false statements in this thread already for me to even recall all of them, statements that diametrically oppose the words written in the Bible.

You even made the hilarious statement that the oldest Bible was 1000 years old! The oldest compilation may be so recent, but the books which make up the Bible come from ancient scrolls. The Dead Sea scrolls are from as far back as the third century B.C. and the scrolls from the Judeaean desert region are even older, some as much as 3000 years old.

You claim that the Bible was re-written by the Roman Empire to adhere to Christian teachings, when it was the Roman Empire who actually allowed Jesus to be crucified by the Jews. And somehow, that part was left in and history still shows early Christians persecuted mercilessly by the Roman Empire. Paul, author of 2/3 of the New Testament, was well-employed by the Romans for the express purpose of seeking out and killing Christians!

Those Romans sure missed an awful lot, didn't they? Personally, I would have taken out the part about the Roman governor who, when he heard about Jesus' birth, killed all the male children to try and make sure Jesus could never be. I guess they forgot that one, too, though.

And you make all these claims because you want to promote communism to Christians. And don't give me that nonsense about you don't care about either... you made the thread. You obviously cared enough to do that. I know enough to know when someone is peeing on my leg and saying it's rain; you are far, far, far from the first person to try and disguise your true agenda. Frankly, you're not even that good at it. I've seen much more convincing attempts.

Maybe Xtrozero was right... once again, I have cast my pearls before swine.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Ahabstar

Yep. I know my mom always talks about how the extended could make a go of it at the family grounds, but that means my brother-in-law, and I'm pretty sure I'd end up killing him before too long.

Nm

a reply to: TheRedneck

Sounds like your argument is making Jesus sound like a fool, who says things that he actually doesn't mean, and that you need to interpret the bible by yourself, because Jesus was too stupid to speak clearly, or something. I mean, I clearly said many times that I don't support communism, and here you are again claiming that I do. This speaks volumes of your reading and interpreting skills... so, forgive me to prefer to trust the literal words of the bible, of Jesus, instead of "your interpretations".


Regarding the famous "Dead Sea Scrolls", these are extremely controversial, and by no means they are what you claim them to be. People just need to look for "Scandals of the Dead Sea Scrolls", and read. It's a fascinating subject though, but completely far from being a consensus on them. Most of what was found are small fragments which people completely disagree on what they say, and these documents have been suppressed from public access for over 70 years, and no one knows how manipulated they were during all this time. And, if the scrolls actually are what you claim, if these were "a bible: back then, then that means that, at least, around 60% of this ancient Bible was later erased (including the Book of Enoch).


And I don't "claim" that Rome "re-wrote" the Bible. I have an opinion (not a claim), after 40 years of research, which is that the Roman empire forged Christianity as we know it due to their power agenda. Christianity became a global religion because Rome chose it as its official belief, otherwise it would have only been a fringe sect from the middle east that only a few knew about and nothing else. Anyway, this was part of a response taken out of context to another member, not to you, and has nothing to do with the subject of Jesus' communist teachings. You are trying to deviate the topic, probably due to your lack of arguments.

Then, just to entertain the debate, Constantine, when he "converted" to Christianity, blamed it all on Nero. Nero was the preferred scape goat of the Roman emperors. There was even an roman legend, the Nero Redivivus legend, which was a belief that Nero would return after his death (sounds familiar?), bring armies and destroy Rome. The legend was a common belief until the 5th century AD. Even more, several imposters posed as Nero through out all those centuries, leading rebellions against the Roman power. And well, many are aware of the references to Nero in the Book of Revelations (666). But well, I don't think you are ready for this topic at all, since it's a historical debate and you have dogs in this fight. Plus, it would be totally off topic to the thread.

originally posted by: ltrz2025

When you read the Bible, two things become quite clear:

1. Jesus required a communist way of life for those seeking Christian salvation.

2. Jesus condemned wealth and property.


“Any "Christian" claiming that what I shared here are lies, then they are denying the word of Jesus. Any person who call him/herself a "Christian" and, knowing the law, does not live in a "communist way" is a Christian apostate and, by their own doctrine, are condemning themselves to "hell".

A I hope that you are writing from a borrowed phone or computer, because Christ commanded you to sell ALL your property, so you should not have any.

Yikes, you have taken things out of context big time, Lol
For one . . .
#1) Condemning "money Changers" (bankers,lenders,pawn brokers)
is not communism.
#2) Ever heard of "you can't take it with you when you go" ? or
does that meaning go over your head ? Lol
#3) Obviously your not getting the moral of the story.
Seems your on a roll just to spread a your slanderous narrative
and nothing more.
#4) Equal rights, anti racism, is definitely not
the definition of communism.
#5) Jesus is about ethics, virtue, and justice for the meek.
Do you have a problem with that ?
Personally though, I see zionism as a Marxist endeavor not
at all democratic.


_________________________

a reply to: ltrz2025

Sounds like your argument is making Jesus sound like a fool, who says things that he actually doesn't mean, and that you need to interpret the bible by yourself

I have given you exact quotes by Jesus, as recorded in the King James Version of the Bible. You have not acknowledged a single one. Who's claiming Jesus can't speak for Himself?

I clearly said many times that I don't support communism, and here you are again claiming that I do.

I can claim I'm Queen Mary on here, too. Doesn't mean I get to wear a crown. It just means I am either lying or psychopathic.

I simply find your claim to be without merit.

Regarding the famous "Dead Sea Scrolls", these are extremely controversial

Only to those who fail to look at the evidence. They say the exact same thing as the earliest Hebrew/Greek Bibles we have. Their composition has been dated by historians as being typical of manuscripts produced during the time periods I specified. But yeah, if you want to go searching on the Internet, you'll find plenty of people claiming they were somehow "faked." Most of them probably still living in their parents' basement playing video games at 30 years old.

And I don't "claim" that Rome "re-wrote" the Bible. I have an opinion (not a claim), after 40 years of research, which is that the Roman empire forged Christianity as we know it due to their power agenda.

The only reason Rome converted to Christianity to become the official religion of Rome was that so many Romans converted to Christianity despite Rome doing everything it could to squash the religion. That included killing people for professing that Jesus is Lord.

Christianity became a global religion because Rome chose it as it official belief, otherwise it would have only been a fringe sect from the middle east that a few knew about and nothing else.

Early Christianity spread much farther than Rome even before it was accepted in Rome. It had churches in Greece, Turkey, Persia, Egypt, and arrived globally after a very short time.

There are 21 epistles (letters to the early churches) included in the New Testament. 14 of those were written by Paul. Only one is to a Roman church. So while Rome did adopt Christianity eventually, Rome still was not the only nation spreading the Gospel. Far from it. The Gospels are actually quite critical of Rome.

Incidentally, Constantine (the first Christian to be Emperor of Rome) ruled over 200 years after Nero. That means Christianity survived over 300 years before it was accepted by the Roman Empire... in spite of the Roman Empire.

TheRedneck