Self-developmen;A Christian perspective.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by newsbone

...
About religions I don’t like them at all; they are man-made, fake and very relative as you have correctly put it. Try Christianity not religion.

How is Christianity different from say Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism?

Is Christianity NOT religion? Not man made?

I'm really trying to understand you here, not bashing you.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

How is Christianity different from say Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism?

Is Christianity NOT religion? Not man made?

I'm really trying to understand you here, not bashing you.

Unlike Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Catholicism, Protestantism; Christianity is not an organized religion with a specific hierarchy, governed by man made rules in the name of doctrines and dogmas. In true Christianity there is no room for leadership beyond specific churches. There are only Pastors, Teachers, Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists and other smaller ministries whose primary responsibilities are nothing more than edify the purposes of God (Jesus) not individuals as seen in most cases. In true Christianity the only constitution is the Bible and no any other book is regarded or teachings are obeyed. It is thus a lifestyle not based on any rule but love within the experiencing God via a relationship that is began by God and sustained by his love.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by newsbone

.

.During the early stages of the cult, the notion of rebirth would have been foreign to its basic outlook. And if then it was included, it was while it developed as a form of religion. If my history serves me right "While there are several sources that suggest that Mithraism included a notion of rebirth, they are all post-Christian. The earliest...dates from the end of the second century A.D”

Not your history, your bias google searching you just did proves you right...
The only text to support you is bias christian lies.

Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a virgin mother. He came from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin. He was know as "Savior," "Son of God," "Redeemer," and "Lamb of God." With twelve disciples he traveled far and wide as a teacher and illuminator of men. He was buried in a tomb from which he rose again from the dead, YES HE ROSE AGAIN -- an event celebrated yearly with much rejoicing. His followers kept the Sabbath holy, holding sacramental feasts in remembrance of Him. The sacred meal of bread and water, or bread and wine, was symbolic of the body and blood of the sacred bull.
The halo of light around the gods face, temptation by a devil like creature.
In many non bias (NOT CHRISTIAN OR JEWISH) historical sources pre-dating Christianity you find the Gods were - born on or very near our Christmas Day, were born of a Virgin-Mother,w ere born in a Cave or Underground Chamber were born in a cave or underground chamber, led a life of toil for mankind, were called by the names of Light-bringer, healer, mediator, savior, deliverer, were however vanquished by the powers of darkness and descended into hell or the underworld, rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly world, founded communions of Saints and churches into which disciples were received by baptism, were commemorated by eucharistic meals.

It's true no matter how much you whine.

Originally Posted by newsbone

All the foundational teachings of Christianity has the scriptural backing in the Old Testament, which as far as you are concerned is not related to your boyfriend Constantine

But the truth that Jesus was just a good man and a teacher not a god was hidden by Constantine.

.

Originally Posted by newsbone

Come on! Finish the verse, your selective obsession is affecting your perspective, why do you choose to jump verse 9 of the same chapter? It reads;
“ If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”
What is this, I must win no matter what sort of thing? Does this then imply your approach to history; don’t mention what will make us irrelevant, sort of argument?

Heh. That's funny. Change the subject, prove a point never in question, then pretend you've finally "won" something. LOL.
Another strawman. I was just pointing out some inconsistencies in John. The ones you are pretending don't exist. Not questioning who goes to hell and when. LOL. If your goal is to consistently make yourself look out-debated, you've WON!! heh.

Originally Posted by newsbone

You mean you can’t even understand the basis of this simple advice to remind people of their divine obligation not to sin? Who have I been conversing with, your brother, put him on, you can continue playing hide and seek.

No John says some Christians never sin. Then he says everyone sins. The bible is as inconsistent as you are.

Originally Posted by newsbone

This is becoming more interesting; what does the exercise of freedom of choice make you? Ooops! I forgot historians are trained free thinkers within the confines of narration of their version of the past as seen today! How can you even consider yourself a free thinker, whilst your perspective is heavily influenced by one department of knowledge?

Because I look at the past and see what it says. Christians look at the past, see what it says, then change it if it doesn't fit their model. IT JUST HAPPENED HERE!! We already saw that with Constantines Bishop. I pointed out how they know he forged the documents. You completely dis-regarded it because it didn't fit you version of history. You actually said "aw c'mon...it was probably a mistake..." There are actually MORE reasons why they know it's a forgery. Since your mind is already made up, your objective thinking has been erased by brainwashing I'm not bothering to give the other reasons. I have proven exactly how actual facts are disregarded by bias people. It happened IN THIS THREAD!! That's it. I'm done with that. I don't need to re-hash the same thing over and over. Done. Proven. Goodbye.

Originally Posted by newsbone

Speak of double standards! You made a choice to study and believe whatever history will teach you, does that make you a free thinker when all your decisions are heavily borrowed from other peoples perspective (facts are personal opinions) of the past? As a Christian I live by the Word of God and within that (just like your infatuation with history) am free to make choices including disobedience to the very teaching( if i choose to) this is something egocentrics cant do.

So having your opinions limited to 1 book that Constantine put together to control you makes you a free thinker. I'm saying NO! No. N/O. n~owe. That's it. Done.
I don't know why you are so concerned about what I think. You think as freely as you can. That's enough for you, at least you have a religion you like. Yep, I find you to be low on the thinking, debating, humility and tolerance scale. It's not gonna change. Get over it. Or not.

Originally Posted by newsbone

You seem fascinated with rape and adultery! What are the moral teachings behind these verses? Obviously your selective mind cannot grasp this higher teachings.

No I'm fascinated at how lame the bible can be. Yep, I point out a problematic bible verse and you turn it around to make it about me. You have the debate style of a junior high student.
It's my fault for still being here. I'm tired of baby sitting.

[QUOTE=newsbone;333047]

Originally Posted by newsbone

Ha! You can’t have your cake and eat it. We very special to be bonded to such unbelievers as you.

There is something wrong with you. I just kicked your ass on bible knowledge
and you come back with some bullshit sentence, that means nothing??
You are creeping me out. I'm not even enjoying whooping your ass anymore.

Originally Posted by newsbone

Keep on! Prophet of Doom!

See, I was just pointing out that fundys are not spiritual just religious, they usually condem you to hell at some point. But now I am the prophet of doom? If you get caught wishing someone to hell (for real), you could just drop it and not reply. But u can't then just turn around and call them an evil prophet?? I mean you said it?? Something is not right here. Am I talking to a 12 year old? I see your methodology, if you are wrong, just turn it around and say the other person did it. Or answer a made-up question. That's what kids do.
I think we've covered everything. Over and over.
It doesn't behoove me to continue here as it does NOT matter what is said, you just pretend like things are always going your way, even when it's a COMPLETE fiction. You tell me, why would I debate someone who every time I prove them wrong they ignore it or disregard it??

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by joelr

Not your history, your bias google searching you just did proves you right...
The only text to support you is bias christian lies.

At least you witnessed this events first hand never learnt them from any where. So what if , are you the only one with that right or was it posted for your eyes only? Wake up as you are also doing the same. Or do want to tell me, that you are the source of all the information you have? Wake up. The net is not yours, alone.

Originally Posted by joelr

Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a virgin mother. He came from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin. He was know as "Savior," "Son of God," "Redeemer," and "Lamb of God." With twelve disciples he traveled far and wide as a teacher and illuminator of men. He was buried in a tomb from which he rose again from the dead, YES HE ROSE AGAIN -- an event celebrated yearly with much rejoicing. His followers kept the Sabbath holy, holding sacramental feasts in remembrance of Him. The sacred meal of bread and water, or bread and wine, was symbolic of the body and blood of the sacred bull.

There you are again!
i. Jesus was not born in a cave but in manger.
ii. He was not born in December 25th,
iii. Jesus performed miracles, mithra did not,
iv. The disciples of Jesus continually profaned the Sabbath,
v. Bread and wine not bread and water was symbolic of the body of Christ not Mithraism sacred cow.
vi. It symbolized the blood of Jesus (the Lamb of God) not of your bull.
vii. We don’t have any pictures of Christ anywhere let alone the halo.
Seemingly we are talking of different things here, unless you want to force it down my throat.

Originally Posted by joelr

.
In many non bias (NOT CHRISTIAN OR JEWISH) historical sources pre-dating Christianity you find the Gods were - born on or very near our Christmas Day, were born of a Virgin-Mother,w ere born in a Cave or Underground Chamber were born in a cave or underground chamber, led a life of toil for mankind, were called by the names of Light-bringer, healer, mediator, savior, deliverer, were however vanquished by the powers of darkness and descended into hell or the underworld, rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly world, founded communions of Saints and churches into which disciples were received by baptism, were commemorated by eucharistic meals.

You amuse me! If those are characteristics of gods, what then is your problem with it? What do you mean by ‘non bias’ and then specifically point out Christianity and Jewish? Isn't that bias already?That is biased against other forms of religions including your ‘UNITARIANISM’ whatever that is. How many of this non bias historical sources have anything but pieces for stones for evidence? Most of these are nothing but individual theories that are built round assumptions of the historians-there opinion of what they thought it was. Come up with concrete evidence print it as Constantine did (according to you) let us read them, please don’t post it on the net for it is a sin to read it from there. History is biased at least you are not going to dispute that for you said it (we are all biased).

Originally Posted by joelr

It's true no matter how much you whine.?

Your opinions always are!

Originally Posted by joelr

But the truth that Jesus was just a good man and a teacher not a god was hidden by Constantine.

Does history prove the existence of Jesus? I all along thought it was just a myth? Can history prove the existence of mithra, did he live, was he a god, what were the names of his disciples, and is Mithraism still in existence?

Originally Posted by joelr

Another strawman. I was just pointing out some inconsistencies in John. The ones you are pretending don't exist. Not questioning who goes to hell and when. LOL. If your goal is to consistently make yourself look out-debated, you've WON!! heh.

Inconsistencies you said! And when did I pretend that those verses did not exist? Let as see the liar here, I NEED YOU TO QUOTE WHERE I SAID THAT THOSE VERSES DID NOT EXIST. Let us see who wants to win by changing, topics of debate to suit his ego!

Originally Posted by joelr

No John says some Christians never sin. Then he says everyone sins. The bible is as inconsistent as you are.

Are you sure of what you are implying? Now compare your dubious allegations with these verses;
My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for[a] the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:1, 2.
Inconsistent i am you said, Ha!

Originally Posted by joelr

Because I look at the past and see what it says. Christians look at the past, see what it says, then change it if it doesn't fit their model. We already saw that with Constantines Bishop. I pointed out how they know he forged the documents. You completely dis-regarded it because it didn't fit you version of history. There are actually more reasons why they know it's a forgery.?

Quite an interesting allegation, do you have facts to cover yourself? I really would love to see the original documents before Constantine’s bishop did a forgery? Are you aware most teachings of the Catholic Church are in total disregard to the basic teachings of Christ according to the Bible? If there was a forgery why then does the Bible differ with Constantine’s church – the Roman Catholic? Don’t go around these.

Originally Posted by joelr

Since your mind is already made up, your objective thinking has been erased by brainwashing I'm not bothering to mention it anymore. at this point this whole thing is completely useless. ?

What were you up to; indoctrinate me in someone’s opinions about the past? Into your confusion? Sorry you need more than pointing out words that you dislike appearing in the Bible, and your consistent infatuation to Constantine.

Originally Posted by joelr

Pxcept proving you wrong consistently pleases my ego.?

There you go again blowing your own trumpet, is it not enough to be the beginning and end of history? Where was I wrong, you are so full of yourself that you don’t use your …………..!

Originally Posted by joelr

I don't know why you are so concerned about what I think. You think as freely as you can. That's enough for you, at least you have a religion you like. Yep, I find you to be low on the thinking, debating, humility and tolerance scale. It's not gonna change. Get over it.
.

Am not concerned about how you think but the limits of your thinking, which is confined to one department of knowledge, you obviously limited to within a specific area and yet claim to be a liberated thinker. Unless your definition of freedom is restricted

Originally Posted by joelr

There is something wrong with you. I just kicked your ass on bible knowledge
and you come back with some bullshit sentence, that means nothing??
You are creeping me out. I'm not even enjoying whooping your ass anymore.?

Wow! Do you always hide behind words? Come on, am not yet through with you. Bible knowledge my foot! Is that what you call your confusion? Just going through the Bible looking for similar words and you call that knowledge? Go back to college!

Originally Posted by joelr

See, I was just pointing out that fundys are not spiritual just religious, they usually condem you to hell at some point. But now I am the prophet of doom?
Am I talking to a 13 year old?

Yeh! At least that is the far an infant can see,Ha! Prophet of doom you are.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by newsbone

Christianity is not an organized religion with a specific hierarchy, governed by man made rules in the name of doctrines and dogmas.

LOL, remind me to tell my Christian friends. So they don't actually have to pay their tithes!

[Acting Like Godot]

Some interesting food for thought. I think some parts of the excerpt below will instantly remind you of you-know-which-confused-person-in-this-thread.

Jesus is in trouble. When people worship him today - or even speak his name - the object of their devotion is unlikely to be who they think he is. A mythical Jesus has grown up over time. He has served to divide peoples and nations. He has led to destructive wars in the name of religious fantasies. The legacy of love found in the New Testament has been tainted with the worst sort of intolerance and prejudice that would have appalled Jesus in life. Most troubling of all, his teachings have been hijacked by people who hate in the name of love.

"Sometimes I feel this social pressure to return to my faith," a lapsed Catholic told me recently, "but I'm too bitter. Can I love a religion that calls gays sinners but hides paedophiles in its clergy? Yesterday while I was driving to work, I heard a rock song that went, "Jesus walked on water when he should have surfed," and you know what? I burst out laughing. I would never have done that when I was younger. Now I feel only the smallest twinge of guilt."

No matter where you look, a cloud of confusion hangs over the message of Jesus. To cut through it we have to be specific about who we mean when we refer to Jesus. One Jesus is historical, and we know next to nothing about him. Another Jesus is the one appropriated by Christianity. He was created by the Church to fulfill its agenda. The third Jesus, the one this book is about, is as yet so unknown that even the most devout Christians don't suspect that he exists. Yet he is the Christ we cannot - and must not - ignore.

The first Jesus was a rabbi who wandered the shores of northern Galilee many centuries ago. This Jesus still feels close enough to touch. He appears in our mind's eye dressed in homespun but haloed in glory. He was kind, serene, peaceful, loving, and yet he was the keeper of deep mysteries.

The historical Jesus has been lost, however, swept away by history. He still lingers like a ghost, a projection of all the ideal qualities we wish for ourselves but so painfully lack. Why couldn't there be one person who was perfectly loving, perfectly compassionate, and perfectly humble? There can be if we call him Jesus and remove him to a time thousands of years in the past. (If you live in the East, his name might be Buddha, but the man is equally mythical and equally a projection of our own lack.)

The first Jesus is less than consistent, as a closer reading of the gospels will show. If Jesus was perfectly peaceful, why did he declare, 'Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword"? (Matthew 10:34). If he was perfectly loving, why did he say, "Throw out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth"? (Matthew 25:30) (Sometimes the translation is even harsher, and Jesus commands "the worthless slave" to be consigned to hell.) If Jesus was humble, why did he claim to rule the earth beyond the power of any king? At the very least, the living Jesus was a man of baffling contradictions.

And yet the more contradictions we unearth, the less mythical this Jesus becomes. The flesh-and-blood man who is lost to history must have been extraordinarily human. To be divine, one must be rich in every human quality first. As one famous Indian spiritual teacher once said, "The measure of enlightenment is how comfortable you feel with your own contradictions."

Millions of people worship another Jesus, however, who never existed, who doesn't even lay claim to the fleeting substance of the first Jesus. This is the Jesus built up over thousands of years by theologians and other scholars. He is the Holy Ghost, the Three-in-One Christ, the source of sacraments and prayers that were unknown to the rabbi Jesus when he walked the earth. He is also the Prince of Peace over whom bloody wars have been fought. This second Jesus cannot be embraced without embracing theology first. Theology shifts with the tide of human affairs. Metaphysics itself is so complex that it contradicts the simplicity of Jesus's words. Would he have argued with learned divines over the meaning of the Eucharist? Would he have espoused a doctrine declaring that babies are damned until they are baptized?

The second Jesus leads us into the wilderness without a clear path out. He became the foundation of a religion that has proliferated into some twenty thousand sects. They argue endlessly over every thread in the garments of a ghost. But can any authority, however exalted, really inform us about what Jesus would have thought? Isn't it a direct contradiction to hold that Jesus was a unique creation - the one and only incarnation of God - while at the same time claiming to be able to read his mind on current affairs? Yet in his name Christianity pronounces on homosexuality, birth control and abortion ....

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by newsbone

Unlike Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Catholicism, Protestantism; Christianity is not an organized religion with a specific hierarchy, governed by man made rules in the name of doctrines and dogmas. In true Christianity there is no room for leadership beyond specific churches. There are only Pastors, Teachers, Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists and other smaller ministries whose primary responsibilities are nothing more than edify the purposes of God (Jesus) not individuals as seen in most cases. In true Christianity the only constitution is the Bible and no any other book is regarded or teachings are obeyed. It is thus a lifestyle not based on any rule but love within the experiencing God via a relationship that is began by God and sustained by his love.

Thanks, I really appreciate you explaining this.

Leads to other questions:
- How does one know that Christianity is 'the right path' and other paths (religions) are 'wrong'?
- How does one know the bible is God's word? After all, it is written by men.

Your last sentence is also applicable in any religion I know of. Islam -> Allah, for example. Do you consider people who have a relationship with Allah as 'following the wrong path'? If yes, why?

I do agree with you that many religions have the trap that structure and dogma is more important than your relationship with God, yourself, creation, the universe or how you will call it.

Buddhism is an interesting exception religion-wise as Buddha is not a God.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

Leads to other questions:
- How does one know that Christianity is 'the right path' and other paths (religions) are 'wrong'?.

It depends with what you mean by the right path because all the other religions speak of the same. The most important question should be ‘what do I want?’ this would then provide you with the correct choice. Personally I chose to be a Born Again Christian after much soul searching; I was born a Roman Catholic converted to Islam tried being spiritist but eventually ended up becoming a Born Again Christian. I was looking for a personal and fulfilling relationship with God, and I was able to find it in being born again! The reasons that led to my decision to leave Islam are captured in my posts in the thread ‘ISLAMIFICATION OF BRITAIN!’

Originally Posted by spirit4711

- How does one know the bible is God's word? After all, it is written by men..

Am convinced there are some very good internet sites that can answer this; I advise that you visit them.

Originally Posted by spirit4711

Your last sentence is also applicable in any religion I know of. Islam -> Allah, for example. Do you consider people who have a relationship with Allah as 'following the wrong path'? If yes, why?.

With my experience as a Moslem I found out that Islam (according to me) contradicted the very essence that it stood for.Some of the reasons are captured in the posts on islamification of Britain.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by newsbone

It depends with what you mean by the right path because all the other religions speak of the same.
...

Most followers of a religion don't like it if you choose another religion. Most religions want to convert non believers to 'the one true faith', i.e. theirs. Sometimes (certainly in the past) violently!

I'll look at the posts you mentioned. Thanks.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by newsbone

At least you witnessed this events first hand never learnt them from any where. So what if , are you the only one with that right or was it posted for your eyes only? Wake up as you are also doing the same. Or do want to tell me, that you are the source of all the information you have? Wake up. The net is not yours, alone.

I study history from a Christian, Jewish, and un-bias pure archaeological point of view. Therefore my perspective is far more accurate. I recently read a book on why Jesus was not the Messiah. Then I read criticisms from Christians. The reviewer actually admitted he had some true points but put his investigative methodology into question, therefore deciding the book and all his work was invalid. He used a strawman to come to a bias erroneous conclusion. I can see through poor arguments. You do the same thing. I therefore conclude your version of history is incomplete. We already saw this in action last thread. Once again - end of story. It's already been established your views on history are inferior.

Originally Posted by newsbone

There you are again!
i. Jesus was not born in a cave but in manger.
ii. He was not born in December 25th,
iii. Jesus performed miracles, mithra did not,
iv. The disciples of Jesus continually profaned the Sabbath,
v. Bread and wine not bread and water was symbolic of the body of Christ not Mithraism sacred cow.
vi. It symbolized the blood of Jesus (the Lamb of God) not of your bull.
vii. We don’t have any pictures of Christ anywhere let alone the halo.
Seemingly we are talking of different things here, unless you want to force it down my throat.

You left out the similarities. Those are just a few, there are many more. Especially with the Zorastrians. It's clear to any non-bias thinker that these mythologies are just passed on, with minor changes. Besides the most notable of these aspects, dualism, judgement at death, heaven and hell, a savior born of a virgin, a final judgement, and resurrection, there are many more. Fundamentalists will always refuse to acknowledge the truth but it stands. That's how it is.

Originally Posted by newsbone

You amuse me! If those are characteristics of gods, what then is your problem with it? What do you mean by ‘non bias’ and then specifically point out Christianity and Jewish? Isn't that bias already?That is biased against other forms of religions including your ‘UNITARIANISM’ whatever that is. How many of this non bias historical sources have anything but pieces for stones for evidence? Most of these are nothing but individual theories that are built round assumptions of the historians-there opinion of what they thought it was. Come up with concrete evidence print it as Constantine did (according to you) let us read them, please don’t post it on the net for it is a sin to read it from there. History is biased at least you are not going to dispute that for you said it (we are all biased).

The evidence is poorly formed Jeudo-Christian arguments and unbias historical evidence. Taken as a whole it gives the most accurate truth.
We've already seen your bias in action. Stop beating this dead horse.

Originally Posted by newsbone

Does history prove the existence of Jesus? I all along thought it was just a myth? Can history prove the existence of mithra, did he live, was he a god, what were the names of his disciples, and is Mithraism still in existence?

Zorastrians had a Moses and Mary figure, both starting with M.
History can't prove Mithra was an actual god. That's because like Christianity they are all mythologies.

Originally Posted by newsbone

Inconsistencies you said! And when did I pretend that those verses did not exist? Let as see the liar here, I NEED YOU TO QUOTE WHERE I SAID THAT THOSE VERSES DID NOT EXIST. Let us see who wants to win by changing, topics of debate to suit his ego!

You posted some John to suggest he had a particular stance on one issue. But you left out the verses where he said the opposite. That was the origin of my statement "pretending they don't exist". It was figurative. Like the bible. I forgot fundys think everything is literal. I have to remember you need everything carefully spelled out and that you are quick to pull any bait and switch to make yourself sound capable.
Don't think I forgot that this is from your strawman post. Where you made up a point never in question and proclaimed to "win" something.

Originally Posted by newsbone

Are you sure of what you are implying? Now compare your dubious allegations with these verses;
My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for[a] the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:1, 2.
Inconsistent i am you said, Ha!

Thanks, that helps prove more inconsistencies! Because he also says Christians NEVER sin.

Originally Posted by newsbone

Quite an interesting allegation, do you have facts to cover yourself? I really would love to see the original documents before Constantine’s bishop did a forgery? Are you aware most teachings of the Catholic Church are in total disregard to the basic teachings of Christ according to the Bible? If there was a forgery why then does the Bible differ with Constantine’s church – the Roman Catholic? Don’t go around these.

LOL, The bible is Constantines church. Now pay attention here. The forgery was regarding something a Jew for Jesus wrote about Christianity that YOU used to back up Christianity. I already gave you one fact regarding the forgery and you said "aw...that's probably a mistake.". NOW you're asking for facts?????????? Again????? You are not the brightest bulb on the tree are you? I really don't want to debate with you any longer. You are not smart enough to make it interesting. I'm sorry to be so blunt.

I am aware of the problems with the Catholic Church. I don't care. If you are looking for an opportunity to sprout useless info on how much you know about the catholics this is not the place. Yeah they believe others besides Jesus can speak for God. Big deal? You think a book is the only word of god. Both are missing the point just as much.

Originally Posted by newsbone

What were you up to; indoctrinate me in someone’s opinions about the past? Into your confusion? Sorry you need more than pointing out words that you dislike appearing in the Bible, and your consistent infatuation to Constantine.

I'm up to nothing. You started talking to me. I don't care what you believe.
I'm not confused. I know it's just mythology.
I am infatuated with constantine. Amazing he can create an obvious metaphorical mythology and people still today don't realize it. Incredible!

Originally Posted by newsbone

There you go again blowing your own trumpet, is it not enough to be the beginning and end of history? Where was I wrong, you are so full of yourself that you don’t use your …………..!

I must embrace my ego occasionally and enjoy my victory. I won't have such capacity for base thinking forever!

Originally Posted by newsbone

Am not concerned about how you think but the limits of your thinking, which is confined to one department of knowledge, you obviously limited to within a specific area and yet claim to be a liberated thinker. Unless your definition of freedom is restricted

Yes, I admit to being confined to one area. The area is known as "the truth".

Originally Posted by newsbone

Wow! Do you always hide behind words? Come on, am not yet through with you. Bible knowledge my foot! Is that what you call your confusion? Just going through the Bible looking for similar words and you call that knowledge? Go back to college!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. "Do you always hide behind words? " HA HA HA HA HA. This from Mr Quote 1 billion verses from the Bible. HA HA HA HA HA HA. Yet another stance change from you. Sigh. Do you enjoy playing the fool over and over?
I must be confused, I thought I corrected you on bible knowledge. Lemme check the previous posts.
Yeah, I did!!

Originally Posted by newsbone

Yeh! At least that is the far an infant can see,Ha! Prophet of doom you are.

"I know you are but what am I" ..... that's the best you can do? Over here we use that strategy as small children. Then we outgrow it. Same with mythologies.

[pianoperformer]

joelr,

Just wanted to say your posts are very enlightening. I wasn't aware of some of the things you are saying, especially about Constantine, and the striking similarities to other myths.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Some interesting food for thought. I think some parts of the excerpt below will instantly remind you of you-know-which-confused-person-in-this-thread.

That text post is a great summary of how Jesus may be thought of for folks ready to make that step. Or anyone who has left Christianity because it no longer resonates with them.

The Germans have been working on a project and have been able to divide the canonic Gospels into being written in 3 stages. Q1 - writings from during the time of Jesus, before the 4 canonic gospels were written featuring nothing supernatural whatsoever, Q2 - the addition of doomsday in response to the Palestinian war and Q3 - the addition of all supernatural concepts. It follows along the lines of what you posted. They acknowledge that conservative Christians will ignore it but discuss it for liberal Christians to consider. I need to read more about their methodology but the conclusions make sense to me.
The internal structure of the Gospel Q



Hey thanks piano performer.

[pianoperformer]

Whoa, that page about the Gospel of Q is great! That makes so much sense, and I could really see that happening, especially with what all was happening to the Jews and early Christians at that time.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

joelr,

Just wanted to say your posts are very enlightening. I wasn't aware of some of the things you are saying, especially about Constantine, and the striking similarities to other myths.

Thanks. Professor Joseph Campbell spent his whole life traveling the world studying comparative religion, his books "The Power of Myth" and then "Hero With a 1000 Faces" are really interesting if you like the subject. He comes to some interesting conclusions in Power of Myth.

The Eden mythology, 2 trees - knowledge/immortality, tempting serpent, apple, first man/woman, temptation is found originally in Africa, pre-dating even the Babylonians. There is even a cave with ancient text and drawings in Nubia.

Here is Joe, the DVD is even better:
Joseph Campbell on mythology, religion, and art | Mark Czerniec

it's not just a comparative study, Joe is the most spiritual person I have ever heard speak. He could make an athiest believe in god.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Whoa, that page about the Gospel of Q is great! That makes so much sense, and I could really see that happening, especially with what all was happening to the Jews and early Christians at that time.

Yes it's interesting because it builds a model and is able to test it somewhat. For example the Thomas Gospel has no Q3 in it. Not just a few Q3's but none. Suggesting the Q3 material simply didn't exist yet.
I love the idea that Q1 is the "real" message of Jesus.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by joelr

Thanks. Professor Joseph Campbell spent his whole life traveling the world studying comparative religion, his books "The Power of Myth" and then "Hero With a 1000 Faces" are really interesting if you like the subject. He comes to some interesting conclusions in Power of Myth.

The Eden mythology, 2 trees - knowledge/immortality, tempting serpent, apple, first man/woman, temptation is found originally in Africa, pre-dating even the Babylonians. There is even a cave with ancient text and drawings in Nubia.

Here is Joe, the DVD is even better:
Joseph Campbell on mythology, religion, and art | Mark Czerniec

it's not just a comparative study, Joe is the most spiritual person I have ever heard speak. He could make an athiest believe in god.

Thanks very much for the link. It sounds wonderful. I just ordered it from Amazon. It should be here on Tuesday.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by joelr

LOL, The bible is Constantines church. Now pay attention here. The forgery was regarding something a Jew for Jesus wrote about Christianity that YOU used to back up Christianity. I already gave you one fact regarding the forgery and you said "aw...that's probably a mistake.". NOW you're asking for facts?????????? Again????? You are not the brightest bulb on the tree are you? I really don't want to debate with you any longer. You are not smart enough to make it interesting. I'm sorry to be so blunt..

Run, run, run, run hide behind the trees Joelr! Can you please (if you can) answer the questions on my previous post before you hide?

[joelr]

Originally Posted by newsbone

Run, run, run, run hide behind the trees Joelr! Can you please (if you can) answer the questions on my previous post before you hide?

Originally Posted by newsbone View Post

Originally Posted by newsbone

Quite an interesting allegation, do you have facts to cover yourself? I really would love to see the original documents before Constantine’s bishop did a forgery? Are you aware most teachings of the Catholic Church are in total disregard to the basic teachings of Christ according to the Bible? If there was a forgery why then does the Bible differ with Constantine’s church – the Roman Catholic? Don’t go around these.
LOL, The bible is Constantines church. Now pay attention here. The forgery was regarding something a Jew for Jesus wrote about Christianity that YOU used to back up Christianity. I already gave you one fact regarding the forgery and you said "aw...that's probably a mistake.". NOW you're asking for facts?????????? Again????? You are not the brightest bulb on the tree are you? I really don't want to debate with you any longer. You are not smart enough to make it interesting. I'm sorry to be so blunt.

I am aware of the problems with the Catholic Church. I don't care. If you are looking for an opportunity to sprout useless info on how much you know about the catholics this is not the place. Yeah they believe others besides Jesus can speak for God. Big deal? You think a book is the only word of god. Both are missing the point just as much."

That's right. I am running away, I'm tired of your sub-par debating style and your creepy sinning ways (love thy enemy, Matthew/Luke).
I believe the text above is the one in question.
Every question has been dealt with accordingly. I don't know what you want exactly? The forgery regards a Jewish historians favorable review of Christianity that u used to show xianity is true but the document was found to be a forgery - writing style, clear anachronisms, Bishop E. admitted to lying, you got slammed, that forgery...that's so old hat at this point. No I have no original document bozo. Not the point. The document is in question therefore not usable in a debate. The document has nothing to do with Constantines church. It was just propaganda. Uggh, that horse is so dead.

If u are speaking of the difference between Constantine/Catholics - this is already in the post above!!! - Constantine created the bible in ~4AD. The Roman catholics started in 11AD and continued to add their own dogma.
Yes, I know the R. Catholics disregard some things in the Bible. I DON'T CARE either. Mythology + more/different/altered mythology = mythology.

I know you are anti catholic and I already know you are looking for a soapbox to show how much u know about how the catholics don't adhere strictly to the bible. Sorry. Not interested. Start your own thread. There is some new bible guy posting. Maybe he's catholic. Then if he disagrees you guys can both condemn each other to hell!


Choose the right path.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by joelr

You left out the similarities.

You posted the similarities but by design not error left out the differences in the first place, sub-par debating you said.

Originally Posted by joelr

Zorastrians had a Moses and Mary figure, both starting with M.
History can't prove Mithra was an actual god. That's because like Christianity they are all mythologies..

Does similar mean the same in history?

[QUOTE=joelr;333659]

You posted some John to suggest he had a particular stance on one issue. But you left out the verses where he said the opposite. [QUOTE]

I learnt from you as you left out the verses that would negate your viewpoint.

Originally Posted by joelr

. That was the origin of my statement "pretending they don't exist". It was figurative. Like the bible. I forgot fundys think everything is literal. I have to remember you need everything carefully spelled out and that you are quick to pull any bait and switch to make yourself sound capable..

Your reading of the Bible is literal but you use figurative statements, fundy, are you not? Do have to do everything possible to make a lie pass out for the truth? Maybe God forgot you needed everything spelt out! Do we need to re-write the Bible for you to understand?

Originally Posted by joelr

I'm up to nothing. You started talking to me. I don't care what you believe.
I'm not confused. I know it's just mythology..

I started this thread if am not wrong; you started talking to me- what a bright bulb in the tree you are- if you can forget that fast.

Originally Posted by joelr

I am infatuated with constantine. Amazing he can create an obvious metaphorical mythology and people still today don't realize it. Incredible!.

No wonder you are trying so hard as to emulate him!

Originally Posted by joelr

Yes, I admit to being confined to one area. The area is known as "the truth"..

Truth! You can’t handle the truth! All you have are theories which principally mean; conjecture, guesses, hypothesis (educated guesses), etc.

Originally Posted by joelr

Do you enjoy playing the fool over and over?
I must be confused, I thought I corrected you on bible knowledge. Lemme check the previous posts..

Do you have a mirror? Look and you will see the person playing the fool.

You have not yet answered my questions on mithra,……..do it please!

[Cran]

I wonder why a Christian would spend so much time writing posts in this forum during easter, resurrection sunday or however you call it?

Most religious people I know spend such important days in prayer, church service and family activities, and not behind a screen.

Makes the dedication to the importance of this teachings appear rather fake.
Proverbs 15:18 A wrathful man stirreth up strife: but he that is slow to anger appeaseth strife. (1611 KJV)

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by joelr

That's right. I am running away, I'm tired of your sub-par debating style and your creepy sinning ways (love thy enemy, Matthew/Luke)...

You are not my enemy at all so I don’t love you! Lateral reader I am.

Originally Posted by joelr

Every question has been dealt with accordingly. I don't know what you want exactly? The forgery regards a Jewish historians favorable review of Christianity that u used to show xianity is true but the document was found to be a forgery - writing style, clear anachronisms, Bishop E. admitted to lying, you got slammed, that forgery...that's so old hat at this point. No I have no original document bozo. Not the point. The document is in question therefore not usable in a debate. The document has nothing to do with Constantines church. It was just propaganda. Uggh, that horse is so dead..

I knew it! Didn’t take so long did it? Just plain theory you have there and some books from another bonzo to back up your audacious claims. One historian hiding behind another I have seen that before.

Originally Posted by joelr

If u are speaking of the difference between Constantine/Catholics - this is already in the post above!!! - Constantine created the bible in ~4AD. The Roman catholics started in 11AD and continued to add their own dogma. .

No! Not the difference but the relationship between your idol Constantine and the Catholic church. Do you have to always get it wrong?

Originally Posted by joelr

Yes, I know the R. Catholics disregard some things in the Bible. I DON'T CARE either...

I kind of knew that you are careless anyway, you don’t need to remind me!

Originally Posted by joelr

Mythology + more/different/altered mythology = mythology.
.

Is this the formula for intransigence? You deserve the Nobel price for it!

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by Cran

I wonder why a Christian would spend so much time writing posts in this forum during easter, resurrection sunday or however you call it?

Most religious people I know spend such important days in prayer, church service and family activities, and not behind a screen.

Makes the dedication to the importance of this teachings appear rather fake.
Proverbs 15:18 A wrathful man stirreth up strife: but he that is slow to anger appeaseth strife. (1611 KJV)

Sorry! I don’t believe in them holidays, not Biblical if you ask me! Am not a religious person but a plain Christian nothing more and nothing less. Anyway thanks for your concern as you continue to celebrate!

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by joelr

The Eden mythology, 2 trees - knowledge/immortality, tempting serpent, apple, first man/woman, temptation is found originally in Africa, pre-dating even the Babylonians. There is even a cave with ancient text and drawings in Nubia..

Are you aware the Garden of Eden pre-dated the Nubians! Kind of funny is it not? That you think that the beginning was only isolated to the Bible. Wonderful researcher you are! This only proves that the Garden of Eden is real not a myth. How else can all the groups in the world share something so common? If it is true then the Bible is also true! Can’t wait to read the usual rant; HA! HA! HA! HA! You are seething now I presume!

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

LOL, remind me to tell my Christian friends. So they don't actually have to pay their tithes!

ALG! Tithing is not man-made it is a command!

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by newsbone

ALG! Tithing is not man-made it is a command!

How can one know if something is a God given command or a man made command? I would need more than a bible and someone else's "It is so because I know!" to convince me.

[Cran]

Originally Posted by newsbone

Sorry! I don’t believe in them holidays, not Biblical if you ask me! Am not a religious person but a plain Christian nothing more and nothing less. Anyway thanks for your concern as you continue to celebrate!

Ok, resurrection is not biblical. Got it.

Celebration of sunday, breaking the bread on sunday, probably isn't, too.

And I do not celebrate. I am an ATHEIST: But I do enjoy the national holidays we have on good friday and monday after easter. No work, no children.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by Cran

Ok, resurrection is not biblical. Got it.

Celebration of sunday, breaking the bread on sunday, probably isn't, too.

And I do not celebrate. I am an ATHEIST: But I do enjoy the national holidays we have on good friday and monday after easter. No work, no children.

Good of you! Resurrection and breaking bread is Biblical but Sunday is not. Got it?
National holidays on supposedly secular country;goodness me. Something’s never change I think, getting the best of the two worlds there, are you not?

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

How can one know if something is a God given command or a man made command? I would need more than a bible and someone else's "It is so because I know!" to convince me.

Not unless you wrote all the books you read in school and discovered all the wonderful discoveries by yourself. Not unless you accept nothing to be a fact as you must corroborate all the theories by your own research. An island you should be no outside knowledge for you everything is from within you; the great I AM. If you are not this, then you will be convinced by! "It is so because I know!"

[Cran]

I got what you said, but I do not agree with you.

"The first day of the week" is the sunday, saturday/sabbat is the last.

The bible tells us that the women discovered the resurrection on this day, and the first letter to the Corinthians speaks of laying back money for others in need on this day.
Early Christian sources, long before Constantine, talk about breaking the bread on this day as a way to celebrate the resurrection.

The name sunday certainly IS pagan (Sun God), but of course, you have to name the days of the week in any way. There is no doubt that the Christians have always held this specific day as the day of the resurrection (if the resurrection took place is an entirely different question).
Even the date of easter can be named with accuracy due to the fact that it is connected to Pessach, unlike Christmas (that wasn't celebrated until hundreds of years later, and a convenient darte fixed, while "resurrection sunday" has been celebrated since the beginning of Christianity).

Btw, my country does not style itself "secular". The state rakes in tax money for the churches, religious education is mandatory at schools (or replacement education for non-believers like ethics) and important Christian holidays are national holidays (like those days around easter, 25. and 26. december, and some other ones).

Am I getting the best of two worlds? Certainly. I get the holidays and the money, but have no trouble with Christianity itself, because I regard it as a charming collection of myths and philosophy and outright lies.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by newsbone

You posted the similarities but by design not error left out the differences in the first place, sub-par debating you said.
Does similar mean the same in history?

No I included some differences, remember the cave smartie. You already commented on that???????? I've been wasting my time correcting your errors for long enough! It dosen't seem to phase you at all? I don't know what else to say besides base insults at this point.

Originally Posted by newsbone

I learnt from you as you left out the verses that would negate your viewpoint.

My viewpoint is that there are obvious contradictions in the bible. The contradicting verses from John are already posted. You just admitted right now that there are verses that prove and NEGATE my viewpoint. That's called an inconsistency. They are all posted somewhere above. I've shown what I need to and am done with you. You'll just keep whining and playing word games ad infinitum. You lose goodbye.

Originally Posted by newsbone

Your reading of the Bible is literal but you use figurative statements, fundy, are you not? Do have to do everything possible to make a lie pass out for the truth? Maybe God forgot you needed everything spelt out! Do we need to re-write the Bible for you to understand?

still using my insults? I use literal bible interpretation because you do. You have to because your a fundy. so I'm using it against you. If u want to claim the resurrection is literal and the rape verse is figurative then your whole system breaks down and I've shown your interpretations defy logic. U can claim faith only. I know you'll try to play some word game again on that. So boring.

Originally Posted by newsbone

I started this thread if am not wrong; you started talking to me- what a bright bulb in the tree you are- if you can forget that fast.

I forgot. Now should I point out how u forgot a major point as recent as the LAST POST(top of thread)?
Good thing you are "Spiritually Superior" or I'd think you were a moron.

Originally Posted by newsbone

Truth! You can’t handle the truth! All you have are theories which principally mean; conjecture, guesses, hypothesis (educated guesses), etc.

WTF. To a non-Christian that's also what the Bible is - a complete guess at the truth. This thread is so far past that yet you keep bringing up irrelevant and hypocritical points. See how you are going in circles? No, u probably don't see it. Listen to you, shouting "TRUTH"!...and all you are referring to are stories put together by Constantine intended to make a man look like a mythological character. On top of that the best evidence anyone can come up with as a reason to believe that it's true is "God made it so that the exact right gospels were put in the book". That's a JOKE. You tried to post writings by historians from that time who wrote favorably about the Bible and they are ALL suspected by UN-bias historians to be FALSE. I don't expect you to change your mind. Just stop reverting to type and trying to re-hash old material that I have already determined to be useless. Or better yet, stop writing to me. You have nothing. In fact I came to this thread to see what you had besides a egocentric attitude. All I'm doing now is re-answering the same questions already dealt with.

What next? The return of the king of intransigence calling others intransigent again? heh


"All you have are theories"

Yup. And based on the evidence of history, mythology and cultural beliefs the low odds of Constantines chosen gospels being actual truth would not even allow it to be called that. It's not even a nice fantasy with that Satan dude, the monarch God and the creepy hell casting followers.

All that's happening now is we're accumulating more evidence of your inability to accept your defeat. My whole point is that EDUCATED GUESSES are sufficient to show my original point about poetry/prose can be considered CORRECT!! You can now refer back to my original post, which you now admit is EDUCATED and take it like a man.

Originally Posted by newsbone

You have not yet answered my questions on mithra,……..do it please!

No. I have posted enough evidence to support my claim that concepts from xianity have existed in mythologies before xianity arose. So my thesis that xianity took elements from past myths and created a new myth is now a hypothesis or theory. If we took a Babylonian myth and compared it to an Egyptian myth from 500 years later, and they contained 75% of the same elements we would decide the Egyptians likely borrowed the myth. However, believers in the Egyptian myth would not concede, even if it was 100%. I don't care what you believe because you are bias. I have made my point and none of your word games can change it.