believers in jesus...please explain this..

Originally posted by OUTofSTEPwithTHEworld

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by OUTofSTEPwithTHEworld

 

Dunno who but he looks like this

en.wikipedia.org...
Soz dont know how to put a pic in the post

lol here he is..

to do it..
you save the picture to your computer..
- go to TOOLS
- ATS uploads
-select image

That is not Jesus. Jews do not have long hair, nor are they white. That is an Idol depiction of the god Saturnus. It is an idol put into play by the anti-christ that infests the Roman Catholic Church. We do not even know what Jesus looks like to even try to make an image/depiction of him or to even try to form an image of him in your mind is Idolatry which the Apostles warned us against. So, now you know the anti-christ runs the Roman Catholic Church. I'll drop a link below that will raise your eyebrows.

Roman Catholic Church, the worship of pagan gods

Now you know why the protestant church rebelled, now you know why the muslim hates christianity, we have this corrupt organization to thank for that. Behold the anti-christ and how he fools believers into think theyre worshipping Jesus and Yah when theyre worshipping a greek sun god Apollo, and the goddess Astarte, and the goddess Ishtar and the greek god Poseidon. They have these images imbedded in their gold and jewel encrusted "artifacts" and it makes me ill just looking at them.

reply to post by Awoken4Ever

Follow doesn't mean "I believe in Christ..." it means to live like Christ.

Really?? Now how exactly do people follow in the footsteps of Christ, and live just as He lived WITHOUT the baptism and leading of the Holy Spirit?????

reply to post by kingofmd

Comparing me to a Jehovah's Witness is about the most laughable idea posted on this thread, or maybe this entire website. I said Hell is a mistranslation. "Hell" (as mentioned as a place of punishment) doesn't appear in all versions of the New Testament, and it doesn't appear at all in the original Greek Version nor in the Old Testament. There have been some "new additions" added to the NT over the centuries, likely to fill the needs of the church, which is common in Christianity, the most evolving religion on the face of the Earth, which is ironic since Christianity scoffs at the idea of evolution.
Anything to make a buck, right?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Since Baptizing and living as Christ are all that is necessary for a healthy afterlife, then the question tasked in the OP has been answered, since nearly all pre-Christian faiths cleansed with water and the ideas of "the Christ" were spoken long before Jesus came along to regurgitate them for new “virgin” ears.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

No dude that is Buddy Christ from the film Dogma www.imdb.com...
In the film the Catholic Church decides that images of Christ on a cross are to depressing so they revamp the image with Buddy Christ.
Great film if you have not seen it.





Oh and thanks for the help to get this photo up cheers dude.

reply to post by Awoken4Ever

He comes in all forms to those that can hear him. To you he is Christ, to others Buddha, to others Mohammed.

Really?? So why can I go to Buddha's and Muhammad's grave today but Christ tomb is nowhere to be found?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Poisoning the well and ad hominem fallacies.

What you practice is deflection, from demands to back up crazy claims you make, by distracting with counter claims against whoever is asking you to substantiate anything you say.

Lol. You of all people are pointing the finger at him for doing this. Dude you do the same damned things.

"Judge not lest ye be judged, for the measure you use to judge others shall be the measure used to judge you" (paraphrased).

Translation: "do not point your finger at other peoples sins for you do the same things".

You really need to stop making accusations at people when you do the same sh*t. This is what hypocrisy is.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Awoken4Ever

 

He comes in all forms to those that can hear him. To you he is Christ, to others Buddha, to others Mohammed.

Really?? So why can I go to Buddha's and Muhammad's grave today but Christ tomb is nowhere to be found?

Because you cant entomb someone who is not dead. Muhammads tomb doesn't exist anymore either, a radical group of muslims bulldozed it a few years ago because more moderate muslims were going there to pay homage to him and venerate him.

There will be people who argue that Jesus' body was stolen, but this can easily be refuted by having knowledge of ancient jewish burial rights. Once a body was entombed it was left there for 1 year until most or all of the flesh had rotted away from the bones, wherein which his family would then take his bones and place them in a stone chest called an ossuary which is second burial and then place the chest in the family tomb while they waited for resurrection day (belief in resurrection day was popular amoung the jews of Jesus' time) where they could all be revived together. The only way anyone would even go into that tomb before that 1 year period was over was if someone told them he was alive and they would then go and see if he was still lying on the funerary bench. Jews didn't want to be defiled by having a corpse in their presence because then you would never be allowed into the temple after which was why Nicodemus stayed at a "safe distance" and why Mary his mother also stayed at a "safe distance" and watched from afar. Jesus body would have then been carried to a tomb at the bottom of Golgatha reserved for criminals carried on a bier made from his own cross and that bier would then be burned. Theres no way that any of them would have gone into that tomb before that 1 year period unless he really was alive. Not to mention there were two roman legionaires gaurding the tomb to make sure no one could steal his corpse.

reply to post by xxblackoctoberxx


So, I have a question. If you are just going to discount everything in this thread, why are you here? Maybe you should be in a different forum if you do not believe what is going on in this one?

reply to post by Viking9019


Correct, because it is the same book by different authors. You end up in the same place no matter what map you used.

reply to post by Awoken4Ever


Well said, and I believe it to be true. However, I believe that we live in the bondage of self because the world forces us to. Almost everything out there is made to alienate us from each other and we fall for it.

Originally posted by MarshMallow_Snake
reply to post by Awoken4Ever

 

However, I believe that we live in the bondage of self because the world forces us to. Almost everything out there is made to alienate us from each other and we fall for it.

Well said, and likely the most profound post on this thread, including my own.

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


Thank you. I see it every day. We would rather call someone then stop by. We would rather text someone then call. I fall into this as most others do too. Social media runs (ruins?) our lives. People seem to be more concerned with pop-culture over "our" culture. Are we really a hollywood culture trying to keep up with Jersey Shore and the Kardashians? I hope not.

Neighborhoods are not the same anymore. When I was a kid, we were always in the streets playing and socializing (in the 80's). Now, there are video games and kids make friends on-line. Social interaction is now through a device (for the most part...I know it is not 100%, but I would say it is over 70%).

I struggle with alienation everyday. Part of me knows that I should be loving and accepting of others, but for some reason I cannot defeat the other part of me that wants nothing to do with people because all I see are the bad things that happen, and it makes me sad. I need to change, and I know it...but the odds are stacked against us because of the way of the world.

Once people realize that together, as a community of people working with each other, and not to get ahead, that we have power, and a real voice, the world could change... in an instant.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Sadly, millions will reject free grace and will instead opt to be judged on their own works.

Sadly, millions opt out from being good, finding it a burden, so take on fake theology that says there is no judgment as long as you feel sorry for yourself and say a specific line about believing Jesus did everything for me and now I can freely sin and nothing bad could ever possibly happen to me, even if I go out and murder twenty million people.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Sadly, millions will reject free grace and will instead opt to be judged on their own works.

Sadly, millions opt out from being good, finding it a burden, so take on fake theology that says there is no judgment as long as you feel sorry for yourself and say a specific line about believing Jesus did everything for me and now I can freely sin and nothing bad could ever possibly happen to me, even if I go out and murder twenty million people.

Who says that? I've never heard someone claim any of that. Do you happen to have an example of someone saying that? Perhaps one quote from someone who uttered those words??

Secondly, how exactly can a person hope to live a life free of sin, or to "be good" as you say, without the infilling and direction of the Holy Spirit?

reply to post by MarshMallow_Snake


I agree wholeheartedly, and have been saying it for years. So much of humanity clings to archaic notions, and usually because they're trying to feed other archaic ideas about who they think they could be, instead of who they should be; i.e. an advocate for the evolution of society for the benefit of mankind, instead of the benefit of self.

reply to post by MarshMallow_Snake

Hence how Jesus became the Lamb of God. People were to slaughter a lamb or sheep every time they sinned. Endless blood to cover the impossible laws. Then, Jesus became the lamb by dying for those sins.

In the old system as explained in the Old Testament, there was no allowance for sin.
I don't know where you got your idea about how it worked, maybe from Sunday School class when you were young. If you sinned, God destroyed you. Or more accurately probably, the people believing they were God's people destroyed you. Sin sacrifices were a hedge for in case you may have sinned but did not realize it, or maybe you did something and didn't realize at the time that there was something wrong with it.
The way to understand the concept of a lamb that takes away the sin of the world is by looking at the New Testament and not the Old Testament. God does not want sacrifice but obedience, or good behavior. God could destroy the world but does not because we do have an example of good behavior, Jesus, from among us, who is our passover to avert the avenging angel.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Sorry, but when you attack a person and never address what that person actually said it's a fallacy.

Round and round and round. You are pathological. Attack attack attack is all you do and never deal with the substance.
The substance is your claim that Adam was not made perfect, number one, two, was not made in the Garden of Eden, three, was not wise. To start with and once you show your support for these three claims by you, then we can go into the others you made.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Sadly, millions will reject free grace and will instead opt to be judged on their own works.

Sadly, millions opt out from being good, finding it a burden, so take on fake theology that says there is no judgment as long as you feel sorry for yourself and say a specific line about believing Jesus did everything for me and now I can freely sin and nothing bad could ever possibly happen to me, even if I go out and murder twenty million people.

Who says that? I've never heard someone claim any of that. Do you happen to have an example of someone saying that? Perhaps one quote from someone who uttered those words??

Secondly, how exactly can a person hope to live a life free of sin, or to "be good" as you say, without the infilling and direction of the Holy Spirit?

Here is a link to your answer to my question about sin and salvation.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Here is the quote by you that you gave as an answer:

Let me answer with a question of my own..
In the story of the Prodigal Son, did the younger son ever lose his sonship in that story?

Which I took as you saying that no matter how much one sins, once they had accepted Jesus at some point in their life, then they are saved. I later as in the next day asked if you thought someone could also for example become a sort of tyrant like Hitler and murder twenty million people and still go to heaven, and you made an equally ambiguous sort of answer about always being saved which I took for a YES, meaning if Hitler, for example, was at one time early in his life a good Christian and had accepted Jesus as his saviour, then he would be in heaven.
Here is the link to the other discussion:www.abovetopsecret.com...
Where you say that killing 20 million people is no different than any sin you may happen to do on a daily basis.
I could also add that Lonewolf19792000 seems to be in complete agreement with you in this thread I just linked to.

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by k1k1to

 

Yup what about the other good guys in history (Ghandi=Hindu) etc, they go to hell too because they have not accepted Jesus.
I think there is something in the bible which says If people have not been given the chance of learning about Jesus they get a free pass

Thats is what I was told, when I asked where the little babies or small children went when a tragedy happened to them. Animals too.

I thought the most common christian belief about animals is they do not go to heaven.
They don't have a (soul, spirit....what ever), so they are not worthy.

Can one of you christians answer this for me?
Is it based on what version of christianity you believe in?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Sorry, but when you attack a person and never address what that person actually said it's a fallacy.

Round and round and round. You are pathological. Attack attack attack is all you do and never deal with the substance.
The substance is your claim that Adam was not made perfect, number one, two, was not made in the Garden of Eden, three, was not wise. To start with and once you show your support for these three claims by you, then we can go into the others you made.

For the love of God, go and learn what a Straw Man fallacy is. You've got 1/3 of my statements correct.

1. I never said Adam was "not made perfect". Here is what I actually said:

Adam was never perfect in beauty

So, Adam has never in scripture been described as being perfect "IN BEAUTY". There is someone else in the scripture described as being created perfect in beauty, and it wasn't Adam.

2. I never said Adam "was not wise". Here is what I actually said:

he was never full of wisdom either

So, I never said Adam wasn't wise, that's a false claim. I said Adam was never "perfect/full of wisdom."

3. I did say Adam was not created in the garden, he was created from the dust of the ground then afterward God placed Adam in the garden. God created Adam BEFORE He created the garden in Eden.


From Genesis chapter 2:


"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed." Genesis 2:7-8



Here, this will help you out a great deal, you need to learn that making up things people say and then debunking the things you made up yourself is not a logical way to debate. You make this enormous error with alarming frequency here in the forums. Just please learn that what you're doing is irrational and illogical.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Straw Man Fallacy