WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IN JESUS?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread |
WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IN JESUS?
-- PUNKER (GREG_PISAHOV@HOTMAIL.COM), February 13, 2005
Everything that Jesus taught and did, I conceive Him as being the truth.Why do you ask?
............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 13, 2005.
why i don't believe in jesus1/the story of jesus doesn't match with the jewish prophecies about the messiah
2/little/no historical proof even about his existance,not to speak about his miracles or divine origin...
3/the whole idea of god sending his son and in the same time being this son to die for your sins and makes him ressurect is complete ridicoules and sounds more like a mythology then a truth...if god is almighty he can simply forgive you...there is no need for a jesus...
4/many 'moral' things that judaism & christianity are teaching are anything but moral...although there are some very nice concepts in both religions...
5/the fact that people have a tendency to make up myths and legends out of fear for the unknown and because they can't explain certain things...
6/because religion was used most of the times to manipulate and control and gain big profit
-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 13, 2005.
sdqa - As a Jew I understand most of your comments (but certainly not all of them), but I hope you realize the circular argument of your first item, when you mention the Jewish prophecies about the messiah.Of course the question then is (in true PUNKER all caps), WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE JEWISH PROPHECIES ABOUT THE MESSIAH?
-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), February 13, 2005.
why i don't believe in jesus1/the story of jesus doesn't match with the jewish prophecies about the messiah
{Actually the do. They just don fit wiht Modern and Midaevel interpretation o the Prophecies,bu if you read Jewish writtigns and commentaties written prior to the firts century, you will see that Jesus fulfilled them.}-Zarove
2/little/no historical proof even about his existance,not to speak about his miracles or divine origin...
{This is a claim thats popular these days. "Jesus didnt exist, ehs a Myth." the reality is that this theory is only popular becausae Christain Basing is popular. whatever discredits Christainity is a vlaid argument.
In reality though, you woidl be hard pressed to find a Historian that doubted the existance of Jesus of Nazareth, even if they rejec the Miracels and other claims, simoley because the movement started well too fast, and peopel wihtin living memory never once objected to Christianity based on the "Fact" that Jeus didnt eixst. Inded, pagan critics int he firts century ( dispite Seirra ont he other board, your root source here) DID write a lot aotu Christanity in order ot mock it and never ocne did THEY doubt his actual existance.
its laughable to think that no man exists at the core of this legend considering hat that wodl mean that epope literlaly by the htousands lied and said htye met him, and not just in Biblical writtigns, btu early Chruch writtigns, of which they where killed as a result of such confession ( eliminatng ghe profit motive before you suggest it.) Be reasonable and dump the Jesus Myth hteory at least. i know tis cool o think Christanit is based on mythology as it supports your biases, but be reasaonable for once.}-Zarove
3/the whole idea of god sending his son and in the same time being this son to die for your sins and makes him ressurect is complete ridicoules and sounds more like a mythology then a truth...if god is almighty he can simply forgive you...there is no need for a jesus...
{This assumes that "Jyst forgiving you" is tht simple. why woidl he just forgive us? And is "Just forgiving you your sins" relaly logical? So a rapist, muderer, ad theift, and tyrant dies, and gos to Heaven because God "Just frgoves him". No repentance?
Jesus's advent was to teach as much as ot die, and the atonement was to fulfill the sacrificial need. Remember, wothout the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. ( Jewish concept._)
As to mythology, not this again. The Gospels do NOT sound myhtical. No wher ein any Pagan mythology do we dfind anyone cruified, duispite what you read on the internet. Do realr esearch. the little detaisl and less han glamourous life of Jesus alone dosnt fit the Mythology mould too well.
Ill go into greater detail later perhaps, but lets just hope your reasonable and see that this Jeuss Myth idea you hav currently latched onto is nothign more than ptoof of your own lack of intelelgence and diserrnment, because yoj will beleive anyhtign that supports yor ideas. The same blidn faiht you accuse us of haivng. You aren thunkign for yourself, you simpley promte an agenda.}-Zarove
4/many 'moral' things that judaism & christianity are teaching are anything but moral...although there are some very nice concepts in both religions...
{They are "Anythign but mroal" only because you disagree with them, btu if you relaly ook at h conseqence of liivng in acordign to Jewish Mroaklity ( And Chrisain morality, which is derivedform it) you will find no real problems, as opposed to your own loose moral veiw.}- Zarove
5/the fact that people have a tendency to make up myths and legends out of fear for the unknown and because they can't explain certain things...
{The "Jesus Myth" dosnt explaint he unknown. Jeus's life, ministry, crucifiction, and ressurection do not relaly acocuint for "Fear and makign up legends". They dotn explain why rain falls, or why lihgning flashe, or why the winds flow, ect. They ar epurely esotetic and abotu forgiveness of sin sand moral living.
This is, in fact, oen reason why Jesus isnt seen as Mythology. His life doesnt "EExplain" anythiung. His teahcigns explain moral principles, but thats no different fom modern teachers.}-Zarove
6/because religion was used most of the times to manipulate and control and gain big profit
{Thius is simpley a syerotype and not rellay true, least of all for he firts century. This is yor bias, not relaity.}-Zarove
nOW THAT AL THSI IS SAID, sq, CAN YOU YAKE IT OT ANOTHER THREAD RATHER THAN CORRUPT ALL THREADS with your nonsence?
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 13, 2005.
sqda..and how do you account for all of those people who knew Jesus and willingly died at the hands of the Romans rather than reject Jesus as God? Do you think that men would willingly die for a myth? Please let us know of any other "myth" which has sustained itself for 2000 years.
-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 14, 2005.
I believe in Jesus, just because I like to think different....and be normal
-- kat (riesoracle@hotmail.com), February 14, 2005.
1/to zarove: the jewish people can give you tons of perfect arguments why jesus isn't the messiah and why the whole jesus story doesn't match with the prophecies in the OT or tenach...i'm not gonna post it all here...go on the net and look it up,or find some nice jew to explain it to you...2/i don't say that he didn't exist...but even for that there is little proof...can tell me neutral historical source which speak of jesus zarove?
to lesley: the muslims are also dying for their god...does this mean the islam speaks the truth?...
3/son of god: dionysus(means literally the son of god),greek mythology
# Virgin Birth--Dionysus' mother was the mortal woman, Persephone or Semele; his father was Zeus, but not a father in the traditional sense . In Greek mythology Persephone the Virgin Mother of Dionysus, sat in a holy cave and began weaving the great tapestry of the universe, when Zeus, appearing as a phallic serpent, impregnated her with the savior Dionysus.
Eucharist - Dionysus is a god whose tragic passion is re-enacted by the symbolic eating of his flesh and drinking his blood. A live animal was torn apart, in the eating of its flesh, and the drinking of its blood; participants believed they were in fact partaking of the god's body and blood.
Like Dionysus, Jesus could turn water into wine; like Dionysus, Jesus rode on an ass and fed a multitude in the wilderness; like Dionysus, Jesus suffered and was mocked.
Some early Christians claimed that Jesus had in fact been born, not in a stable, but in a cave - just like Dionysus.
Like Jesus, Dionysus is a God in human form, who dies and is resurrected, born of a mortal mother by a divine father. Like Jesus, Dionysus is a god whose tragic passion is re-enacted by eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Like Jesus, Dionysus is a miraculous god associated with the immortality of the soul. Like Christianity, the religion of Dionysus spread like wildfire. Like Jesus, Dionysus is the God of the visionary state acheived through the sacrament.
4/the jesus story doesn't maybe explain the unknown completely but gives the answer to the question what happens after this life and how to get in heaven...
5/things in christianity that i don't agree with:
that faith in this guy and a 2000 year old book is needed to get yourself in heaven,makes completely no sense,how does god expects from us to believe in all these things that happend 2000 years ago and for which there is practicly no proof...so not believing makes someone evil?...
well many other things in jesus's teachings...i'll post them later
things in judaism that i don't agree with:
things in judaism that i don't agree with:
# To circumcise the male offspring (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3) (CCA47) See Brit Milah: Circumcision.
[why?...why should it be wrong not to do so...?]-sdqa
Not to intermarry with gentiles (Deut. 7:3) (CCN19). See Interfaith Marriages.
[oh...very nice...very nice...do you really think god is going to tell you who to marry and who not?...didn't he create all people?...why would he forbid then such a thing?...and why would a loving god,forbid LOVE between a jew and a gentile?...])sdqa
To be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28) (CCA43).
[and if i don't want to?...it's my thing...i don't want anyone to tell me how to organise my life...if i don't feel like having kids...how can someone force me then to have?...]-sdqa
That the woman suspected of adultery shall be dealt with as prescribed in the Torah (Num. 5:30) (affirmative).
[SUSPECTED????...omg...and about a man 'suspected' of adultery noone says a thing...very nice...and i wonder how it is prescribed to deal with such women...i can already imagine...]-sdqa
# That one who defames his wife's honor (by falsely accusing her of unchastity before marriage) must live with her all his lifetime (Deut. 22:19) (affirmative).
[why?...must live with her...if she rapes his children and kills his family he still must live with her...if he doesn't love her anymore...he must live with her...what a nice god...]-sdqa
That a widow whose husband died childless must not be married to anyone but her deceased husband's brother
[ever heard of love?...what if she doesn't love him?...still force her to marry him?...very nice...]-sdqa
# To marry the widow of a brother who has died childless (Deut. 25:5) (this is only in effect insofar as it requires the procedure of release below ) (CCA45).
[same comment as above]-sdqa
Not to travel on Shabbat outside the limits of one's place of residence (Ex. 16:29) (CCN7). See Shabbat.
[oh and why not?...what is wrong with that?...and what if i have to?]-sdqa
To keep the Canaanite slave forever (Lev. 25:46) (affirmative).
[oh so god allows us to have slaves?...but not to keep them forever...and he loves all people right?]-sdqa Not to wrong such a slave (Deut. 23:17) (negative).
[same comment as above]-sdqa
# That the Court shall pass sentence of death by decapitation with the sword (Ex. 21:20; Lev. 26:25) (affirmative).
# That the Court shall pass sentence of death by strangulation (Lev. 20:10) (affirmative).
# That the Court shall pass sentence of death by burning with fire (Lev. 20:14) (affirmative).
# That the Court shall pass sentence of death by stoning (Deut. 22:24) (affirmative).
[and these words come from a loving god?...do you really think that this comes from god? the one that loves us and forgives us?...come on people...be reasonable for once...is this correct?...why to kill someone? because he did something wrong...in the worst case killed someone else...but aren't you the same as him then?...there are other kinds of punishment and other kinds of things that could prevent him doeing such thing again...but why killing?...people can change...think about the thief on the cross next to jesus...do you even realise how precious a human life is...i'm sure that no single good father...not to speak of a complete good father would want his children been killed for their crimes]-sdqa
# Not to make a graven image; neither to make it oneself nor to have it made by others (Ex. 20:4) (CCN9). # Not to make any figures for ornament, even if they are not worshipped (Ex. 20:20) (CCN144). # Not to make idols even for others (Ex. 34:17; Lev. 19:4) (CCN10). # Not to use the ornament of any object of idolatrous worship (Deut. 7:25) (CCN17). # Not to make use of an idol or its accessory objects, offerings, or libations (Deut. 7:26) (CCN18). See Grape
[why?...what's the purpose of not doing so?...who do i harm if i do so?]-sdqa
Not to remove the entire beard, like the idolaters (Lev. 19:27) (CCN177).
[so we all have to look ugly and walk around with beards...what's the purpose of this?]-sdqa Not to tattoo the body like the idolaters (Lev. 19:28) (CCN163).
[and why not?...who do i harm if i do so?...just because i would look lik an idolater then?]-sdqa To slay the inhabitants of a city that has become idolatrous and burn that city (Deut. 13:16-17) (affirmative).
[oh very nice...kill people...burn their city...just because they are idolatrous...and you want me to believe that these words come from god?]-sdqa
# Not to curse a ruler, that is, the King or the head of the College in the land of Israel (Ex. 22:27) (negative).
[and why not? if he is evil?]-sdqa
To appoint a king (Deut. 17:15) (affirmative).
[over my dead body,complete against the most fundamental things i stand for]-sdqa
Not to sell a beautiful woman, (taken captive in war) (Deut. 21:14) (negative).
[and if she's ugly you can sell her?...and this comes from god also right?...very nice...]-sdqa
well if all these things really come from god,then i think he really must hate the jews...
you suppose me to take all these things serious?...please...
to lesley:
you take a 2000 year old book as your source for what's good and bad?...well i don't
my morals aren't based on someone else's...i don't want anyone else telling me what to do,what's good and what not...look everything that causes direct harm to someone else is bad...i can do whatever i want unless i hurt someone else with it...my freedom reaches to their freedom...what i do to myself,is my own thing...ok sometimes not...like killing yourself while you have a sick wife and 5 children that noone can take care of...but if it involves only me in it...it's my thing
one other thing:the torah is complete against the nature of the human mind...god gave us freedom...why would he give us then sooo many rules that tell us exactly HOW to live our life...not what is good or bad...(ok some...but i'm talking about these things i posted above and many other things i didn't)
i think this question has already been answered 2000 years ago:
53 His disciples said to him, "is circumcision useful or not?"
He said to them, "If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect."-jesus,the gospel of thomas
6/religion is being used in the first place to control,manipulate and gain profit...just look at the RCC all those centuries...just look at the islam today...just look at all those sects...just look at george w bush winning the election because kerry stood for gay marriage and abortion,but especially gay marriage then...
-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), February 14, 2005.
1/to zarove: the jewish people can give you tons of perfect arguments why jesus isn't the messiah and why the whole jesus story doesn't match with the prophecies in the OT or tenach...i'm not gonna post it all here...go on the net and look it up,or find some nice jew to explain it to you...{This is why you arnet well liked here. Do you relay think Im ignorant of the Jewish perspective? thats right, Im CHristain thereofre never even met pr s[ke ot Jew...
I know he Modern Jewish perspective, hwoever, if you had bothered to read and think about hwat I had said, you widl relaise that Modern Jewish perspective has been largley derived form the Rabbi's of the middle ages in reponce to Christainity, and why it is rejected.
I mentioned pre-first Century Messianic ideas.
Modern Jews cant explain that to me, unless lime me they have stidied Hisotry. most modern Jews have not, and only know the Modern perspective, based ont he Rabi's rejection of Chritianity in the middle ages.
Get this throyghy our head SQ, its nto so much that I dont undertsand the Jewish arugments, i do. its htat you claimsed Jesus didnt fulfill what the Jews where expectig based on what si said NOW, which is ludecrous even form a secular studis perspective.
The HISTORICAL messianic hope is what we are dealign with, and Jesus fits nicely with what was expected in rabbinical and sage writtigns form the first century BC.
Dont beelive me? Read the Book of enoch, it alone echoes Christain hope.
ZSo do most Rabbi's of the period.
Smpley sayign I dont undertsand the Jewish perspective is not sufficient to prove the Jewss of the time where expectign what the Jews today expect.}-Zarove
2/i don't say that he didn't exist...but even for that there is little proof...can tell me neutral historical source which speak of jesus zarove?
{Josepjus. let me guess, forgey arguemnt? if it proves Jesus was real its fake...
Most secular Hisotrians beelive he existed. This thread wodl be too logn to mention ehe, but if pressed Ill give more data.}-Zarove
to lesley: the muslims are also dying for their god...does this mean the islam speaks the truth?...
{The difference is this. If Jesus did not exist, why is it these peopel died for him. itsz different orm Dyign for God. See, God is alreayd beelived in and has been sine primordial ages.
Jesus on the othe rhand was a man who live din paistine. If jesus sid not exist, then why wodl bple beekive he did exist n he say so of a few people? Again, peopel whee ALIVE and FORM JERUSALEM int he time Chrisainity began to spread. No one bothered sayong " You know, I don remeber A man nmed Jesus ever beign crucified." All the writitngs againt the Christains of the time never ocne doubt the exitance of Jesus.
it wasnt till the 1700's when dsoem french radicals even proposed it, and even then it was doubted. today the theory is as dead as dirt, nly promoted by hard core anti-Chrisgains. Tryrradign an academic press Hisotry and not some pop fad theiry.}-Zarove
3/son of god: dionysus(means literally the son of god),greek mythology
{Lie. Dyonisos was never called "The son of God". Dyonisus was the son of a god, Zeus, however, he never went by "The son of God". Let me guess, you can post some stupid website, problem is I cna post the real myth.
Show me a primary soruce hat refers to him as such.}-Zarove
# Virgin Birth--Dionysus' mother was the mortal woman, Persephone or Semele; his father was Zeus, but not a father in the traditional sense . In Greek mythology Persephone the Virgin Mother of Dionysus, sat in a holy cave and began weaving the great tapestry of the universe, when Zeus, appearing as a phallic serpent, impregnated her with the savior Dionysus.
{This is an utter lie. In Greek Mythology Semele had na affair with Zeus. ( In other words, sex, in the traditional manner.) Hera grew elous and asusmed the form of Semelies handmaiden. she conned semele into making Zeus proise to show himself in hsi true form, his he did, and it killed her.
Dyonisos was then pulled as a fetus out of semelies chared remaisn and sewed into Zeises thugh, where he was Born a second time, thus why he is called "The twice born god". Not, hwoever, a virgin Birth.
No cave invovled either.}-Zarove
Eucharist - Dionysus is a god whose tragic passion is re-enacted by the symbolic eating of his flesh and drinking his blood. A live animal was torn apart, in the eating of its flesh, and the drinking of its blood; participants believed they were in fact partaking of the god's body and blood.
{What tragic passion? Dyonisus was a god, and thus imortal. The only time he ded was wheen Hera , while he was still mortal, sent Titains to kill him. even then he was torn to peices. He suffered no passion, and the Eucharist meal of Dnisus;s followers doesngt ecxst. our just pullign crap form Christ Myther websites and dot knwo a thing abotu the Myht of dyonisus, nor what his follswoers did. hintg: you woudl love dyonissu worship, it has nohtign at all to do with Chrisaunw orship ad no meal of bread. Instead, they engaged in wild parties, dringt hemselves into a stuppur and engagign in orgies.
Dyonisus never had a "Tragic passion" and nevewr had a eucharist.
Dont beelive me, keep reaidng, ill prove it.}-Zarove
Like Dionysus, Jesus could turn water into wine; like Dionysus, Jesus rode on an ass and fed a multitude in the wilderness; like Dionysus, Jesus suffered and was mocked.
{dyoisus was never mocked by anyone who lived ot tell the tale, and never suffered. He was a god, and the Greeks had no concept f a suffergn god.}-Zarove
Some early Christians claimed that Jesus had in fact been born, not in a stable, but in a cave - just like Dionysus.
{But dyonisus was NOT Born in a cave, he was Born out of Zeus's thigh, and if yo ocunt Semele, he was Born otu of a Palace in Greece.}-Zarove
Like Jesus, Dionysus is a God in human form, who dies and is resurrected, born of a mortal mother by a divine father.
{Half truth. all greek gds had Human form, but they only appeared Human and where still gds, not god and man. Dyonisus des die but tis nto for atonement of anyones sins, and the simiitude is too vuage. he also doesngt ressurect himself but is resusrected by the King of the gods, Zeus.
The similariesi here are disnonest, an giving th eamougn of false infomaiton abotu Dyoisios ans is worhsip, only an idiot codl take you serisouly.
Lets face it, you "Know" Jesus was a myth because dtomnsis was exaclty the same, but all you can do is read it off a christ Myther site, you cant even be troubled to other lookign at a Myhtology booik to see if the detals are the ame. Again keep readng. }-Zarove
Like Jesus, Dionysus is a god whose tragic passion is re-enacted by eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
{where to begin...
1: Dtonisus has no Tragic passion story. Dtonisus never reay sffered.
2: His worshppers d not reinact any passion narrative ( That wa snonexistant) by ating his flesh and drinking his blood. This is sheer balderdash beleived by you not based on researhc but because you ofun it on a Chist Myther website.
the rites of the cult of Dyonisus invovled getitng drunk, dougn drugs, and haivng wild group sex. They did not include eatign his flesh and drinkign his blood.}-Zarove
Like Jesus, Dionysus is a miraculous god associated with the immortality of the soul.
{No he asnt. he was associated with alcahol, madness, and prphecy, not immortality.Indeed, he souls immortality is pretty forgin to Greek thought.}-Zarove
Like Christianity, the religion of Dionysus spread like wildfire.
{No it didnt. it took centiries before dyonisus's cult becme accepted in Greece, and it was among the last of the major cults, even toght he Cult had existed for a thousand years or so, before it became accepted an dcommon.
The dyoosus cult was harldy one hat "Spread like woldfire".}-Zarove
Like Jesus, Dionysus is the God of the visionary state acheived through the sacrament.
{Again...
1: Dyonisus cult had no Sacraments.
2: The Christain faiht doesnt teahc visionary states ar einduced by the Sacraments.}-Zarove
4/the jesus story doesn't maybe explain the unknown completely but gives the answer to the question what happens after this life and how to get in heaven...
{But tis base dn Moral principles, not the fear ofghe Unknown. It presupposeds beeleivf in an afterlife, it doesnt rellay explain the afterlife and sint abot fear f the Unknown, tats the point.}-Zarove
5/things in christianity that i don't agree with:
{no oen cares... you agree hat Dyonisus was just liek Jesus base don soem website yo read...}-Zarove
that faith in this guy and a 2000 year old book is needed to get yourself in heaven,makes completely no sense,how does god expects from us to believe in all these things that happend 2000 years ago and for which there is practicly no proof...so not believing makes someone evil?...
{Its the mroaliy oen must embace, the turth is in the teacings. And again, thei is arheological proof...}-Zarove
well many other things in jesus's teachings...i'll post them later
things in judaism that i don't agree with:
{No one cares here either...}-Zarove
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 14, 2005.
Some respices on Dyonisushttp://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=13743
http://www.mythweb.com/gods/Dionysus.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus
Note: No mention of a eucharist meal where hsi follwors ate his flesh and drank his blood, and the "ressurection" is Minor, and not similar to Jesus a all.
Try reading who dyonisus was, before makig such moronic staements in the future.
Oh wel, could have been worse, you coudl be quoting Acharya S...
Horus was just like Jeuss you know... even cricified for the sins of th world...
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 14, 2005.
give me references to your historical proof and to your version of the myth of dionysus
-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), February 14, 2005.
and where is your proof that the bible is true?
-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), February 14, 2005.
SQ TO IDIOT, I JUST GAVE BASIC RESORUCES TO DYONISUS, ARE YOU SO SIMPLE MINDED, ARROGANT, AND SELF ABSORBED AS TO THINK THAT ANYTHIGN YOU POST IS ERROR FREE?Of corue jesus is a myth base don dyonsus, as that discredits Chrisyainity and thus confirms wha you ant ot be true.
This thread is about why peole beleive, ot why you dont.
You don even have a good reaosn nto to beleive, you just wan tto cause toruble. You say yor happoier now, fine. why are you here?
You get delight inmokcing others, thats not happiness, or a sign of it, its a sing of you needign to feel vlaidated.
You sy you can think gfreely? Thats a lie and a half. All you can do is regurgetat eother peoels anti-Chrisyain arugments that you can een think abiut.
You "LKnow' bettradn tullem makes snece bcause he agrees with you that rlegioon+bad.
You know Dyonisus had follwoers who pracitced sacraments such as the uecharist meal, htya he was Born fo a virgin, ect... how do you kwo this? well iyou daw it on a websire an it discredits Christainity. No researhc into the Life of Dyonisus is needed. just the fac that sem guy told you its liek Jeus is good enough. youc all that freethought?
as for the Bible, we have discussed it, Obsevstion, arhceology, and reason leadme to beleive it.
As for you, you just basiclaly wan tot cause irritaiton.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 14, 2005.
The Christ-Dionysus parallel has very little to commend it. What few exist are based on universal conceptions and themes. Moreover, to make his argument persuasive, the claimant must explain how and why a group of Palestinian Jews borrowed the theology and teachings of a foreign cult and founded a new religion based upon them. He must also explain why the parallels between the doctrine taught by Jesus and that of contemporary Judaism were so similar, not to mention why the early Christians initially maintained the trappings of Jewish religious observation (Temple attendance, circumcision, etc.). In fact, the only Apostle who might reasonably be expected to have had any reasonably detailed knowledge of pagan religion was the educated rabbi, Saul/Paul - and it utterly defies credibility that a professed and professing Pharisee, let alone a pupil of Gamaliel, would or even could have taken control of a group of Palestinian peasants and turned them into proselytising Messianic Bacchus-worshippers.no copycat..
-- (faith01@myway.com), February 14, 2005.
I guess you haven't read my email, Faith. That's ok. The evidence will become so obvious, the blind man will cover his eyes.......
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 14, 2005.
The thing is, SQ won't be othered to rad the real myth.He will justcontinue to promogat ehtis...
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 14, 2005.
Here is the line of reasoning we are being pushed into, eventually, by SDQA........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 14, 2005.
Careful rod... Sanforfd Univerrsity may exploded poor SDQA's mind... best to let hi post bzzarre conpriacy thories he only half understands abotu Dyonisus beign identical to Jesus and Jesus beign a Myth till he gets bored of it and mvoes to his ext fad. After all he moved form Thomas beign a valid and the real teachigns of Jesus, to Jesus beign a paan rip-off...Its bestt o let him stud those soruces, sicne real scolarship will ultimatley confuse him...
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 14, 2005.
man you actually believe that this guy is the son of god...what can i say...
-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), February 14, 2005.
Man! you rely do not believe in Christ? We have much to say!........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 14, 2005.
I asked sqda on the Catholic forum where he plans on spending all eternity and he ran away without a reply..now here he is "what can I say?"
well, sqda..that's my question again..when you do meet God face to face, (and you WILL)..what will you have to say for yourself? Where do you THINK you will be spending all of eternity?
-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 14, 2005.
SDQA, Let ME ask, do you REALLY beleive Dyonisus lived a parrallel Life to Jesus, and his followers had a Eucharist meal whichw as his body and Blood? Or do you just beleive this because tis ocnveneint to beleive it because it supports your unfoudned hatred and need to agress?Again, you arnet a free thinker, as you claimed before, you are just an immature prat who has latched onot he popular passtime of mockign Chrisians for no real reason.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 14, 2005.
I really do think that SDQA has crossed the line of fooling around and asking important questions. When people get hostile and emotional, a nerve has been touched. I sense that SDQA has hit that wall of doubt. He may actually come to have faith in Christ. The symptoms are beginning to show..............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 14, 2005.
rod,What does your email have to do with this thread?
And by-the-way,I did open the link you provided in your email, but it shows nothing--just an error message saying that the server must have deleted that thread...
-- (faith01@myway.com), February 14, 2005.
Also rod,sdqa has not crossed any lines as far as I can see. He was never seriously looking for answers in the first place. I provided the perfect refutation to his claim--but I am sure he did not bother to read it.
Why is anyone surprised?
In truth--only if evolution is true, does it make any possible sense that Christianity is a copycat theology--and even then, it doesn't make any sense.
Consider though, that if creation happened exactly as the Bible says-- then in fact--your Greek mythologies are likely the copycat stories-- taking from the Word of God the original stories and then deviating in time to become the myths and legends that they are.
According to Scripture--the Word of God has been with us since the begining...so who copied who?
-- (faith01@myway.com), February 14, 2005.
Faith, thats fodder sicne SQ likely accets Evolution.However, if ou read the Mythologie as I have, you knwo the parrallels are few and far between. hats htir is insulsanital and oftn inflated, and often the parrallels ar einvented.
Like Acharya S and horus. Horus was never Cricfied, but she claism he was...
I alos think Rod was menain how Sq came ot mok but canot anwer out objecitons.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 14, 2005.
FaithYou need to copy the entire link/URL. Sometimes the email message will not underline the link because it is too long of a string.
You obviously did not access the link from the email, did you?
Oh well, forget that email. I was trying to give you a heads up, but it's too late now.
.......
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 14, 2005.
no rod, your link was bad...this is where it takes me:Couldn't find message 00Ckg6>. Probably it was deleted by the forum maintainer.
Maybe you just typed the wrong address?
-- (faith01@myway.com), February 14, 2005.
Faith!(The link URL has changed.)
I will post the link. It links to a thread in the Anarchy 2 Forum. It is a filthy thread filled with hate and ugliness.
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Ckg6
I'll ask Elpidio to delete this post after awhile.
I want you to know what we are up against. Getting rid of "Fundies".
..............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 14, 2005.
In other worfs, I was right.SQ is like all the other "Freethinkers" I encorner on the ent who argue Agaisnt Chrisainity.
He never uses his own arugments, instead, he simpley regurgetates soemoen elses he thinks will shoot down Christainity.
He doesnt even stop to think on the validity of those aruments, he just recckes them with glee.
I sisuspected this all along, and it was practiclaly confirmed when he went form the "Gospel of Thomas is he ture Sayings of Jesus suppressed by the CHurhc" camp to christ Mythesist camp.
Basicllay, he discovered a sie that said Jesus was based on Dyonisos, that does mroe damage to Christaintiy than the ospel of Thomas so it was Deep sixed.
Nevermidn that he hasnt a clue what the Myth of Dyonisus was or what the primary soruce odf documentaiton are, just the basic "Jesus is a rip off "mantra will do.
And soon he will fidn mroe stupid arugmets we have heard a million times before, and brign them here, to a Chrisian board, yet pretend to be innocent.
He rellay thinks we need to be gotten rid of? this is a Christain board for crying out loud...
He's just pathetic and immature.
Soon I'll be dealign with the skeptics Annotated bible again. I mean, the thing is a cllection of snide commentary based not on shcoalrship btu sem idiots clelction of ramlings which show neiher regard for cultrueal framwrowk nor actual thoguth, but oh well, so long as SQ can feel superior for 5 minuets Im sure he will brign them on...
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 14, 2005.
I knew you would understand, Zarove. I thought for sure that you had SDQA pretty much figured out. While Faith was trying to get at Elpidio, her real target should have been SDQA. I tried to let Faith know. Trust is a hard thing to earn, I guess.The real trick is to turn SDQA around. He has already vowed to reject the Gospels and Christ. I will not lose hope for the lost, never.
I would prefer that SDQA hang around here and battle it out with us than to swim in dark waters.
................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 14, 2005.
It seems he wont do that. His psost are becomign ess and lss frwuent. the more we shoot him down the less fun he has, and he lurks away like the fearful shadw that he drapes himself in.As soon as he rlaies we arnet midnelss fundies, he will leave, and find some other way to amuse hismelf, sicn ehtis wll be too srious.
he enrered out lives by thinkign religion was an easy target and we where all stupid, now he knows beter, all he can do is make cheap shots, and leave in disgust that his fun was spoiled.
Prayer is best for him, but I doubt he will lnger for much longer.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 14, 2005.
zarove what are you trying to say? that i am an idiot? well...i'm not here the one who believes in the son of god who is also god in the same time,who's mother is a virgin and who's father god!? while he is in the same time god in a human form...so actually he is his own father but keeps talking to his father in heaven like it is a different person(pretty confusing he?)well you actually believe that this guy had to die for your sins so you can enter heaven(this isn't mentioned anywhere in the OT...that the jewish messiah would have this function)...and you believe that you have to believe in this guy so you would not burn in hell...i mean dude...am i here the idiot one?...you want me to believe in those fairy tales without any proof?...
you really want me to take that serious...ok...2000 years ago...one guy dies on a cross...he claimed before of that that he was the messiah,the son of god...ppl believed him because he did miracles...and said some nice words about morals...you want me to actually believe this is TRUE?...dude get a life...a real one not a fictious one
i mean listen to yourself talking...'jesus saves'...'without him you'll go to hell'...jesus is dead...
to lesley:good people are good people...religion has nothing to do with this...when i would meet one day god,face to face...i'm sure he wouldn't be mad at me for not believing in jesus or not being a catholic...what would i say then? well i'd say hi,happy to meet you,i've been looking for your all my life but i couldn't find you in any religion or institution...only in your creation
where i would be spending my eternity?...i don't know the options lesley...i don't know where we go...i can't tell..
-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), February 15, 2005.
SDQAYou forgot to say something about me. Anyway, why is it ok for you to enter this forum and call us names, but when you feel that names are called to you, you get all bent out of shape? Imagine if you had asked for our point of view and faith with respect. Look, if you don't want to accept Christianity, that is one thing. If your mission is to destroy it, one believer at a time, that is quite different. That is not seeking for knowledge. That is a battle of good and evil. I suppose the each side would claim "good", not "evil". But, look at the territory. This is not the Anarchy 2 Forum. I have not gone into your camp to destroy your ideology. Yet, you rally your compatriots for your crusade against the "ignorant" Christians. You are burning bridges. You have failed to accomplish your mission in this forum. Now, you can try to settle down and share your views without the disrespectful tones.
Do you not believe Christianity because that's what you have been conditioned to believer? Or, have you actually done the research?
...................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 15, 2005.
I am utterly amazed at the ignorance of the site he linked people to called : Things Creationists Hate ...I mean Lol!!Embryos do not have tails or gills, though wouldn't that be great for the evolutionist if they could prove such a claim.
They are so gulliable!!
A fishy story
'Tweed boy had fish gills in his neck'. The headline was not that of some cheap tabloid paper, the type which is as likely to feature a phony photograph of a goat-human hybrid as to report Elvis running a hamburger cafe in Tibet. It was a respected Australian regional daily, The Northern Star (New South Wales) of October 30, 1993 ('Tweed' in the headline refers to the town of Tweed Heads).
The fuss was about a small fragment of cartilage (10-15 millimetres long) which had been removed from the neck of an 11-year-old boy. It was referred to as a 'fish gill', and as 'fish gill cartilage'. The parents were reported as saying, 'The doctor told us that if our son had been a fish he would be able to breath [sic] under water. He said it was a gill — like in a fish'.
The report seemed to directly quote a medical authority as saying that the tissue found in this boy's neck was hard cartilage 'exactly the same as found in the gills of fish'. Little wonder that the boy had experienced 'some teasing at school'!
Human cartilage A scar on the boy's neck shows where the alleged 'fish gill' cartilage was removed. Occasionally, human cartilage may be abnormally 'seeded' during development of the embryo, and this is what grows in a person's neck. The cartilage taken from the boy's neck is about the size of one of Australia's smallest coins. The pathologist who examined the 'fish gill' cartilage confirmed that its microscopic appearance was indistinguishable from human cartilage. Knowing that we humans have human (not fish) DNA and can therefore make only human (not fish) cartilage, I rang the pathologist referred to in the article, who confirmed that the histology (microscopic appearance) of this cartilage was not in any way distinguishable from ordinary human cartilage.
The whole article seemed to be strongly promoting the mistaken belief that the human embryo, as it develops, goes through the stages of its pre-human evolutionary ancestry. It actually stated that in the first few weeks of life the human fetus 'develops six gills'.
Few, if any, respected embryologists today accept this belief that the human fetus repeats its past evolutionary history. In a major textbook on human development (Jan Langman, Medical Embryology, fourth edition, Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, 1981) we read that 'in the human embryo real gills — branchia — are never formed'.
Superficial similarity
There are pouch-like structures which form in the fish embryo and which look superficially similar to the pharyngeal pouches or grooves in the human embryo (these were formerly incorrectly called branchial (i.e. gill) grooves). However, whereas in fish this region develops gills, in humans it forms very important, and quite different, structures in the head and neck region, structures which have nothing to do with gills in either form or function.
These structures include several which contain cartilage (such as the voice-box, or larynx). So it is not at all surprising, in a fallen world, that there should occasionally be an aberration of normal embryonic development, such that a clump of laryngeal-type cartilage (for example) is incorrectly 'seeded' in the side of the neck during development in the womb, and begins growing.
Actually, such 'embryonic rests' or 'remnants' (not remnants of our evolutionary ancestry, but remnants of our own tissue which ended up in the wrong place), when they involve softer tissues than cartilage, are well-known in the neck region. So-called 'cartilage rests', as in this case, are much rarer, but have been described. There is therefore no mystery, and no evolutionary significance, to finding this tiny scrap of ordinary human cartilage in a human neck.
It is tragic how readily the secular media, which will give virtually no exposure to visits by distinguished creation scientists, will publish such misleading and erroneous reports which reinforce evolutionary beliefs. (AIG)
-- (faith01@myway.com), February 15, 2005.
THE TRUTH ABOUT HUMAN "TAILS"
What about the "tail"? Some of you have heard that man has a "tail bone" (also called a coccyx), and that the only reason we have it is to remind us that our ancestors had tails.
You can test this idea yourself, although I don't recommend it. If you think the coccyx is useless, fall down the stairs and land on it. (Some of you may have actually done that-unintentionally, I'm sure!) What happens? You can't stand up; you can't sit down; you can't lie down; you can't roll over. You can hardly move without pain. In one sense, the coccyx is one of the most important bones in the whole body. It's an important point of muscle attachment required for our distinctive upright posture (and also for defecation, but I'll say no more about that.)
So again, far from being a useless evolutionary leftover, the coccyx is quite important in human development. True, the end of the spine sticks out noticeably in a one-month embryo, but that's because muscles and limbs don't develop until stimulated by the spine (see above picture). As the legs develop, they surround and envelop the coccyx, and it winds up inside the body.
Once in a great while a child will be born with a "tail." But, is it really a tail? No, it's not even the coccyx. It doesn't have any bones in it; it doesn't have any nerve cord either. The nervous system starts stretched out open on the back. During development, it rises up in ridges and rolls shut. It starts to "zipper" shut in the middle first, then it zippers toward either end. Once in a while it doesn't go far enough, and that produces a serious defect called spina bifida. Sometimes it rolls a little too far. Then the baby will be born - not with a tail, but with a fatty tumor. It's just skin and a little fatty tissue, so the doctor can just cut it off. It's not at all like the tail of a cat that has muscle, bones, and nerve, so cutting it off is not complicated. (So far as I know, no one claims that proves we evolved from an animal with a fatty tumor at the end of its spine.)
The details of human development are truly amazing. We really ought to stop, take a good look at each other, and congratulate each other that we turned out as well as we did!
RETRACING OUR "EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT"?
Evolutionists used to say that human embryonic development retraced states in our supposed evolutionary history. That idea, the now defunct "biogenetic law," was summarized in the pithy phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." (Want to sound educated? Just memorize that phrase!) The phrase means that the development of the embryo is supposed to retrace the evolution of its group. As leading anti-creationist Stephen Gould points out, "the theory of recapitulation... should be defunct today," but Dr. Down named a syndrome "Mongoloid idiocy" because he thought it represented a "throwback" to the "Mongolian stage" in human evolution. It was even once believed that the fertilized egg, for example, would represent our one-celled ancestors, sort of the "amoeba stage."
Sure enough, we start as small, round structures looking somewhat like single cells. But notice how superficial that argument is. The evolutionists were just looking at the outside appearance of the egg cell. If we look just on the outside appearance, then maybe we're related to a marble or a ball bearing - they're small, round things! An evolutionist (or anyone else) would respond, of course, "That's crazy. Those things are totally different on the inside from a human egg cell."
But that's exactly the point. If you take a look on the inside, the "dot" we each start form is totally different from the first cell of every other kind of life. A mouse, an elephant, and a human being are identical in size and shape at the moment of conception. Yet in terms of DNA and protein, right at conception each of these types of life is as totally different chemically as each will ever be structurally. Even by mistake, a human being can't produce a yolk or gills or a tail, because we just don't have, and never had, those DNA instructions.
The human egg cell, furthermore, is not just human, but also a special individual. Eye color, general body size, and perhaps even temperament are already present in DNA, ready to come to visible expression. Embryonic development is not even analogous to evolution, which is meant to indicate a progressive increase in potential. The right Greek word instead would be entelechy, which means an unfolding of potential present right from the beginning. That's the kind of development that so clearly requires creative design.
In reviewing the decline and fall of orthodox Darwinism, John Davy points out that even evolutionists see the need for "theories of another kind" (emphasis his) to explain both the origin and development of distinctive "building plans" among organisms. "Instead of seeing animals as collections of devices for survival, we may have to look at them as more like works of art." Works of art - that's the way creationists have viewed living beings all along!
ABORTION Amazingly, one can still occasionally find Haeckel's theory of "embryonic recapitulation" being taught or implied in schools and universities. Some "pro-choice" advocates and abortion clinics have even used this evolutionary concept to make abortion more palatable: "We're not cutting up a baby; it's just a fish or a jellyfish. It's not human; it's just tissue."
Once again, deceptive evolutionary claims result in tragic results. In reality, the wonderful process of embryonic development is another marvelous reflection of the Creator's design.
Content adapted from What Is Creation Science?
FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES
Adapted from "Evolution of Thought: Reader's Digest 'Facts'," Creation: Ex Nihilo (Acacia Ridge, Queensland, Australia: June 1986) - used by permission. / Dr. Spock's quotation from Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care, (Cardinal Giant Addition, 1957, p. 223), as quoted by Walter J. Bock, "Evolution by Orderly Law", Science, Vol. 164 (May 9, 1969), pp. 684-685.
"Known as 'Darwin's Bulldog on the Continent' and 'the Huxley of Germany,' Ernst Heinrick Philipp August Haeckel is notorious as the scientist who perpetrated fraud upon fraud to promote the theory of evolution. Born at Potsdam, Prussia (now Germany), on February 16, 1834, Haeckel studied medicine and science at Wurtzburg and the University of Berlin, and was professor of zoology at Jena from 1865 until his retirement in 1909. The turning point in his thinking was his reading of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, which had been translated into German in 1860. In a letter to his mistress, written when he was 64 and had acquired the nickname of 'Der Ketzer von Jena' (the gadfly of Jena), he explained how he began as a 'Christian' but after studying evolution became a free-thinker and pantheist. Darwin believed that Haeckel's enthusiastic propagation of the doctrine of organic evolution was the chief factor in the success of the doctrine in Germany. ...he used enormous backdrops showing embryos, skeletons, etc., which has led to his presentation being described as a sort of 'Darwinian passion play!' Haeckel's enthusiasm for the theory of evolution led him to fraudulently manufacture 'evidence' to bolster his views. He was the first person to draw an evolutionary 'family tree' for mankind." His frauds included descriptions and detailed pictures protoplasmic organisms called Monera that never existed, a non-existent "speechless apeman," and illustrations and descriptions of a non-existent "fish stage" in human embryos. The human "fish stage" fraud was first uncovered by comparative embryologist Wilhelm His, Sr. Ernst Haeckel later partially confessed. [Russell Grigg, "Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for Evolution and Apostle of Deceipt," Creation: Ex Nihilo, Vol. 18, No. 2 (March-May 1996), pp. 33-36 - used by permission of Answers in Genesis.]
Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 1997), p. 188.
Stephen Jay Gould, "Dr. Down's Syndrome," Natural History, Vol. 89 (April 1980), p. 144.
John Davy, "Once Upon A Time," Observer-Review (London: August 16, 1981).
SUGGESTED FOR FURTHER READING
Human gills - Is it true that humans have occasionally been born with gills?
Fraud Rediscovered, Creation, Volume 20, No. 2 (March 1998), pp. 49- 51 - for the shocking truth, with photographic documentation, about the lies made telling people that the human fetus recapitulates an animal ancestry Russell Grigg, "Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for Evolution and Apostle of Deceipt," Creation: Ex Nihilo, Vol. 18, No. 2 (March-May 1996), pp. 33-36.
Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, from science journalist Richard Milton.
-- (faith01@myway.com), February 15, 2005.
Is it simply a question of Jesus' existence?Have a look at the Gnostics. They didn't exactly believe that Jesus could actually die for their Salvation. They believed that Jesus could give them answers for their own personal "resurrections" into a life of righteousness. The key point/evidence is that the Gnostics established their doctrines because of the existence of Jesus. Sure, Gnosticism began before Jesus, in some form or another. But, the pivotal point hinged on Jesus. Jesus did exist.
I provided an interesting historical record written by Josephus. Why Josephus? Josephus is an import historian for both the Jewish and Christian histories. Josephus writes about Jesus. If we are to trust Josephus, we must also trust what he records in his works.
The Old Testament, according to you, does not tell of Christ being our Savior. According to your interpretations, Christ cannot pay the price of sin by being the ultimate Sacrifice. It is your own(?) interpretation of the Old Testament (you admitted that you know very little of the O.T.)that you base your faith in. Yet, I have mentioned that every account in the O.T. alludes to the Messiah. Every Tradition tells of the Salvation plan. Read it again and consider what I have said.
It doesn't make sense? I read some of Bertrand's ideas. The poor guy was confused; he even realized he was confused. Perhaps you too are confused with the Holy Bible, obviously. Will you at least admit that you cannot make a final conclusion on your beliefs until some of that confusion is corrected?
In other words, stop saying that you will never accept Christianity. It would be most logical to say that you cannot accept it at present, but that you will make strides to understand it better. It may take a lifetime, if need be.
......................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 15, 2005.
zarove what are you trying to say? that i am an idiot? well...i'm not here the one who believes in the son of god who is also god in the same time,who's mother is a virgin and who's father god!? while he is in the same time god in a human form...so actually he is his own father but keeps talking to his father in heaven like it is a different person(pretty confusing he?)I do not claim that all Non-Chrisians are idiots. However, claimign all Chrisians are idiots is Bigorty, especialy since many of Hisoties most profound thinkers where Christians. ( Dispite the internet scpetics raly clal that all great minds wheren't...)
As o the theology beign confusing, tis not. Whats rlelay amazing is how cool Hnduism is seen in our culture and stupid and confusinfg CHrista8ity is. i mean, come on, Hinudism teaches the same about Krishna. He was an avatar of a god.
Beside that, all the multip;le gods are relaly just oen god, even when they fight wars agsint each other.
Talk about stupid! But we never clal them on it!
The truth is, that Christainity isnt stupid or confusing, you just choose to selectively interrpet the theology.
As for callign you an idiot, I didnt do that based on yuor rejection of Chrisainity, I did that based on your inability to think for yourself, and insistance on regurgetaing old argmets you hear that discfredit Chrisyainity that you accept on Blind faiht.
Your central tenet is that I beelive he Bible because I have lost the abiltiy to thinkf o myself and just operat eon blid faith, as oppoed to you, you are a free thinker who rejected the Bible and nwo thinks for yourself. But how can I take this claim serisuly? its not only logiclaly untenable to asusme that everyoen wop rejects the Bible is thinkign for onesself and everyoen who veelives it has merit has no ability to, as oen who thinks for onsesself can still arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is correct, ut look at your argumdnts.
You accept on face value that the Gopsel of Thomas is the best work contianign the Teachigns of Jesus, not because you have reas researhc on the ducument, or even the document itsself, you just know this because you read an internet siter abotu it, and hey, the hcurhc suppressed it ebcause it didt ocnfirm ot their agenda, thus its the best!
Then yo switched to the Christ
And your similarities between Dyonisus and Christ dont make sence. READ Greek myhtology, THEN tell me abotu Dyonisus beig Born of a Virign in a vase et all. You just beleived the simlarities ebcause it discredits Christanity, not because you di vlaid research.
THAT by definitio is blind reasoning, you arent a free thinker, you are wholly confined by your concusion. I at leats queatsioned CHrisyanit, as an unexamined faiht isnt owrth anything. You haent, y just ook for reasisn to discredit it.
And beelive any old argmnt that agrees with yor predisposition.
Do you relay think that is ocnvencing?
And I called you an idiot because I gace you fresoruces on Dyonisus, and you demanded resources...
< I>well you actually believe that this guy had to die for your sins so you can enter heaven(this isn't mentioned anywhere in the OT...that the jewish messiah would have this function)...
1: It doesnt matter if the Jews where aware that this si what he wodl do, but onlythat it occured.
2: My beleifs are largldy based on he ethical and moral core of the Faith, the hteology to me, personally, is secondary.
3: Jewish scriptures make references to the Messiah sufferign at hte hands fo his peole and dying. Read the books of Pslams, Zacheriah, and Malichi.
I dotn feel compelled to looking up the spacific refernces, this post is too long as is, btu wil upon requeast.
and you believe that you have to believe in this guy so you would not burn in hell...
See, here is a problem in your line of reasoning. Presumption. You PRESUME this si my beleif.
Based on fundie Christian sterotypes.
Read "The Chronicles of Narnia" for a ficional example of my beleifs, My views are closer to C.S.Lewis than Jerry Falwell.
i mean dude...am i here the idiot one?...you want me to believe in those fairy tales without any proof?...
They arent fairy tales, and any mature midn wodl recognise the distinction. I mean, coem on, I dot call Hindu beleifs or Buddhist lore "Fairy tales", and if I did you woidl see me as a massive jerk. yet its Ok for you to out down ur beleifs? lukcily int he mdoern west Beign a Bigot is OK so long as yor Bigotry is aimed at Chrisyainity.
And as we have repeateldy said, we have proof, we even offer some proof here, and have more proof. evidence isnt lacking. ehats lakign is your willignnes ot listen and be respectufl and actlaly learn something.
you really want me to take that serious...ok...2000 years ago...one guy dies on a cross...he claimed before of that that he was the messiah,the son of god...ppl believed him because he did miracles...and said some nice words about morals...you want me to actually believe this is TRUE?...dude get a life...a real one not a fictious one
the very fac that we dotn go form board to board insultign people, and feel the need to rip into people and make them feel bad to mae ourselves feel beter, is more han enough reason to take us seriosuly.
Compare that with you. You make immature comments, rude and derogitory statements, and feel compelled to name call on our board for no reason other than yto gratify your vain egotism, and get upset when oen or tw of us grows weirt of yur antics.
Newsflas fr you kido, this is a Christain board. we discuss Christain beleifs. This is not a palc we coem to to dfend out faigth. we come here to disuss it.
Liekwise, no one is holdign a gun t your head and makign you come here, you came of your own vlition. You arived here with malice as an intent, and then go to Anarchy 2 so you cna learn how to handle the "Fundies" yo DILIBERATLEY went out of yor way to get.
Liek the true Bully, you wan o play the fvictim, and sy we atacked you. But be realistic. This is our board, you came ot us, and you pesgter us with nonsencical objectiosn to oour faith base don nothgin more htan your own desires and lists and wimsies.
We arent exaclty forcign out beleifs on you lad, but you cerainly are tryign to on us. So don expect us to feel sorry for you wen you hit the wall that ots paid to your moronic, narorw minded, pathetic egorism.
i mean listen to yourself talking...'jesus saves'...'without him you'll go to hell'...jesus is dead...
Those arent relay quotes of mine, those are "Fundie Christain" stertypes. Again, you basiclaly judge us base dupon an image you have in your head abotu us. No matter how long we speak to you, we all come off as frothign at the mouth fundies wo onsign everyone to Hell for disagreeing, so you can coem off as raitonal and fre htining. Get over yourself, you cant uote me as at any time sayign any of this.
to lesley:good people are good people...religion has nothing to do with this...when i would meet one day god,face to face...i'm sure he wouldn't be mad at me for not believing in jesus or not being a catholic...what would i say then?
The real queatsion is, woidl God be mad at you for coming up to peopel to put them doen and diliberatley mockign them?
Areligon doesn tmake you good int he same way schooldoesnt make you learned. However, studies reeal that rleigiosu peopel are lss proe to vipolence, outrage, and variosu other forms of impiety , such as the profnaity you ocnstantly spew out.
Can you honslty clal yorself a good prson when you harrass people endlessly and loose your temper when they becoem frustrated at yor silly games?
well i'd say hi,happy to meet you,i've been looking for your all my life but i couldn't find you in any religion or institution...only in your creation
and he will ask "Why where you such a monumental Jerk and why did you go out of yor y to hurt peopel to firce your agenda, and why whre you so slfish and self serving? WHy didnt you try to be repsectful and ncie to people"? what then smardt guy?
where i would be spending my eternity?...i don't know the options lesley...i don't know where we go...i can't tell..
we can all be reasoanbley sure where we go. I kow where Im going, the real queatsion is, on what is tr ignorance based, on genuine lack of knwoeldge, or or ur own agenda, as pr usual.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 15, 2005.
Oh and the name "Dyonisus" means "Twice Born' not "SAon of God" in Greek. The Greek word for Son is peitus, and for God is Theos.Di means two, onisie means Born. The twice Born is hat Dyonisus means...
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 15, 2005.
wow Zarove you know alot. Jewish people are similar to us. Don't look down on them. I actually respect them to go through hard times. They are just like us except they follow the old testament (kind of). They still expect to see the Messiah to come when he already did. Yiou kno Jewish people didnt believe in Jesus as Messiah so they still expect it. So, because they didnt meet Messiah they wouldnt follow the New Testament would they?
-- JoeKP (joekinplaya@gmail.com), February 18, 2005.
Hold on JoeKP.I've been reading Zorove's post's for a few years and he has never disparaged jewish thought or theology. He does present a strong veiw about Christianity. Not a negation of Judaism. Are we reading the same posts?
-- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 18, 2005.