DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on March 31, 2013, 09:04:41 PM
-
Jesus toumb found empty!
-
Happy Easter Plane
-
If Jesus had had a gun, he;d be alive today!
-
Even if he didn't, he would be, if he chose to. Always nice to see xo entertain the irrationally irrelevant ;D
-
If Jesus had had a gun, he;d be alive today!
If Jesus had the power to kill a tree with a word, or convert water into wine or confuse a croud sent to seize him so that he could walk right past them, then he had the supernatural equivelent of a superwepon on his hip the whole time.
Allowing himself to be beaten to death is a miricle of a sort , I don't know if I could put up with a fraction of it.
By the way , the toumb is empty because he only needed it a short time. Most of us will need to buy a grave , but really, shouldn't a Christian rent one?
-
The thing is, although he supposedly DIED for everyone's sins (even sins that would not be committed for 20 centuries), he did not appear to do what most people fear about death, which would be to stay dead. Every year, herds of people in the Philippines and the mountains of New Mexico have themselves crucified. I bet crucifixion would be the next extreme sport if not for the fact that after you are dead, you do not come back.
And Jesus only seems to have paid a very short visit.
There is always the possibility that he died of complications after that.
-
The thing is, although he supposedly DIED for everyone's sins (even sins that would not be committed for 20 centuries), he did not appear to do what most people fear about death
Probably because he was the Son of God and had more important priorities on his table
-
At the very, very least, Jesus should have taken some time to write the Gospel According to Jesus. Instead,. he left this up to four guys who may or may not have ever met him, who could not get their stories straight, and waited decades to write down anything.
Think about it: if your No. 1 priority is to bring the word of God to Man, then the very least you should do is get the story right.
-
I doubt very seriously Jesus, the Son of God, needs you to give him a consult on his itinerary or literary agents. And I have no problem with the message that's been passed on. I'll pray for improved clarity for you, if you're having that much trouble.
Not to mention, the added irrelevancy that Jesus would have ever needed a firearm, when he had an Angelic Army at his call
-
He clearly needed some PR guidance, which came in the form of Paul. As for angels, all I can say is get effing serious!
-
Trying to lay claim to Jesus needed a gun to save himself, and you're ranting about getting serious? :o
-
At the very, very least, Jesus should have taken some time to write the Gospel According to Jesus. Instead,. he left this up to four guys who may or may not have ever met him, who could not get their stories straight, and waited decades to write down anything.
Think about it: if your No. 1 priority is to bring the word of God to Man, then the very least you should do is get the story right.
Jesus existed as the word of God.
He didn't do his job as you would have?
He may have understood his job in a diffrent way than you.
Perhaps "teacher" was his priority two?
-
So what was his main priority?
Ending moneychanger abuse at the Temple?
There is no rational reason for there NOT to have been a Gospel according to Jesus.
The New Testament is full of strange stuff, but it is a better read than the Koran, which is even more irrational and more deeply weird.
-
So what was his main priority?
The salvation of souls.
Ending moneychanger abuse at the Temple?
Since that only happened the once I don't think it was even a second priority, but it fit into his agenda .
There is no rational reason for there NOT to have been a Gospel according to Jesus.
Grant wrote a book about his life and times and presidency,Lincon did not , is there a rational reason for this?
The New Testament is full of strange stuff, but it is a better read than the Koran, which is even more irrational and more deeply weird.
Strange is not a measure that can be relyed on because the questions being answered include a lot of things that are outside day to day experience. Rational is not a good measure if what is being considered includes things beyond our understanding. Quantum mechanics probly seems a lot more rational to people who adeal with it every day.
Faith can be misplaced , why God wants it is a mystery.
-
Well concluded, Plane *golf clap* 8)
-
Grant wrote a book about his life and times and presidency,Lincon did not , is there a rational reason for this?
-==========================================================
Of course there is.
Grant was destitute and dying of cancer and wrote his autobiography to support his wife after his death. Grant was a very good writer. Lincoln was assassinated before he had a chance to write anything. Odds are that had he lived, his wife would have made it very difficult for Lincoln to have written anything. Mary Todd Lincoln was barking mad.
Jesus chose the time and place of his death. he could have written his Gospel and THEN done his crucifixion thing. He was in his 30's. Lincoln was in his 60's.
Jesus could certainly have saved more souls had his message been clearer. None of the four Gospels is more than a spotty set of memoirs and there are contradictions between them. We still do not know the exact year. month or day of his birth, though both the Jews and the Romans kept precise records of such things.
More people have heard of Coca-Cola than have heard of Jesus. Coca-Cola makes no claims to be divine or to be omnipotent, and in less than 125 years, it is better known than Jesus.
Most of Europe was converted to Christianity by war, conquest and violence,and rather a few really stupid legends.
If Jesus had had a more effective message, no one would have paid much attention to Mohammad.
As for saying that Jesus should have had a gun, I was simply poking fun at your stupid crap about how guns make everyone safer.
-
And FACTS point out that guns, in the hands of responsible owners, DO make everyone safer
-
So then Jesus, being a member of the group "everyone", would have been safer had he been packing heat.
Everyone in Japan is far safer from being shot than everyone in the US and only a few responsible officials there are armed.
Your "fact" is nothing more than a belief. Like your belief in angels.
-
Irrelevent Professor Strawman. Jesus did not live in America, nor did he need anyone, much less himself packing anything, if he wanted protection. Nor is anyone advocating that "everyone" be packing. Nor is this Japan
Wow, let's line up that strawman army. You realize ignorance is pretty much a choice at your age. A 3 year old wouldn't be able to grasp current facts and reality. You can, you simply choose not to. Embrace your ignorance, I suppose
-
You certainly are an expert on embracing ignorance, I will give you that.
Apparently, when you say "everyone" it has a different meaning, and refers only to Americans in 2013.
-
Actually if I were to say "everyone", it would mean "everyone". You have a different definition, do you?
What did I warn you about conflating? Best cease Professor Strawman, and focus on something specific, that's actually relevant. Your erroneous opinion and name calling is neither
-
So everyone includes Jesus, then?
Jesus would have been safer had "responsible gin owners" been packing heat all along the Via Dolorosa?
-
Professor Strawman strikes again. Just remember who keeps referencing "everyone". Here's a hint, it's not me
-
So everyone includes Jesus, then?
Jesus would have been safer had "responsible gin owners" been packing heat all along the Via Dolorosa?
That is an interesting notion.
If the common man of Juda had been very well armed , perhaps better armed than the armys of Rome or the puppet government of Herod, I am quite sure that the problem with Romans crucifying someone every few days would have been mitigated pretty soon.
I am not at all sure that the people then would have done better for themselves , seeing that we have plenty of wepons and are not doing all that much better.
If Jesus himself had of been given a pistol , I don't think he would have used it , his mission included being crucified so he did not use the power he already had to turn everyone in the neighborhood into a pillar of salt and allowed his crucifixion to happen.Giving God a pistol doesn't increase the total of Gods power appreciably.
-
Jesus performed relatively few miracles. He showed no signs whatever of being omnipotent. The idea that he was God's actual son was not in keeping with what the Messiah was supposed to be, either. He did not directly claim to be the Messiah. He did not claim to be the flesh and blood Son of God, either. All that, as well as the Holy Spirit and Trinity, was devised AFTER Jesus was crucified.
I never understood why Judas was vilified so much, since he was simply acting to fulfill an assumed prophecy. His suicide (if indeed it occurred) was premature.
-
Who are you thinking of with a greater count on miracles?
Jesus knew the tomorrow as surely as most of us know yesterday.
I really can't explain the Trinity ,I need a better breifing myself.
But Jesus did make his role in the picture quite clear;"John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 14:5-7
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=way+truth+and+life&version1=NIV&searchtype=all (http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=way+truth+and+life&version1=NIV&searchtype=all)
-
I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 14:5-7
"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."
John 10: 16.
This is why there needed to have been a Gospel of Jesus. Except, of course, for the habit Jesus had of speaking in confusing parables.
If Jesus is the way, then are we all supposed to be wandering mendicants? I suggest that a planet in which everyone is a wandering mendicant would be a pretty grim place.
-
Jesus himself is the way, and not his lifestyle.
Jesus told his followers that he spoke in parables to confuse people like you, they are clear as crystal when you are blessed with the answer.
By the way , most of the parables are repeated in the clear a few passages later, but without the blessing you will not understand that either.
Matthew 13
10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13&version=NIV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13&version=NIV)
While you see contradiction and confusion , I am observing a miracle occuring , right here and now.
-
Miracles, now?
Balderdash!
-
Miracles, now?
Balderdash!
You do not think it a miracle ?
I havn't half the education , especially in language arts , that you do , but just as Jesus predicted I understand these parables easily because i pray for the understanding and you find them confusing because you arn't asking for the permission.
-
d'oh ;D
-
Gimme a break!
I did not say that I did not understand the parables, most of them are not that hard to understand. I said that his disciples did not understand them and found them confusing. That is at least what they are reported to have said.
Most of what Jesus said was never written down or transcribed. Years and decades passed between the time when Jesus lived and the time when the Gospels were written.
The concept of the Trinity is not mentioned EVER by Jesus in any way. It was all made up much later. Wars were fought over it, and perhaps the wrong side won those wars.
I fail to see anything even remotely miraculous in any of this. I fail to see why it would even need to be miraculous. Pen and Teller do a lot more "miraculous" stuff in their stage acts. It is an effective way to get attention, that is about it.
-
This is why there needed to have been a Gospel of Jesus. Except, of course, for the habit Jesus had of speaking in confusing parables.
I was speaking twards the hang up you seem to have on scripture being hard to understand.
I did not say that I did not understand the parables, most of them are not that hard to understand
Or maybe you don't have a hang up pn the scripture being confusing, perhaps you are just searching for a complaint?
-
I did not say that I did not understand the parables, most of them are not that hard to understand
Or maybe you don't have a hang up pn the scripture being confusing, perhaps you are just searching for a complaint?
lol.......ya think? ;)
-
There is not one single thing in the New Testament that could meet the standards for presentation in any court of law. It is all hearsay, mostly by unknown witnesses or people who were not even there.
The burden of proof always lies with the person making the allegation, but for so-called Biblical "scholars", the scripture is presumed to be true. That is simply BOGUS. :o
-
That's why the Bible isn't a book of law, outside of Christian law and the 10 Comandments, but a book of Faith.
-
Exactly, a Book of Faith, just like this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster/dp/0812976568/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365182300&sr=1-1&keywords=flying+spaghetti+monster (http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster/dp/0812976568/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365182300&sr=1-1&keywords=flying+spaghetti+monster)
Which also has more pirates and fewer silly dietary laws.
-
ahhh, more of that Christianity equates to Cannibalsm crap, or in this case, flying spaghetti monsters. No, not like that one, in any way, shape or form, sorry to say
-
Not only more pirates, but also stripper factories and free beer.
-
.....not in any way, shape or form, sorry to say
-
Eating human flesh and drinking human blood is cannibalism.
Communion is clearly a ritual.
As described by the Holy Mother Church, Holy Communion is clearly ritual cannibalism.
-
There is not one single thing in the New Testament that could meet the standards for presentation in any court of law. It is all hearsay, mostly by unknown witnesses or people who were not even there.
The burden of proof always lies with the person making the allegation, but for so-called Biblical "scholars", the scripture is presumed to be true. That is simply BOGUS. :o
That is a pretty high standard.
A lot of science doesn't meet this standard either.
Do you suppose the Higgs Bosun could be proven in a court of law?
-
A reproducible natural phenomenon is by definition acceptable to a scientist.
Most of the New Testament is not even adequate second hand evidence.
No one is sure of who Luke or Mark really were, except in the vaguest terms. They are still disputing whether John the Apostle was the same John that wrote the Book of Revelation.
There is nothing in science even a fraction as dubious as the Book of Revelation.
-
Eating human flesh and drinking human blood is cannibalism.
Communion is clearly a ritual.
As described by the Holy Mother Church, Holy Communion is clearly ritual cannibalism.
.....not in any way, shape or form, sorry to say
-
Sorry, that is the DEFINITION of ritual cannibalism.
As we can see, cannibalism and drinking blood played a part in a lot of religions, and some people would be surprised to hear that Christians practice a form of cannibalism even today.
John 6
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53 Then Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 54 He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
Later Jesus breaks bread and offers it to his disciples saying: This is my body. Then offers them wine saying: This is my blood.
Christians today practice the Eucharist where they eat a blessed wafer and drink wine. While there is a lot of debate about whether or not this is symbolic rather than literal, there is no difference between what cannibalistic tribes did for centuries, and what modern Christians do. The two elements of sympathetic magic are at play in the same ways in both cases.
The Christian is told to do this for several reasons depending on which book of the bible you want to read on the subject. In the supper event we see Jesus telling the disciples to do this to remember or commemorate him. But this is not a contradiction to what Jesus said before. He was clearly still alive and instructing his followers on how they should ingest him.
I tend to think Jesus meant it literally like the Catholics do. Their theory is called: Transubstantiation. It tells its followers that when blessed, the wine and bread become the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. The act of blessing actually transforms the material. This was decided at the council of Trent after long debate.
There was another side who favoured consubstantiation, which means that while the host and the wine remain what they are, they somehow, magically, connect the person eating it with Jesus. This was declared a heresy by the council of Trent, but became the official position of the Protestant churches after the reform.
-
"Transubstantiation" thank you, I was trying to remember that term.
This is (I think) one of the disagreements between the Catholic Church and the Prodestant.
Symbols have power in being symbols , there is meaning carried in the symbols that is spoiled in literalism.
Jesus at the occasion of the last supper handed out bread and wine , he didn't open a vein or carve a steak off of himself , the "cannabolism" aspect of this seems to have distracted XO from the meaning that the symbolism is for.
-
Indeed
-
Ritual cannibalism is not the same as actual cannibalism. But the Holy Mother Church claims that the communion cookies and the wine actually DO miraculously change into Jesusmeat and Jesusblood. I personally do not believe this and imagine that a specter analysis would find that no miracle had taken place.
But that is not the point. It is ritual cannibalism.
-
.....not in any way, shape or form, sorry to say
-
You are not sorry, either.
-
Your ignorance, knows no bounds, does it
-
If semantics is the problem then I side with Sirs.
Ritual cannibalism would be having Fred for dinner with a lot of ceremony.
Symbolic cannibalism might be more like what you mean.
The symbols of Jesus blood and body are taken as acceptance of Jesus allowing his blood to be shed and his body broken on our behalf and for our benefit , Jesus actually did get killed , communion is acceptance of this gift.
-
Communion is clearly a ritual. Again, the Roman Catholic Church insists that the wine actually becomes Jesus' blood, and the communion wafers actually become his flesh, and this is a MIRACLE that occurs in every mass. It is part of Church dogma. I did not say I believed it, because I do not. But I am a heretic. If you do not believe in the Miracle of Transubstantiation, so are you. Or so the Holy Mother Church has decided.
The idea that blood must be shed to get God to pay attention seems rather primitive. It used to have a useful purpose: you donated a sheep and got divine favors, and the priests, for their assistance, got dinner. That is why all the sacrificed animals had to be kosher. No one could sacrifice a fox, or a rat, or a croc, squirrel, toad, bat or armadillo, because that would be unacceptable as dinner for the priests. Not even a Great Wooly Mammoth would be adequate, due to a problem with its toes, which are not cloven.
The evangelical Christians and the ultra orthodox have joined forces to build the Third Temple, and have been trying to breed the sacrificial heifer for a long time: it must be a completely red haired heifer, without a single hair of a different color, that must be used as a sacrifice to dedicate or consecrate the temple.
The Book of Revelation claims that when Jesus returns, the Temple will be destroyed according to prophesy, but the problem is that there is no temple. All the Jews must return to Israel, so as to give Jesus one last shot at doing the Messiah thing before he admits the good Jews to Heaven and sends the bad ones who disbelieve off to Hell. But the Temple must be rebuilt or the prophesy cannot happen, they believe.
I would deem that this is unlikely, being as the Muslim Dome of the Rock is currently standing on that specific place. God may be everywhere at once, but apparently he is rather territorial about this as well as extremely picky in his choice of sacrificial livestock. The Rock, inside the Dome of the Rock, is allegedly the same rock where Abraham was told to sacrifice Isaac, until Jehovah said "sorry, Abe, I was just testing you: now go fetch yonder sheep". Luckily, Jehovah did not ask for a special red heifer, or perhaps Abe would have had to forget the whole thing, wandering about, scrutinizing cattle all over the place.
-
It's symbolic, nothing more, sorry to say
-
You are not sorry in any way, and it most certainly fits the definition of ritual and cannibalism.
You are too dense to see reality. That is why it is utterly useless to bother with posting any sort of information to refute the nonsensical bullcrap you spew.
-
.....not in any way, shape or form, sorry to say
-
It is an actual ritual , but you are letting the "cannibalism" distract you from the actual symbols involved.
Human beings are not Kosher animals , for sacrifice nor consumption. So Jesus obviously did not suffer from the excess of literalism that you do.
-
One of the main problems that Jews have always had with Christians is that communion is a violation of the dietary laws: Jews do not eat or drink blood of any kind, and as you say, humans are not kosher, you can tell by looking at your feet, which are neither hooves nor cloven. Maimonides wrote a rather pithy essay on precisely this point.
Actual bathing involves getting physically clean.Baptism is a ritual bath and involves neither scrubbing nor soap, and is therefore a ritual bath. Communion is ritual cannibalism, since the main purpose of eating for nutritional purposes is not involved. A ritual practice is by nature symbolic, but this does not mean that it is not a ritual as well. It is not a case of either/or. Baprtism and communion are both symbolic as well as ritualistic.
-
One of the main problems that Jews have always had with Christians is that communion is a violation of the dietary laws: Jews do not eat or drink blood of any kind, and as you say, humans are not kosher, you can tell by looking at your feet, which are neither hooves nor cloven. Maimonides wrote a rather pithy essay on precisely this point.
Actual bathing involves getting physically clean.Baptism is a ritual bath and involves neither scrubbing nor soap, and is therefore a ritual bath. Communion is ritual cannibalism, since the main purpose of eating for nutritional purposes is not involved. A ritual practice is by nature symbolic, but this does not mean that it is not a ritual as well. It is not a case of either/or. Baptism and communion are both symbolic as well as ritualistic.
Very good !
Now as baptism is not actual bathing , communion is not actual cannibalism.
Nor is the symbolism of baptism a bath nor is the symbolism of communion cannibalism.
Unless you want it to be , then you can just forget that Jesus was very Kosher and thereby ignore what he was trying to say.
Lets not involve the Catholic Point Of View until there is an actual Catholic available who wants to chip in, I have not enough briefing on this to fairly represent a Catholic POV.
-
I said it was RITUAL cannibalism.
Snacking on human flesh and blood is cannibalism, doing it as a rite, symbolic or not, is ritual cannibalism.
You do not need to be a Catholic to understand what I said about transubstantiation. You can look it up all on your own.
-
In reality, it is NOTHING cannibalism. This is just some overt effort by a christian bashing non-believer, trying to pervert semantics, in order to compare Christianity to cannibalsm.
Could you spend even half of this time and effort to perhaps try to back up the asanine claim that the housing market collapse was all Bank and house flip founded? But perhaps you're spending all this time trying to irrationally play this semantic game because you can't back up your claims, so you're just going to perseverate on matters that don't require such.
FYI, you're not fooling anyone
-
Here is what I know:
(1) It IS ritual cannibalism.
(2) You are too fucking stupid to realize this.
(3) Evidence is conclusive that you will remain too fucking stupid for the rest of your miserable, pathetic life.
I was not and never have been trying to fool anyone about this or anything.
-
No, that is what you OPINE...all this energy to play semantics in order to try and trash Christianity, when you could put even half it towards backing up your own ignorant claims. Sad, since you're only fooling yourself, at this point. But hey, cudos on the 3rd grade insults. At least that you've got a good grasp of. So there's that
-
Yea, and Judas went and hanged himself.
Go thou and do likewise.
-
I have no need nor obligation, since I didn't betray anyone, much less Son of God. But its great to see more examples of this hard core leftist compassion, inclusion and diversity
-
I said it was RITUAL cannibalism.
Snacking on human flesh and blood is cannibalism, doing it as a rite, symbolic or not, is ritual cannibalism.
You do not need to be a Catholic to understand what I said about transubstantiation. You can look it up all on your own.
You need better terms.
Actual dining on an honored person ,with a ceremony, is ritual cannibalism, this practice is connected with a prion disease in New Guinea. "The Laughing disease"
"Symbolic" is the term you are looking for.
But the whole thing is a distraction for you, Jesus really was not trying to say "EAT ME" that is just silly. The symbolism is acceptance of the sacrifice of Christ, who was having himself treated as a sacrificial lamb.
-
BINGO
-
Of course he was saying "eat me". "Eat this in remembrance of me", Drink this in remembrance of me."
The whole idea is ridiculous nonsense from a time in which stupid was thought to be mystical, and is certainly nothing that makes any sense today.
-
It's called symbolic, Xo. Had Jesus asked his disciples to take some bites out of him, then you might have a leg to stand on, with this cannibalism crap
-
Just suppose you were a follower of a contemporary religious leader, and after dinner he said the same things:
"This is my body, eat it in remembrance of me", and hands you a chunk of bread.
"This is my blood: drink it in remembrance of me", and pours you a glass of wine.
Remember that NO ONE KNEW at the Last Supper that it was the last supper. They all thought it was just a Passover seder.
Who would consider this to be any sort of normal behavior?
I think damn near anyone would have concluded that said preacher was barking mad.
-
He hands me BREAD you say? Hardly cannibalism now is it ::)
-
Hands you the BREAD and then says "This is my FLESH (meat): eat it in remembrance of me."
How would any normal person respond to such a statement?
Think about it: it is quite daft.
-
You're one of the last people that could speak on what's "normal" as a response, Mr insult master. Point being, you weren't there, and indeed Jesus was expressing how he was to be betrayed that evening, so it can be easily deduced it was their last meal. Many of his discples were confused and asked him for specifics, but he wasn't about to give them any. They were just going to have to by FAITH
But cudos on trying to trash Christianity all the more, now implying how insane Jesus must have been. You could have been Pilate's left hand man
-
According to the rather sketchy stuff written in the various gospels, the apostles had no idea that Jesus would be arrested, and Jesus gave them no clue, either. After he was dead, they mostly concluded that it was all over, until he appeared before them, and even then, Thomas required special proof, according to at least one of the Gospels. So much for their faith.
My point is that this was a rather daffy way of asking to be remembered. Martin Luther King did a better job of announcing his premonitions. Note that he did not ask anyone to eat any part of him, even symbolically.
Pilate supposedly tried to turn Jesus loose, asking the crowd to choose between him and a rather nasty criminal named Barabbas, and they chose Barabbas, for no specific reason. So much for his celebrity. Pilate apparently just did not want a rebellion by the Jewish authorities on his hands.
I am all for religious people being allowed to say anything they wish, anywhere they wish. This is not the same as believing them. I just think that they are harmless. And indeed, Jesus was no real threat to the Romans for decades after his death.
All I am saying is that with regard to the New Testament, people seem predisposed to accept any sort of illogical lunacy: that the Romans would require everyone to return to their birthplaces to be taxed, that demons can be cast out of a madman and into a herd of pigs, that Jesus will return "soon" and still wait over 1900 years later, that after Jesus reigns for 1000 years, he will turn the whole world over to Satan.
I am not anti-Christian, I simply am in favor of applying logic and sanity to everything I hear.
-
Your hard core leftist opinion on what is and isn't daffy, is duly noted, as is your consistent anti-christian bashing rhetoric
-
"duly noted"
Ooooooo, am I ever scared!
Who the eff are you sirs, the heavenly hall monitor? ::)
Are you gonna tell on me? Get me arrested for what, heresy? :'(
Dumb schmuck! :o
-
What the frell?? Are you off your medication? I'm a poster, a debator, in this a chat forum. I have no need to tell anyone anything. Your words speak volumes, for anyone to see, far more than I could ever highlight. And what the hell is with this arrested deflection?? :o
-
So, what is this "duly noted" crap?
Are you threatening me, fool?
Go speak volumes to yourself. You are dumb, boring and trite. You have no power over me whatever.
All you can do is flap your jaw and sound silly.
-
It means what it means.....duly noted, as in noted, as in duly so ::) How the hell do you irrationally pull out some threat from that?? And again with the strawman of me supposedly trying to evoke some power over you, and what ignorant tripe you wish to type. Are you THAT threatened by my mere opinion?? Is that why you can't respond with any facts or evidence to back up your 99% erroneous and/or unsubstantiated claims, and just launch insult after insult?
-
I am not in any way threatened by any of your stupid opinions, sirs. I just thought that you needed reminding how stupid that "duly noted" crap is.
-
And that stupid opinion is also duly noted ::)
-
Just suppose you were a follower of a contemporary religious leader, and after dinner he said the same things:
"This is my body, eat it in remembrance of me", and hands you a chunk of bread.
"This is my blood: drink it in remembrance of me", and pours you a glass of wine.
Remember that NO ONE KNEW at the Last Supper that it was the last supper. They all thought it was just a Passover seder.
Who would consider this to be any sort of normal behavior?
I think damn near anyone would have concluded that said preacher was barking mad.
I am accustomed to this every three months or so ever since i became a church member.
As rituals go it is pretty simple .
Jesus himself knew that the last supper was the last supper, his deciples knew a lot more in the days that followed.
If you knew that you needed to be beaten to death , how would you tell your friends?
-
I suspect that it is simply conjecture that Jesus knew the future. The reasoning is God knows everything, Jesus is God, therefore Jesus knows everything. He always knew everything, even in the manger, he knew it all. (Yeah, sure).
I disagree that Jesus needed to be beaten or killed to be successful. Buddha lived to be eighty or so and apparently died of accidental food poisoning. Buddha knew that he would eventually die, not because he could tell the future, but because he knew he was mortal. I think one of his disciples. Maha Mogallana, could see the future and had other supernatural powers. Or so the story goes.
Buddha has cooler disciples:Ananda, Sariputra, Mogallana.
-
lol...."conjecture" that the creator of all things past, present, and future, wouldn't know the future of his own son, nor would the Son of God, who communicated with his dad on a daily basis??
oy
-
No one knows the future. There is absolutely NO evidence that Jesus was capable of communicating with God.
If God could foretell the future, why did he bother to start with Adam & Eve and then wipe out the entire planet with a flood? Why not just start with Noah?
If God could foretell the future, then why enter into a cruel contest with Satan over Job? What could possibly have been the purpose of that? To teach Satan a lesson? But if He knew everything, then He would have known that Satan could not be changed by the experience.
You do not seem to be capable of rational thought here.
-
You know what's truely irrational here......an anti-Christian basher, trying to claim how God and the Son of God couldn't possibly know the future, to a Christian, much less try to explain away clear points being made by God. One more time, religion, and Christianity in particular here, is all about FAITH, not math, not science, not even psychoanalysis. Not sure why you're having such a hard time grasping that concept.
The rest of your illogical attempts to debase the bible and Christianity, I'll just categorize as that white noise in the background of life.
-
There are no "clear points made by God". You simply choose to refuse to engage in logical debate, having obviously been indoctrinated to the point of stupidity.
In what part of the Bible does God claim to know the future?
-
Spoken like a true non-believer. I'll keep you in my prayers
-
There are no "clear points made by God". You simply choose to refuse to engage in logical debate, having obviously been indoctrinated to the point of stupidity.
In what part of the Bible does God claim to know the future?
In each and every "prophacy", because this is the basic nature of prophacy.
26 The king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, Art thou able to make known unto me the dream which I have seen, and the interpretation thereof?
27 Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, The secret which the king hath demanded cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, shew unto the king;
28 But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these;
29 As for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy mind upon thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter: and he that revealeth secrets maketh known to thee what shall come to pass.
30 But as for me, this secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than any living, but for their sakes that shall make known the interpretation to the king, and that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart.
31 Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.
32 This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,
33 His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.
34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.
35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.
36 This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king.
37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.
38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.
40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.
41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.
43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.
46 Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him.
47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+2&version=KJV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+2&version=KJV)
-
5 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.
========================================================
When precisely did this happen?
Dreams are often seen as predictive of the future, but that is most often because the dream is essentially a reasoning process that is revealed due to subconscious thought. I have had any number of predictive dreams, and only a very few have ever been accurate.
The Bible saying that God says that God knows the future is a circular argument and therefore invalid.
-
5 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.
========================================================
When precisely did this happen?
Dreams are often seen as predictive of the future, but that is most often because the dream is essentially a reasoning process that is revealed due to subconscious thought. I have had any number of predictive dreams, and only a very few have ever been accurate.
The Bible saying that God says that God knows the future is a circular argument and therefore invalid.
This is a long prophacy , that last bit is supposed to be the next part to happen.