Who Is Jesus?

January 31st, 2008, 04:48 PM

Dexter:

I never saw the post where you did my citing for me - thanks, bro. My lunch was good. . .

gerryh: Man why don't you just cry "Uncle" and get it over with? Your bible makes no sense and you are not capable of defending your hypothesis.

This is getting boring. Kinda like playing tag with an amputee.

Pangloss

January 31st, 2008, 06:06 PM


read the entire chapter and then interprete the above sections based on the entire chapter. The quotes above do not mean what you all are implying.


Like I said....why explain to those that deride and misinterpret. It's a waste of my time. Scriptures are quoted out of context to make a point AGAINST Christ.


I consider myself a Christian because I believe in Christ. I TRY to follow his words, not the words of the pretenders that came after. The OT has been superceded by Christs teachings. At the last supper Jesus said that he has brought a "new and everlasting covanant". This covenent then supercedes previous covenents made with man. The only thing that Jesus brought forward from the OT was the 10 comandments. In Mathew, Jesus explains to his disciples some of the changes his coming has made. No more "an eye for an eye" etc., it's all there for those that are willing to read and understand.

Do not mistake the laws of man brought forward as laws from God, such as are in Leviticus, but read what Christ has to say.

January 31st, 2008, 06:08 PM


I agree....come back when you have both arms.

January 31st, 2008, 06:24 PM

Horus.

January 31st, 2008, 06:30 PM

Well now gerryh:

Is this one of the aspects of your faith? "If I just say it and believe really hard, it MUST be true."

You have failed to back up a single one of your claims, you have failed to falsify a single one of any one else's claims, and yet you declare yourself the "winner"?

You certainly do have a future in politics, gerryh.

Pangloss

January 31st, 2008, 06:35 PM

release the lions
The current Holy Bible quotes the Book of Enoch numerous times:



By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, "and was not found, because God had taken him"; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God. - Hebrews 11:5



Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."- Jude 1:14-15



The Book of Enoch was considered scripture by most early Christians. The earliest literature of the so-called "Church Fathers" is filled with references to this mysterious book. The second century Epistle of Barnabus makes much use of the Book of Enoch. Second and Third Century "Church Fathers," such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin and Clement of Alexandria, all make use of the Book of Enoch. Tertullian (160-230 C.E) even called the Book of Enoch "Holy Scripture". The Ethiopic Church included the Book of Enoch to its official canon. It was widely known and read the first three centuries after Christ. However, this and many other books became discredited after the Roman Council of Laodicea. Being under ban of the Roman Papal authorities, afterwards they gradually passed out of circulation.



At about the time of the Protestant Reformation, there was a renewed interest in the Book of Enoch, which had long since been lost to the modern world. By the late 1400's, rumors began to spread that a copy of the long lost Book of Enoch might still exist. During this time, many books arose claiming to be the lost book but were later found to be forgeries.



The return of the Book of Enoch to the modern western world is credited to the famous explorer James Bruce, who in 1773 returned from six years in Abyssinia with three Ethiopic copies of the lost book. In 1821, Richard Laurence published the first English translation. The now famous R.H. Charles edition was first published by Oxford Press in 1912. In the following years, several portions of the Greek text also surfaced. Then, with the discovery of cave number four of the Dead Sea Scrolls, seven fragmentary copies of the Aramaic text were discovered.



Within the Book of Enoch is revealed one of the mysteries of Babylon concerning the seven mountains she sits upon (underlining has been added):



[CHAPTER 52] 2 There mine eyes saw all the secret things of heaven that shall be; a mountain of iron, a mountain of copper, a mountain of silver, a mountain of gold, a mountain of soft metal, and a mountain of lead.



6 These [6] mountains which thine eyes have seen: The mountain of iron, the mountain of copper, the mountain of silver, the mountain of gold, the mountain of soft metal, and the mountain of lead. All these shall be in the presence of the Elect One as wax: Before the fire, like the water which streams down from above upon those mountains, and they shall become powerless before his feet. 7 It shall come to pass in those days that none shall be saved, either by gold or by silver, and none be able to escape. 8 There shall be no iron for war, nor shall one clothe oneself with a breastplate. Bronze shall be of no service, tin shall be of no service and shall not be esteemed, and lead shall not be desired. 9 All these things shall be denied and destroyed from the surface of the earth when the Elect One shall appear before the face of the Lord of Spirits.’

January 31st, 2008, 06:37 PM

I just read your response to Dexter, gerryh.

Man I gotta thank you - you sure do make me laugh. There is nothing like stone-stubborn sophistry to brighten my afternoon.

How is it that you present yourself as the resident authority on scripture and christianity and yet get your own books' exegesis so very wrong?

Too many books have been written on the subject, too many people way smarter than you have parsed the verses in question and come to the same conclusion for your simple gainsaying to have any weight.

Since you are coming up with the alternate theory of what those verses mean, I'll leave it to you to say what they are about, and why you think so.

Otherwise, you will simply look like you are dodging the truth.

Again.

Pangloss

(do you make this stuff up as you go, or is there some handbook of crazy sitting beside your computer?)

January 31st, 2008, 06:37 PM

Free the Range Chickens!

Pangloss

January 31st, 2008, 06:38 PM



That is what Faith is...believing without the need for "hard proof".

I really don't need to back up any of my "claims". As far as falsifying others claims....I did...you all took the quotes out of context. You can say you didn't...I say you did....and I really don't give a **** if you agree or not. Basically, when it comes to MY Faith...I'm right, you're wrong, tough ****.

January 31st, 2008, 06:42 PM

release the tigers

January 31st, 2008, 06:46 PM

Ladies and gentlemen, the above quote is exactly why religion is dangerous. Dangerous to reason, dangerous to wisdom, to political, economic and personal freedom.

"I know I am right, I am immune to reason, I alone know the correct way to live, and were it within my power to compel, the entire world would live according to my laws." Religion has done it before, and given the chance it will do it again.

Remember gerryh's words, remember them well - this is the only warning the sanctimonious will give us as they march merrily on to theocracy.

How are gerryh's words any different from any frothing mad jihadist?

This isn't why I am now an atheist, but it is what gives my atheism such energy.

Thank you gerryh for finally writing something honest.

Pangloss

January 31st, 2008, 06:53 PM

Okay, I did that. The full context of the quote from Matthew has Jesus talking about the law, it's his first reference to it in the chapter, and it really starts at verse 17, where he says he hasn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it, then he offers the comments I cited from verses 18 and 19, clearly stating that until all has been fulfilled all of the law stands. Then he shifts gears and talks about righteousness a bit, refers to some of the 10 Commandments, then gets into the famous bits about turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, and loving your enemies, and closes with the instruction, "Be ye therefore perfect" just like god. Verses 17 to 19 are the only references to the law in that chapter, and I can see no other plausible way to understand them except as an assertion that the law is the law and will stand until the end time.

Hard to see why you bothered to come in here then, and continue to refuse at length to deal with people you think are deriding and misinterpreting things. I suggest you re-read Matthew 5 yourself, paying particular attention to verse 44.

January 31st, 2008, 06:55 PM

That's correct Pangloss, religion is deadly stuff, lots of boneyards and charnal houses, burning witches, frightenend children all down through the ages that had to endure the wrath of gods little helpers.

January 31st, 2008, 07:00 PM

And of course if he really wants to study the early church he should read all the available versions of Mathew not just the doctored vatican version.

January 31st, 2008, 10:10 PM

gerryh:

What? Is this your scared cat impersonation?

Pangloss

January 31st, 2008, 11:29 PM

The law was set to condemn period.

Prior to Christ, the law stood supreme, though it did, it saved not one soul.
Why? Because it shows that humanity without God is hopeless.

Now, to remedy that, for mankind, God sends His Son to be the remedy that rectifies the law to fulfillment for us all.

Therefore, we are no longer under the law ,as unto condemnation and death, but grace, as unto forgiveness and unto life.

If we are not able to see the whole picture, then we are stuck to see the details, interpret the details as dogma, and miss all together the picture in whole.

I'm telling you friend and foe, believer and unbeliever, faithful and unfaithful, God is greater than any of us can imagine.

He knew full well what He created, and how His creation thinks, and also knew that of itself, it could do absolutely nothing to further it's soul's life past this one.

He orchestrated it altogether beautifully, without a flaw, giving us the freedom to experience our own ability to be like a god, in that we know the difference between good and evil, and freedom to choose and live it out as we please.

He also incorporated into it checks and balances, to where if we chose the evil route, there'd be consequences, but if the good route, there'd be rewards.

So, it doesn't matter whether we be believers or unbelievers, the same rules apply.

For as you all very well know, that even so called Christians murdered in the name of God, likewise, the same for unbelievers who also murder in unbelief.

So tell me, what is the difference?

Now, if the believer and the unbeliever are able to honor, respect each others space, beliefs and help each other in compassion, that, my friends is the true religion.

The true religion is to love thy neighbor without respect to who or what they are.

But there is also justice, that demands good behavior, and for us to govern ourselves to wards that end.

A good atheist and a good Christian can live side by side with this religion, called love thy neighbor, and yet be just in dealing with misbehavior.

Parents love their children, but does not mean they can run amok, for justice says, that they must be corrected.

Let us not confuse love and justice as one without the other. To be just, one must hold to principles accepted by the people for the common good.

I, a believer, hold no ill will to any unbeliever, but rather a compassion greater than I would to a believer.
For a believer is held to a higher standard because of it's knowledge of God, and therefore at greater risk of loss of reward than to the unbeliever.

It behooves us believers, to then exercises compassion greater than the offense done us, so that God may all in all receive the glory as a true and loving God.

I have no enemy, unless I make them one.

Peace>>>AJ

February 1st, 2008, 12:58 AM

Too late look, your side hopelessly lost this particular argument.

Pangloss

February 1st, 2008, 01:38 AM

I find these kinds of statements fascinating!

I really have to ask:

Do you realize that civilization and its cornerstones (law, schools, contract, mathematics, writing, weights and measures, music notation, agriculture, etc..) started in a pagan society way before anyone heard of Jesus?

Do you know that the story of Jesus is almost identical with the story of Horus? That there is no archaeological or historical evidence that there even was a Jesus (or a Horus for that matter)? If the Bible were a term paper the author would flunk as a plagiarist?

Do you know that Jesus brought absolutely nothing new to the world with his ministry? Everything he taught was being taught in pagan temples? How do you explain that? Doesn't it seem strange that mankind had already figured everything he had to say out on their own? Even that there was only one true God was taught by paganism; the gods were just different names and aspects of that entity, a gift from him so people could know Him better. Isn't that odd?

You do realize that while you claim the world needed Christianity that same religion is responsible for more death, mayhem and slavery then any other before it? That if that had been removed from the world the world would probably have been a much better place? How do you reconcile this in the face of evidence?

I really am just wondering. It is so strange to me that people will say "I believe" but never really look at what it is they believe? I don't see how you really can believe if you haven't taken a good long hard historical look?