Evidence of religious foundations

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
You are OBVIOUSLY oblivious to the world around you, other wise you wouldn't say there is an increase in goodness. Just look at the world around you and your statement is proved to be 100% wrong. Stop ignoring reality.

You are the first non-Christian that I've seen in a long time to agree that the turn of society from a Christian to a secular basis has resulted in a society that is "less good" than what previously existed.

Good on you.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Your argument about the OT preparing the way for Jesus. If god truly wanted to save everyone, why didn't he send Jesus in the OT times?

I don't remember ever making that argument.
Jesus came when the Jewish religion was at the height of its power and influence, so he rode on the "coattails" of Judaism, so to speak, which gave the religion of Jesus a better opportunity for success.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Ummmm... the bible makes it pretty clear that Jesus was the same god as the OT, it wouldn't be called the "New" Testament if he wasn't. They would be completely separate works, but they're both under the label of "the bible".

Your argument about the OT preparing the way for Jesus. If god truly wanted to save everyone, why didn't he send Jesus in the OT times?

You are OBVIOUSLY oblivious to the world around you, other wise you wouldn't say there is an increase in goodness. Just look at the world around you and your statement is proved to be 100% wrong. Stop ignoring reality.

People could hijack Jesus' name, just not in the first century. Right?

Listen to yourself.

Your argument about the OT preparing the way for Jesus. If god truly wanted to save everyone, why didn't he send Jesus in the OT times?

This question just shows that you really don't understand the old testament all that much, and really, most people don't, although they pretend they do while they scoff at the Bible. Here is a breakdown of the old testament relating to Jesus Christ. As a result of what Satan did to Adam & Eve in Eden, God declares in Genesis 3:15 the prophecy of the birth of Jesus Christ, that the seed of the woman will eventually lead to Satan's defeat and redemption of humankind. From there on in, throughout the OT Satan tries to prevent this from happening in the following examples:

1. Cain kills Abel (Genesis 4:8)

2. 1st Nephilim outbreak (Genesis 6)

3. 2nd Nephilim outbreak near Sodom (Genesis 14)

4. 1st Holocaust by Pharoah (Exodus 1:22)

5. 3rd Nephilim outbreak - Promised Land (Numbers 13:33)

6. Failed Holocaust by Haman (Esther 3:9)

7. 2nd Holocaust of the jewish children (Matthew 2)

8. The temptation of Christ (Mark 1:13)

This is what the story of Noah was really about when it comes down to it, a story that I explain in detail in the link below.

Animal Human Hybrids, Transhumanism, and The Bible

The issue of Genocide in the Bible:

reply to post by jmdewey60


Sorry, I confused another post with yours. My apologies.

The argument you made was that Jesus came to break the tradition of rituals taking place in god's name. I said that was a flimsy argument because Jesus was supposedly the same guy who put those rituals in place and explained how they should be performed.

Apparently you don't subscribe to Jesus being Yahweh, so I take it back.

reply to post by BlackManINC


I admit, I'm nowhere near an expert on the OT and have only read bits and pieces of it. I don't see how Genesis 3:15 has anything to do with Jesus, but to each his own.

You listing a bunch of different books from the bible doesn't really explain anything. Can you explain your point more clearly? Because right now it's just a bunch of random books put into a list.

reply to post by jmdewey60


My point was that if one book in the bible is completely fictional, what makes you think the rest of them are complete fact?

If Acts is fictional, that leaves the possibility that Luke is fictional, because they have the same author.

If Luke is fictional, that leaves the possibility that all the other gospels are fictional as well, because they all share the same story.

As far as the cherry-picking comment, at least you admit it.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by BlackManINC

 

I admit, I'm nowhere near an expert on the OT and have only read bits and pieces of it. I don't see how Genesis 3:15 has anything to do with Jesus, but to each his own.

You listing a bunch of different books from the bible doesn't really explain anything. Can you explain your point more clearly? Because right now it's just a bunch of random books put into a list.

Well, you could start by reading the Bible in full instead of in bits and pieces, the verses I referenced would be a start for you. There is a reason why Satan focused his efforts on Gods chosen people, the Jewish nation. You will begin to see that much of the old testament is about the prevention of the prophecy of God manifesting himself in the flesh as Jesus. It was to stop the "seed of the woman" that would 'bruise the head of the serpent' from being born. In other words, the Bible is about our salvation through the sacrifice of Christ.

reply to post by BlackManINC


I prefer to focus on love, not fear, which is why I have only read bits and pieces of the OT. The little bit I've read of the OT is a stark contrast to what I have read in the Gospels. Jesus and Yahweh are NOT the same person, not even close. The text speaks for itself.

You can say that the OT prophesied Jesus, but I would counter that with the Gospels not being written until 20-30 years after Jesus was crucified. Plenty of time for people to add the prophecies into his life.

reply to post by adjensen


Just because I'm not Christian doesn't mean I can't love Jesus and his message. Thanks to Jesus, I have been set on the path of love, and I'm loving it!

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Jesus and Yahweh are NOT the same person, not even close. The text speaks for itself.

If Jesus was just a man, then the whole religion falls apart. It means he didn't die for our sins, and didn't ascend into heaven to prepare a place for us in god's kingdom. So, if you're trying to bring down all of Christianity - good job!

But, for Christians the perfect god of the OT is Jesus. Only, Jesus is the new improved perfect god. Ya see?

reply to post by jiggerj


And we all know that perfection can be improved on right? Oh wait... no it can't. That leaves a bit of a conundrum.

ETA: I believe that Jesus was just a man, but that doesn't mean he wasn't god. In my opinion at least.

reply to post by jiggerj

. . . for Christians the perfect god of the OT is Jesus.

Jesus is not the same person.
The Old Testament was not written by God, but by people, and people who wanted to make out angels as if they were God.
The New Testament fixes that by saying it was angels.
There was a angel in Sinai who Moses met who said, "I AM" in response to queries as to the identity of the god that he represented. The editors of the OT went through and put in a disbursement of Yahweh's in support of the name they created from what the angel said.
Jesus in the NT says that he is the I Am, but in Greek, not in Hebrew. When he said that, he was not identifying himself with any angels who may show up in the OT representing themselves as a god.
Jesus was only borrowing a term that meant God, but distanced himself from the purported acts of these "gods" in the OT.

reply to post by jmdewey60


But the NT wasn't written by men? Weren't John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, Paul, and Peter all men? You have some very unique views, which isn't a bad thing, but it seems like you make up meanings to things to fit your presuppositions. Almost like you just make them up on the fly to suit your needs at the moment.

But I do agree with you. Moses spoke of the true god on Mt. Sinai, the I AM (us), but someone else came in and added other parts into the story after the fact. Kind of how Luke and Paul/Peter (and other writers) did with the NT.

They say that the winner writes history, and Rome won when they nailed Jesus to the cross.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

. . . it seems like you make up meanings to things to fit your presuppositions.

I'm constantly making connections between things but those "things" are results of studying and not things I just made up.
My "presuppositions" was what I believed five years ago which was standard orthodoxy that I was taught in my church which was on the fundamentalist side.
I've changed my views, and keep changing them, as I learn more by studying good academic books of scholarship on the Bible.

Rome won when they nailed Jesus to the cross.

The temple cult religious system of the Jews in Jerusalem was the ultimate looser.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by jiggerj

 

. . . for Christians the perfect god of the OT is Jesus.

Jesus is not the same person.
The Old Testament was not written by God, but by people, and people who wanted to make out angels as if they were God.
The New Testament fixes that by saying it was angels.
There was a angel in Sinai who Moses met who said, "I AM" in response to queries as to the identity of the god that he represented. The editors of the OT went through and put in a disbursement of Yahweh's in support of the name they created from what the angel said.
Jesus in the NT says that he is the I Am, but in Greek, not in Hebrew. When he said that, he was not identifying himself with any angels who may show up in the OT representing themselves as a god.
Jesus was only borrowing a term that meant God, but distanced himself from the purported acts of these "gods" in the OT.

edit on 29-4-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Your interpretation is one of one billion. Let's face it, it's bad enough with each religion claiming to be the right religion (and every other one is wrong), but when each believer has his or her own beliefs contradicting everyone else's beliefs, that's not even a religion. It means one person is right (if there were a god), and 999,999,999 are wrong. This isn't even funny. It's insanely pathetic.

Originally posted by BlackManINC

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by BlackManINC

 

I admit, I'm nowhere near an expert on the OT and have only read bits and pieces of it. I don't see how Genesis 3:15 has anything to do with Jesus, but to each his own.

You listing a bunch of different books from the bible doesn't really explain anything. Can you explain your point more clearly? Because right now it's just a bunch of random books put into a list.

Well, you could start by reading the Bible in full instead of in bits and pieces, the verses I referenced would be a start for you. There is a reason why Satan focused his efforts on Gods chosen people, the Jewish nation. You will begin to see that much of the old testament is about the prevention of the prophecy of God manifesting himself in the flesh as Jesus. It was to stop the "seed of the woman" that would 'bruise the head of the serpent' from being born. In other words, the Bible is about our salvation through the sacrifice of Christ.

Maybe some of us find enough flaws in this text to not bother with it, maybe the ones most articulated (those that are the ones pounded upon our brainboxes). Why does the Christian/Judaic Bible have pre-destination over others, the Koran, Morman, the Book of the Dead etc. Was the Judaic the most needy as the chosen or did they have a corrupted God to start with (a leg up on the wealth gem and gold trail). You have got your religions mixed up. The seed of the woman stopped with nunnery confinement, (Catholic) Priest and Monestery any kind of sequestering. The one eyed serpent, (you have to know that allusion); not to bridge the hallowed orifice and procreate. The sacrifice of Christ as HE understands it is he was used, in a most diabolical way; not an ordained Rabbi, yet disallowed to procreate. This is the THE LARGEST LIE EVER, why cannot the David Blood line continue through the DAVID blood line, JESUS, Mary and Joseph? Other options? Jesus must procreate, why was HE NOT ALLOWED TO. This is idiocacy on the grand scale SON OF GOD; true expression physical not faith driven; what happened his sperm was worth quadrillions if he was actually a physical being.

reply to post by jiggerj

. . . but when each believer has his or her own beliefs contradicting everyone else's beliefs, that's not even a religion.

You have your own definition of religion.
I don't really see what your point is.
Maybe you should study up a little on the Bible so you can have some relevant criticism rather than what looks to me like personal attacks.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by jiggerj

 

. . . but when each believer has his or her own beliefs contradicting everyone else's beliefs, that's not even a religion.

You have your own definition of religion.
I don't really see what your point is.
Maybe you should study up a little on the Bible so you can have some relevant criticism rather than what looks to me like personal attacks.

Of course you would consider the logic as a personal attack. The point is, a company would fall apart quickly if everyone did their own thing that contradicted what everyone else was doing.

The point is that no perfect god would leave his people in such confusion. His perfect message would be perfectly understood. Perfect god = perfect message.

If a message from god, or a book inspired by god (with the holy spirit supposedly guiding the hands of the writers) is not clearly understood by all, then god has failed in delivering his message. It is the responsibility of the message creator to make his message clear.

Unclear message = imperfect god.

The innumerable opinions on what the bible stories mean only proves that the book is wholly man-made. No god behind it.

reply to post by jiggerj


This post is more infallible than the bible.

Awesome logic, I wish I could star you a thousand times.

reply to post by jiggerj

Of course you would consider the logic as a personal attack.

I'm saying there is no 'logic', just you making up your own definition of 'religion', and then criticising anyone who does not meet your criteria.

The point is that no perfect god would leave his people in such confusion. His perfect message would be perfectly understood. Perfect god = perfect message.

How is this, 'perfect' for getting the "message" across is to bundle it in such a way that it gets through in a diversity of ways of believing in Jesus and God?